January 14, 2020--Jack On Iran

"I know you don't want to talk with me. I get under your skin. But this won't take long. I'll talk, you listen. You don't have to say a word.

That sounded like a good deal to me and so I said, "OK," put the phone on speaker, and continued to sip my coffee.

"So, all right, here's the dope on Iran. I assume you're following what's going on there." He paused to lure me in. I remained silent. "I know from things you've written that you think Trump's various ways of tormenting the Iranians is a wag-the-dog thing. To lure them into a confrontation. Increasing economic sanctions, pulling out of the arms control deal, and most recently taking out their number two--Soulman or whatever he's called. Was called."

Under my breath I said, "Soleimani."

"I heard that, "Jack said, "and stand corrected. I'm assuming you and your friends think Trump doesn't have a big-picture strategy, that everything he does is impulsive, self-serving, and political. And his moves in the Middle East will result in a potentially big war that will drive a further wedge between us and the Arab world."

That about summed up my position. Though Iran isn't an Arab country.

"Actually," Jack said, "I think some of that is true and not attractive."

Attractive? I thought that didn't begin to scratch the surface.

"But when it comes to Iran what Trump's been up to has been very smart. And is working. You'll find out how well come November."

He raced on. "Take a look at what's going on there. In Iran for months there have been street demonstrations that are aimed at toppling the current regime. Many hundreds of the protesters have been killed by the Revolutionary Guard--they don't mess around--and more than a thousand are already in prison. Trump's people have been trying to find ways we can help them as have other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia, for example.

"The economic sanctions have been working. Iran is pretty much broke. They're having trouble selling their oil to China and Japan. Inflation is out of control. A lot of the young Iranians are well educated but there are no good jobs for them. They're among those protesting. But the protests also includes even poorer rural people. In fact they appear to be among the leaders of the revolt. They traditionally side with the religious leaders. But not this time. 'It's the economy, stupid, works for them as well." 

Jack said, "Some who are experts say the regime may be vulnerable to being overthrown. That would be a big deal since many Iranians seem to have good feelings about America. If this was to happen it could be a game changer.

"But your people, who reluctantly admit Soleimani was a bad guy and it's good he's gone are beating up on Trump for not consulting with Congress and abusing his power as commander in chief. Ignoring the War Powers Act which was passed when Nixon was president and the Vietnam War still had two more bloody years to go.

"The Democrats are missing the political point so let me tell you about Grenada. You remember Grenada?"

"Grenada?" Unable to stifle myself, in frustration I shouted in response to his seeming non sequitur.

"How back in 1983 President Reagan invaded that small Caribbean country because it was allegedly taken over by Communists and that could threaten the region, The invasion was over in what seemed like a couple of hours. They didn't have a real army and couldn't defend themselves. Reagan did this to tell the world not to mess with us. That he was willing to use our military to protect our interests.

Jack said, "I see similar things going on with Iran. After being criticized for incendiary rhetoric--mainly Tweets--he has consistently backed off. Threatening but not acting. So like Reagan, with Iran he's putting on display his willingness to use force.

"He bombed Soleimani but when he spoke publicly about it didn't take a victory lap or turn up more heat. In fact he did the opposite. For him what he said was pretty moderate.

"So here's the bottom line--as a result Trump gets to look tough (I bet the North Koreans have taken note of that) and like Reagan doesn't make a big mess. And then of course he will reap the political rewards."

"We'll see," I said, now fully engaged, "Iran has 80 million people and a pretty advanced military, and so . . ."

Jack cut me off, "Don't forget what's goining on in the streets. The ayatollahs, who are corrupt, have made things worse for themselves, shooting down that plane and lying about it."

"There are these demonstrations, you're right about that, but the military there as you said doesn't mess around so we can expect to see the protesters squelched."

"We'll see," Jack said, "One final thing, the New York Post yesterday, on page one, had a picture of the demonstrators being careful not to step on Israeli and American flags that were neatly spread out in the road. And they were not shouting 'Death to America,' but rather 'Death to Supreme Leader Khamenei.'"

May 23, 2019--Jared Kushner's "Deal of the Century"

More than two years after Trump designated his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as responsible for "fixing the Middle East," to bring about, in Trump's words, the "Deal of the Century," that fix, that deal is slowly emerging from the shadows.

It appears, though, that it is already dead on arrival. 

Hold off with the Nobel Peace Prizes.

Here's what's happening. Actually, what's not happening.

The Kushner plan has two parts--the first is economic--what Trump is promising will happen if all parties agree to the fix. The second part is the political deal--what the various parties will need to agree to in order to reap the economic benefits.

To move the process along Trump-Kushner are inviting Arab economic leaders to a meeting in Bahrain where they will learn about the billions of dollars that will supposedly come their way if they agree to go along with the political agenda.

The problem is that Kushner has not told anyone what's in the political package--what is expected of the Palestinians (likely a lot) and what's expected of Israel (likely very little).

Since they are very smart (especially when it comes to someone attempting to take advantage of them) most of the Palestinian business types who are being invited to the meeting are feeling insulted and for the most part are planning not to attend.

To quote one, Zahi W. Khuri, a Palestinian-America who owns the Coca-Cola franchise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip--

He called it "offensive" to talk about investment in the Palestinian economy before addressing the people's "national aspirations."

"Putting this first is a blatant payoff. You insult the people by talking about their quality of life when you keep them locked up under the Israeli occupation. In nation-building you start with dignity and freedom. You don't start by bribing and buying people."

This approach, putting bribery first and the political deal last--in other words starting with the money--tells us more about Kushner and Trump than the Palestinians.

This is how they think--because Kushner is Jewish that's all the experience he needs to make a deal. But at the heart of the matter it's all about money. For Trump-Kushner that's always been the case and so they cynically assume it is for everyone else.

It could be that they're in for a rude awakening.

May 23, 2017--Trump On the World Stage

Tell the truth--weren't you, like me, expecting, even hoping to see President Trump stumble on the world stage? While in the Middle East, while with the Pope in Rome, while meeting in Sicily with European counterparts at the G-7 summit?

Weakened at home as criminal investigations swirl around him, if he made a fool of himself, if he insulted Islamic leaders, made a botch of talks with the Israelis, again insulted Chancellor Angela Merkel, and said something inappropriate to the new president of France, in the aggregate, if his trip turned out to be a political disaster, it would move him one step closer to impeachment or resignation.

But, four days into his nine-day trip, from all reports, even from media sources that are not well disposed to him, he appears to be staying on script and, remarkably, actually saying a number of things that make sense. Or at least are worth putting on the table.

Before an assemblage of more than three dozen presidents of Sunni Arab nations, carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorists," Trump drew a distinction between ISIS fighters and the peaceful citizens of Islamic nations--

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion, people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.

These comments were met with enthusiastic applause.

He continued, saying he wanted "partners not perfection" and that it was up to Muslim leaders to expunge extremists from their midst--

Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of earth.

This was a play to engage Sunni leaders in contrast to President Obama's alleged desire to strike deals with Shia-dominated countries such as Iran.

One could delete references to Obama and still make the case that a focus on Sunnis, the vast majority in the region, makes more sense. Including as part of an attempt to broker movement toward a two-state solution in Israel, something Trump spoke about yesterday when he told Benjamin Netanyahu that he heard from Sunni Arab leaders while in Saudi Arabia that if this were to happen they would consider expanding relations with Israel. Something that is occurring in private as power shifts across the Middle East.

It was also noted that Air Force One's direct flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv is the first time there has been such a flight. Whoever added that to Trump's agenda (likely Jared Kushner) deserves praise. Gestures and symbols go a long way in that fraught region.

October 3, 2106--Armageddon

It surprised me the other morning when Jack said that we are approaching Armageddon.

He's as solid a citizen as there is, totally rational, totally secular, totally progressive. He of all people was talking this way?

It might have been a response to what Joe said. Joe, a Trump supporter from even before Donald formally announced he was running for president.

"I'm for him," he responded when I challenged him at that time, "because he knows how to get things done." This before the full extent of how he actually "gets things done" was well known.

On Thursday Joe said, "If Trump loses the election, or even if he wins, I predict there will be a civil war within 20 years."

"Are you being serious?" I asked, "Or just wanting to be provocative now that your boy is on the path to defeat?"

"I'm being serious. There's so much dissension, so many angry people on all sides, race relations are heading for an explosion. And then there are all those rich people while everyone else is struggling and falling behind."

That's when Jack said that about Armageddon.

"You agree with Joe?" I was incredulous. This is the first time Jack agreed with him about anything, You think we're headed for a civil war?"

Jack who was sending money to Bernie before Hillary won the nomination and since then has been a fervent supporter of hers was being serious, which caused me to be concerned. Not about him but about the possibility of what they both were predicted.

"You talking Armageddon because of what Joe said about race and economic inequality?"

"Basically yes. And of course they're related. On a collision course."

"This feels very pessimistic. You tend, as most liberals, to be optimistic because as a liberal you think things can be improved by human intervention. Including by governments."

"In general that's true. But even progressives are fed up with governments. Yes, there are some things that are working well. For me, at my age, that includes Medicare. Though I know it among other things is bankrupting the country. When the due-bills arrive, that's when Joe's prediction will come true. When the money runs out and people don't get their medical care or Social Security. Then, watch out."

"He's right," Joe jumped back in, surprised to find Jack agreeing to anything he had to say. "It may be a trivial example, but have you driven on the roads lately?"

"Obviously. Even to get here to the diner."

"Didn't you tell me that because of the condition of the roads you had to get your tires aligned three times in eight months? And that you had to replace all four tires after a year and a half? Michelins? How much did all that set you back?"

"For all of it," Rona said, "more than a thousand."

"Who is responsible for the roads?" Joe asked.

"I guess the county."

"And what is the county?" Not waiting for me to answer he said, "Government that's what it is. Government."

"Your point?"

"Among other reasons, that's contributing to making people crazy. Fortunately for you you can come up with the thousand, but for a lot of folks, including right here, that's a month's take-home pay. And then, like it or not, agreeing with me or not, when they see people with food stamps and subsidized heat, and all that, the resentment builds and will, as I said, boil over when things get scarcer and more unequal. Civil war, pure and simple."

"Armageddon pure and simple," Jack chimed in not smiling so I knew he was being serious.

When later in the day I told another, even more progressive friend about this, he pulled me close to him and whispered, almost  as a non sequitur, "We never should have sent troops to Iraq or anywhere else in that region. What we should have done, what we should do, is announce that anyone that attacks Israel will get nuked."

Incredulous, I said, "Nuked? That would lead to Armageddon, wouldn't it?"

He thought for a moment, shrugged, and said,"That's where we're we headed anyway so . . ."

June 27, 2016--Brexit

From two conversations--

The first, Friday evening at a party where I was approached by a neighbor who formerly owned a number of local businesses and who now spends nearly half a year in Africa working with Doctors Without Borders.

"It may surprise you to know that I supported Brexit. That the UK should withdraw from the European Union."

"I don't know you well enough to be surprised," I said, being sure to smile so he wouldn't think I was giving him attitude. In truth, I suppose if I were a Brit, I would have voted to stay so perhaps I was sending some attitude his way. Trying to sound neutral, I asked, "Why's that?"

"The EU government in Brussels is controlled by Europe's ruling elites and represents corporate and financial institutions' interests more than what might be good for average citizens. It's not so different from what Bernie's been saying about the banks and the establishment. I'm a Bernie person, by the way."

"And do you see any similarities between what many people are saying about the EU in other European countries and what Donald Trump is saying about us?"

He waved that off. "Trump's a jerk and maybe even a fascist."

Not wanting to talk about Trump, I said, "To tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed to say I don't really know that much about the EU, especially the Brussels-situated government. I've been trying to learn more the past few days and it does look as if that government has real power over the lives of all people and institutions in the 28 EU countries."

"And not unlike with our business-dominated government very little good trickles down to hard working people."

"But what about the immigrant issue? Isn't that similar to what many people here are all agitated about?"

"That is a huge compounding factor in the generalized anger and fear. Worse, to be sure, because none of the EU countries have really welcomed immigrants. Temporary workers have been needed since the birth rates have gone way down across Europe and places like Germany need to import workers. Remember the Turkish 'guest workers' that the Germans welcomed but expected would go back to Turkey after a year or two?"

"I do remember that."

"How did that work out?"

"I suppose not that well. I mean, from a German perspective. So many stayed."

"But the immigrant situation there, like here, is a distraction from more fundamental issues. People are not feeling they are doing well and rather than blame the system itself look for scapegoats. Immigrants front and center."

"I get your point about Trump."

"There's also something interesting going on that is best understand through the lens of developmental economics--how emotions affect economic behavior."

"Go on."

"Millions of people in the UK, a majority, knowing there would likely be personal downside consequences from bringing about Brexit still voted for it. One might say, against their own economic self-interest. Classic developmental economics on a huge scale."

"I have been thinking that too."

"Here's one more thing--and I think it's also true for the US."

"What's that?"

"People who are struggling to get by and feel their governments and institutions are not taking care of or responding to their needs and feeling are fed up to here," he gestured, "with how they are looked down upon and simultaneously pandered to be all sorts of so-called 'experts,' especially those who proclaim themselves to be experts who know better than the people themselves what's good for them. How would that make you feel?"

"No good," I said, and with that he caught the eye of another neighbor and moved on.

*   *   *

The second conversation was at the Bristol Diner Sunday morning with a very skilled and highly sought after expert about railroad systems and supply chains. He does consulting all over the world, especially until recently in Brazil. When not on the road he works from his Victorian-era farmhouse and barn in Bristol.

He came over to our booth to talk. After an exchange of the usual pleasantries, he said, "We just were skyping with friends from Aberdeen. Aberdeen Scotland."

"After what just happened there, that must have been interesting."

"It was, but also surprising."

"In what ways?"

"That unlike the vast majority of other Scots they voted to leave the EU. Demographically I would have thought they would have voted to remain. They're highly educated, successful professionally, and financially in good shape. From that alone one would expect they would have voted to stay in the EU."

"From what I have been reading, I agree. So what's their story? Did they talk about it?"

"Indeed they did. Lynne, the wife, is a senior hospital administrator and told me about something that really got under her skin that she feels represents the nature of the EU problem. She was gathering patient data and noted on one form that there were a series of EU-required question about how patients prepare and drink tea."

"What?"

"Things like do they use a teabag and if so how long do they let it steep. Or if they use loose tealeaves what kind of kettle and tea brewer do they use. Do they put milk in their tea and if so, hot or cold. Sugar. Artificial sweetener."

"Maybe this was for some epidemiological study like the relationship between tea drinking and esophageal cancer."

"I guess that's possible but not from what Lynne reported. It was more like asking if a patient has any food preferences or allergies. From her perspective it was not part of a careful study but just arbitrary information gathering. Totally unnecessary EU-intrusive bureaucratic work. Again, this specific thing is not why she voted to exit but for her was a way of emphasizing how out of control the EU government is and how hundreds of things of this kind that impinge on people's lives in the aggregate have made many clearly feel disenfranchised and controlled by external, not-voted-for officials and institutions."

*   *   *

I need to do more reading about what just happened in the UK and what the underlying issues are and how widespread they are in Europe and, for that matter, here. I know some feel what happened helps Trump. Others, that it hurts his chances. I think more the former.

But in the meantime, something tectonic and under-anticipated is happened in Europe and of course here--who would have thought that Trump would have a chance to be elected president. And in France Marine Le Pen?

One thing is certain--those of us who are or feel we are part of the elite (better educated, more professionally successful, affluent, travelled, highly regarded) need to take a close look at our behavior to make as sure as we can that we are not feeling superior to the Brexit and Trump people and thus looking down our noses at them. From what we just witnessed, we are being identified by them to be part of the problem.

Above all else, we need to realize we do not know what is best for other people.

Another thing is certain--borders throughout the world--especially in Europe and the Middle East--are being redrawn. Mainly not elegantly or comfortably. One hundred years from now, people will be pointing to these massive forces in the West and the former colonial world as responsible for the new world in which they will then be living.

What we are witnessing then may be one of history's periodic, messy, but necessary cataclysms.

June 18, 2015--Yugoslavia

Anyone following Behind knows that for years I have been an advocate for a redrawing of national borders in the Middle East. From the political borders imposed on Arab and Islamic people by the victorious Western superpowers at the end of the First World War to others that take history, culture, ethnicity, and religion into consideration.

Broadly speaking, for what we now call Iraq this would minimally mean separate countries for Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

Some readers who have communicated with me say it would never work, that rivalries and blood-hatred is so intense that Sunnis would continue to fight with Shia and Turks with Kurds.

That may be but we have been seeing an alternative, deadly scenario playing out with millions either killed or made homeless, stateless.

Others have said to me that they might agree if there were current examples of the successful redrawing of borders.

There very well may be.

Take Yugoslavia as an example.

There is no historic, ancient Yugoslavia. It was a political construct that came about after the chaos of the First World War when territories of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire were fused to become the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. That monarchy was overthrown at the end of World War II and a new "country" emerged, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, which for decades was dominated and kept from disintegrating by strongman Josip Broz, better known as Marshal Tito.

After Tito died, civil war broke out as Christian Serbs and Croats fought Bosnian Muslims. Many atrocities were committed, especially "ethnic cleansing" by Serbs of Bosnians.

By the mid 1990s, European members of NATO, recalling that World War I begin in Sarajevo, in what was to become Yugoslavia, and also concerned about the slaughter of Bosnians, began to mobilize peacekeeping forces, including eventually convincing President Bill Clinton to participate in bombing Serb forces.

In 1995, through Clinton's leadership, the contesting parties were convened in Ohio and spent weeks in effect confined there until they reached the historic Dayton Accords that once again redrew the map of the Balkans, this time more culturally than politically.

For 20 years, with U.S. and NATO troops still stationed on the ground as peacekeepers, the Accords have more or less held. There is reason to be optimistic that a version of peace will prevail.

This, then, is my best example of what might be possible in the long run in the Middle East if the parties there, left alone by outsiders--very much including the United States, were to stay out to the region and let the natural forces of history unfold and reach, to them, some sort of acceptable resolution.

June 1, 2015--Remapping

Over breakfast at Balthazar late last week with a well-travelled friend, despite our attempt to be optimistic about things, he couldn't resist asking what I thought was happening in the Middle East.

"You need to bring that up while I'm still enjoying my scone?" I said as playfully as I could.

"Well, in fact there may be things to feel good about."

"Really?" I was skeptical.

"Put in perspective."

"In perspective?" I was still skeptical.

"Very long term perspective."

"Again, really? How does that work?"

"Maybe what's happening has to happen. If we think about the long sweep of history, I mean."

Beginning to get was he was suggesting, I said, "I guess you could push me to make a very-guardedly optimistic case for the region if you gave me maybe a 100-year time frame to project things onto."

"Look," he said, "I'm British and am old enough to have seen massive changes in our position in the world. I had family members who worked for the Colonial Service in South Asia. When India was in effect a British colony. Some of of the change was bloody others more peaceful."

"More than 'in effect,'" I said. "Look, you're as old as I am--and that's pretty old--and though I don't remember from personal history about the changes in your empire as the result of the American Revolution, they were profound."

"Very amusing," he said, "The  very old business."

"The results of the Revolution changed the map for a large part of the Western Hemisphere. And led to even more change when France made its Louisiana Territory available for purchase."

"And later you follows grabbed from Mexico a large part of what is now the American West. California very much included."

"Yes as a result of the Mexican War during the 1840s and don't forget ten years or so after that the Gadsden Purchase which allowed us to flesh out our southwestern border. And then later still there was the bargain-basement purchase from Russia of Alaska."

"So project onto that what is going on right now in the Middle East."

"For some years I've been thinking about that and writing about it on my blog--how if one looks at the map of the current Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia for that matter, we see the remnants of big-power colonial domination and the national borders that were imposed on Arab people, as well as Persians, Jews, Turks, and others after, for example, the First World War. Newly constituted or created countries that still exist. On paper at least. Countries without borders that take history or culture or religion into consideration. So, once the colonial powers backed off--and that includes us in the U.S.--things began to unravel."

"That's an understatement," my friend said.

"So perhaps what we're seeing is a remapping. Is that your optimistic scenario?"

"For me as well very-guardedly optimistic. Yes. That's what I'm thinking."

"I've been thinking and saying that too. How what we are seeing is an assertion on the ground of various Islamic factions seeking violently to settle scores and slough off the boundaries that they have been forced to live with by the Western powers. Borders that ignored culture. And, through the support and cynical use of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi royal family, among others, attempted to tamp down and contain nationalistic strivings and the natural forces of history."

"So in your remapping scenario," my British friend said, sipping his morning tea, "you agree that this is something that has to happen? That's inevitable?"

"Yes. In history, there has been a lot of remapping. That which is the result of warfare where the victors impose new boundaries. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions are examples as is the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I."

"Other examples are the result of the invasions of exploding empires--the Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate that dominated most of north Africa and western Europe. And of course our British Empire. The one where the sun never set."

"We could go on. The point being that what gets left behind or imposed as the result of these powerfully aggressive movements result in unnatural affiliations where people of very different backgrounds are forced to think about themselves as Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans. Big picture--there is no such thing as an Iraqi. Nationalities of this kind have been constructed by conquerers. This goes against the history of these peoples where they think about themselves as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds, not Iraqis. And as a result, what we have wrought are powder kegs throughout the region waiting for some spark to ignite them. And we're seeing those sparks all over the world. Very much including the emergence of ISIS."

"Thus my optimistic thought," my friend said. "As I said, perhaps there has to be this movement toward the reestablishment of cultural borders. Maybe even a few that are fluid since some of the people who live in the region are nomadic. Also, in some cases this may not even involve the concept of 'country' or 'nation.' And this of course doesn't mean that peace will break out. There will still be disputes and incursions but hopefully not at the level of all-out warfare."

"Sounds good to me, though, if you're right, I won't be around to see it."

"There you go again about being old. In the meantime, can I treat you to another cup of coffee and maybe some toast?"

April 23, 2015--The Rapture

Here's why we have to hope Michele Bachmann has a seat in the Republican clown car. Yes, we'll have The Donald and perhaps Herman Cain, but without her things will not be the same.

Here's why.

The Huffington Post reported the other day that in a radio interview with Jan Markell, host of End Times, the former congresswoman predicted that the Rapture is very near and it's all Barack Obama's fault.

The Rapture, as you know, is something many messianic Christians believe will mark the beginning of the End Times, Armageddon, the rule of the Antichrist, the destruction of nonbelievers, and after 1,000 years of violent suffering, the Second Coming of Christ, the Last Judgement, and God's eternal kingdom.

All this is Obama's fault?

I know some on the delusional fringe have called him the Antichrist, though with Hillary Clinton emerging as a possible president, some are now seeing her in that role. (Ironically, on these eschatological matters they appear to be able to view things in more gender neutral ways than most other issues.)

Bachmann laid out the case against Obama--it is all about his Middle East policies, especially his alleged mistreatment of Israel. She said: "If you look at the president's rhetoric, and if you look at his actions, everything he has done has been to cut the legs out of Israel and lift up the agenda of radical Islam." And thus because of him, “We need to realize how close this [countdown to End Time] clock is getting to the midnight hour.”

What she didn't spell out, but which is understood by Millennialists, is the requirement that all Jews return to Greater Israel, convert to Christianity, and through those actions set in motion the events that will lead to the Rapture and all that follows.

Those Jews who do not convert, alas, will be slaughtered. This unique role assigned to the Jews is why those who believe this are such strong supporters of Israel. It is not because Israel is the lone western democracy in the region. It is because of what the Jews and Israel must do to help bring about the ultimate Second Coming.

But here's what I do not understand--

Why, if these events are foretold and, to these believers, will intimately lead to Christ's return, the Last Judgement, their salvation, and the eternal Kingdom of God, why are Obama's polices, which are supposedly advancing their unfolding, a bad thing? Shouldn't Bachmann and those like her feel hopeful and thankful about what Obama is helping to bring about? Is the Rapture, which his policies are supposedly advancing, a bad thing or a good thing?

As I understand the Millennialists, the Rapture is a very much a good thing since it not only is the initial indication that End Times are coming but also true believers (and I assume this includes Michele and her pray-away-the-gay husband) would be Raptured. That is, at the very beginning of The End, they will be whisked up to heaven, leaving all and everything behind, including their neatly-stacked clothing and jewlery.

So I am confused--if Obama is playing such a crucial role in all of this, instead of excoriating him, shouldn't Bachmann and her co-believers be expressing their appreciation for all he is doing?

You see, then, why I am so eager for her to make another run at the presidency. It is only during the debates that all of this will get straightened out. Minimally, it would also be good for a few laughs.

April 3, 2015--Best of Behind: Good Cop, Bad Cop

First posted November 25, 2013, would it be nice if this fantasy were true?

Thinking about the deal just struck with Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for some loosening of sanctions, wouldn't it have been brilliant if Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu had had this conversation three month ago--

Obama: Bibi?

Netanyahu: Barry?

Obama: Can you talk?

Netanyahu: As long as your NSA isn't tapping my phone. (He chuckles.)

Obama: Or your Mossad. (He chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I told them to take the afternoon off. I'm all ears, Barry.

Obama: So here's what I'm thinking, Bibi.

Netanyahu: Shoot.

Obama: That's why I called.

Netanyahu: I'm not following you.

Obama: About shooting. Actually bombing.

Netanyahu: Go on.

Obama: Look, we both know we don't want to bomb Iran.

Netanyahu: True. Though we have to keep the heat on them and the best way to do that--we both agreed--is to convince them we're prepared to do so. Israel especially.

Obama: That's what we agreed to. You'd be the bad cop and we'd be, sort of, the good cop. You'd publicly put pressure on me to draw red lines. To state that though we want diplomacy to work every option is on the table. Including military action. But we'd emphasize negotiations while you'd press for bombing.

Netanyahu: And I'd keep prodding, critiquing your Iran policy, and playing your Israel Lobby both in Congress and the Jewish community in the states. To convince the Iranians that though you might be rational and reasonable we're out of control. Particularly your control. That we're prepared to go it alone, go rogue--to quote one of your favorite politicians. (Obama chuckles.)

Obama: So, here's my new plan.

Netanyahu: I'm listening.

Obama: We get Kerry to start talking with the new Iranian regime, telling them that our Congress, including all sorts of Democrats, are chomping at the bit to increase the sanctions--they're so serious that they're even willing to override my veto--and that you guys are getting ready to arm your nukes. He tells the Iranians that if we don't get some sort of deal done in the next few months who knows what the Israelis will do. That I can't keep you on hold.

Netanyahu: Great plan! So as soon as we hang up I'll give the order here to move to a higher state of readiness as evidence of our seriousness or, if you prefer, our craziness.

Obama: Exactly, Bibi. The more we ramp up the diplomacy the more crazier you behave. We have to scare the you-know-what out of them.

Netanyahu: I love it. You'll work out some kind of deal that's good for us--at least the beginning of a long-term deal--which will also be good for you. It will get the Republicans off your back--talk about crazies--at least for awhile.

Obama: Maybe for half an hour. (Netanyahu chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I hear clicking on the line. Are you sure the NSA doesn't have this phone bugged?

February 23, 2015--Lines In the Sand

At the end of the First World War, a territorial plan devised by Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain and Francois Georges-Picot of France established spheres of influence in the Middle East for the victorious European powers. Some compared this to drawing lines in the sand.

Prior to the War, most parts of the region were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. This included all of present-day Turkey, much of North Africa, and virtually all of the Middle East with the notable exceptions of Arabia, today's Saudi Arabia, and Persia, today's Iran.

The Syke's-Picot secret agreement became the blueprint for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in the War-to-End-All-Wars. The Great Powers, particularly France and Britain, with the assent of Russia, carved up the former Ottoman territory, creating modern Turkey and the countries that make up the contemporary Middle East, and assigned to themselves mandates and colonial oversight for what became Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine among other newly established countries.

(The U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was more interested in the establishment of the League of Nations and so effectively kept hands off as the region was carved up and parceled out.)

Based on Sykes-Picot, the Treaty of Paris assigned the blue regions to French authority, the red to British, and the green to Russian.

The more delineated map of the Middle East which was derived from the Sykes-Picot accord is the one we live with today. Take special note of those countries that were assigned straight-line borders. It is particularly revealing that some of the countries that are most in turmoil and include restive populations,  jihadists, and other groups of terrorists, are those with these kind of linear borders that do not take geography, culture, or religion into consideration--Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and of course Israel.

Thus, "Iraq" should probably be deconstructed into at least three countries with cultural borders, including Kurdistan, and "Libya" into at least that many. The region, and the world would be much more peaceful if those who met in Paris in 1919 would have established borders that took history, religion, and tribal identity into consideration.

One might counter that there are straight line borders in the United States. Many. In fact, two of our states are virtual rectangles (Colorado and Wyoming), and four meet at the Four Corners (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico), but with the exception of the genocidal  example of what we did to our Native populations, territories that became states were not that culturally diverse and applied for statehood, staking out and suggesting their own borders. These borders for the most part were as viable as others that used rivers and mountain ranges as natural ways to divide and assign territory.

February 13, 2015--Best of Behind: The Middle East? Hands Off

This seemed pertinent in June 2014 when it originally appeared and feels even more so today as President Obama is asking Congress to retrospectively authorize military strikes against ISIS Islamists and many in the House and Senate are pushing back against what some feel is the next step to our getting more directly involved in Syria and northern Iraq where ISIS poses an existential threat--

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was reminiscent of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.

January 12, 2105--1,000 Lashes

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, one of our closest allies, a blogger was sentenced recently to a fine of more than $250,000, 10 years in jail, and 1,000 lashes to be administered with a cane in public over several months.

His "crime," starting a bog called Free Saudi Liberals, which in itself was enough to bring him to the attention of the country's religious establishment. Specifically, he was charged with "cybercrime," "insulting Islam," and "disobeying his father." Probably, if he had obeyed his father, they would be giving him only 500 lashes.

This punishment was considered so out of line that the United States, through the State Department, took the very rare step of criticizing the world's largest exporter of oil and one of the few Arab countries joining us in the battle against ISIS.

Saudi Arabia, recall, is really a theocracy. The House of Saud, which operates as an absolute monarchy, to get away with that and to secure the hundreds of billions of petro-dollars that flow to them, has an ongoing deal with some of the most fanatical of Islamic factions--the Wahhabis (the same group that was responsible for 9/11)--to allow the Sauds to rule in return for diverting other billions to the Wahhabi leadership and allowing them to be in charge of spiritual, judicial, and cultural life in the kingdom. Thus, the suppression and punishment of blogger Raif Badawi.

According the Amnesty International, the Saudis have already begun to administer the flogging--the first 50 lashes were carried out recently.

One glimmer of humanity--according to an article in the New York Times, Human Rights Watch reports that in Saudi Arabia floggers are supposed to distribute the lashes from the top of the back to the back of the legs without breaking the skin.

Nine-fifty to go.

October 30, 2014--Time Wars

I hate it it when the clocks spring forward or fall back. I like my routines and this disrupts them.

Sunday they fall back when Daylight Savings Time ends. The worst of it is not a jet-lag-like hangover but the fact that it will be dark up here before 5:00 in the afternoon. Not my favorite thing; but we head for NYC early Sunday, and I suppose it will be light enough when we leave for us to see the first snow of the season that is forecast for then.

But over in the Middle East, as with virtually everything else, one more thing the Israelis and Palestinians aren't on the same page about is Daylight Savings Time.

The Palestinian Authority ended DST two days before Israel, out of stubbornness more than anything else, or as a pathetic declaration of independence, and so for those two days, those few workers allowed to cross the Gaza or West Bank border to get to jobs in Israel, going one way arrived, by the clock, at an earlier time that when they left and their return commute took an hour more of seeming clock time.

According to the New York Times, the website timeanddate.com reports that over the past 15 years the Palestinians and Israelis have changed time at the same time just seven times, for some unknown reason always when springing forward. Making matters even worse--which is difficult to achieve in that fraught region--three times it took a month before their clocks were in sync.

So here's my plan--

Forget entirely about Daylight Savings Time. I have confuted a decidedly unscientific survey and have found hardly anyone all that passionate about retaining it. They tell me that whatever time it is they get used to it. Even darkness in late December in northern places such as Maine that falls by mid afternoon.

On the other hand, I doubt Israel and Palestine would any more agree to this than settlement policy or work permits for Gazans. It seems the more things they have to disagree or fight about the better they like it.

October 1, 2014--60 Minutes With Professor Barack Obama

So he went on TV and told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that the situation in Syria is fraught with contradictions--"I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance."

Yes, he actually said that. Much appreciated Professor Obama.

Among the contradictions, he acknowledged, is the fact that we (really, he and his administration) did not know in advance that ISIS (or ISIL as he obstinately insists on referring to them) was going to turn out to be such a threat to the Middle East and ultimately us.

After 9/11 and the failure to connect the dots that should have warned us about an imminent, cataclysmic threat to the U. S. homeland, one would have thought, with that dark lesson in mind, that something as elaborate as ISIS's emergence and, yes, remarkable barbaric capabilities, would have shown up on someone's Oval Office radar.

Al Qaeda was a relatively small band of terrorists incubating in an under-scrutinized part of the world (the forbidding mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border) compared to the thousands of ISIS jihadist warriors arming and preparing themselves to operate even captured American tanks in plain sight right in the middle of the civil war in Syria.

All one needed to do was go to the Internet to learn directly from ISIS itself what they were about and were intending to do. Undoubtedly and appropriately humiliated, Obama told Kroft that we (he) blew it and so now we're involved in another war in the Middle East that we can't win that will soon cost billions and the lives of more of America's finest young people.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, literally closer to home, there was that embarrassing and dangerous event at the White House. An armed intruder jumped the inadequate and unguarded fence, ran across the lawn, entered the ground floor through the unlocked North Portico, raced left to the East Room, and then, still alluding the Secret Service, entered the Green Room where he was finally tackled.

It would not be my favorite thing to have seen him shot well short of the mansion, but allowing him to make it into the building, where, if he knew the layout better, he could have raced up the stairs to the living quarters, I'd opt for the security forces taking him down.

The Secret Service is far from what it used to be--which might serve as a metaphor for much of our federal government and, alas, much of America--but this latest incident is so pathetic as to render one almost speechless.

We learned in the process that, with Obama family members in residence, in 2011 a sniper hit seven windows in the living quarters, firing armor-piecrcing bullets from hundreds of yards away and that that information was withheld from the public and the Obamas, including the distressing fact that it took White House security forces four days after the attack to even know it occurred!

Under questioning by members of Congress yesterday, Julia Pierson, director of the Secret Service, took responsibility and promised that it won't happen again.

Well it already did happen again, and on her watch. There was the shooting incident in 2011 and then the intrusion 12 days ago. I call that happening again.

And another thing that will happen again is that she will not be fired just as no one was fired for the Veterans Administration or IRS scandals or for that matter the Obamacare website rollout fiasco.

As our professor president said, ours is a contradictory land and what we are seeing are contradictory circumstances.

August 6, 2014--The Nature of Human Nature

"I know the answer," Rona said, "But still it upsets me when I think about how peaceful mornings are here--how there is nothing but the sun over the bay and the sounds of the tide rushing--while in so many other parts of the world the day begins with terror and violence. Like, right now, in the Middle East, Gaza, and Israel. I know, I know . . ." she trailed off.

"More evidence of how life is unfair and how fortunate and blessed we are," I offered, "And not just us. At the risk of sounding like a chauvinist pollyanna, no matter one's circumstances in America, things are so much better for virtually everyone."

"It's not only about unfairness. If it were, at least theoretically, something could be done about it. To bring about more fairness and peace. But . . ." she drifted off again not knowing what to make of this or how to reconcile her place on the fortunate side of things.

"So what else is involved that clearly has you upset?" I asked, thinking it would be better to try to talk about this than find a way to change the subject.

"Why all the violence? So much of it seeming to be for its own sake. And often brutally excessive. Way beyond what is required to protect oneself, one's family, or even one's nation."

"I have a theory."

"I hope it has a happy ending because I'm feeling terrible about the world's current circumstances."

"I'm not sure about that. It's too soon to know how things will turn out."

"Tell me anyway."

"It's about human evolution."

"Oh that, but, please, go on."

"Humans, homo sapiens, emerged about 200,000 years ago. In geological and biological terms, not very long ago. And for about the next 193,000 years we lived tribally, nomadically widely dispersed across Africa, what is now the Middle East, and also into today's Asia and Europe. We were mainly hunters and gatherers and men--and I mean men--needed to be able to protect themselves from dangerous beasts and other tribes who threatened their territory. It was raw, 'red-in-tooth-and-claw' survival of the fittest. A dangerous time that rewarded the most successfully aggressive and violent."

"I know all this," she was impatient with me, "So according to you what happened next?"

"It wasn't until about 7,000 years ago that the first city was established, when humans learned how to grow and cultivate crops and raise domestic animals so they they could gather in one place and no longer need to live as nomads."

"Ironically, the first cities, true, were in the same region where today there is so much warfare and violence."

"Yes," I said, "Arguably the first was Uruk in Babylonia, present-day Iraq, along the Euphrates. Between 5,000 and 3,000 BC up to 80,000 peopled lived there but, in evolutionary terms, these first city dwellers were very much like their hunter-gather ancestors. Just as aggressive, just as potentially violent."

"I sense where you're going with this."

"That was only 7,000 years ago. A very brief moment in time in the history of life. Living in settled communities and cities soon did not require the same human capacity and propensity for aggression and violence that our distant ancestors needed for survival.

"And, here's the heart of the problem," I continued my little lecture,"over the next seven millennia, until today, social evolution outpaced biological evolution so that while current homo sapiens are still biologically very much like our more ancient relatives, the way we live has changed dramatically. And making it worse, military technology has also evolved at a very rapid pace, far outstripping our basic self-protection needs. This make things infinitely more dangerous."

"By your theory, then, we no longer need to be so violent. We have culture and law and religions and governments and codes of behavior that would allow us to live more peacefully if we weren't still so bound and driven by our early-human DNA. And don't some researchers say that man, humans, have what they loosely call the 'benevolence gene'?"

"Exactly. But that propensity for generosity and even self-sacrifice is still overwhelmed by the aggressive ones that were so necessary long ago."

"So, in your view, what's going to happen?"

"I hope there will be enough change in our biological makeup over the next hundred years so we don't, while waiting for that, destroy the human race."

"Are you optimistic?" Rona asked.

"Look as those clouds," I said. "What a beautiful and peaceful place this is. Aren't we fortunate."

Rona knew that I wanted to change the subject. And let me.

August 5, 2014--Brothers Under the Skin

I always wondered why the late Chairman of the Palestinian Organization, Yasser Arafat, looked so much like my Uncle Louie.  Now I know.

We're related!

Take a close look at that punim, that face.

And then take a look at mine--just over there on the right.

Get the picture?

But there is more evidence than just from photos.

According to Wikipedia--

Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of Palestinians, including Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes [DNA sequences] demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool. 

So there you have it.

What is happening in the Middle East is a "family dispute" and we know how ugly these can be.

July 31, 2014--Blood Feud

This is the first Arab-Israeli war that isn't about territory--about expanding or protecting borders.

It is about hated and blood letting. Pure and simple, killing. That's the agenda. For both sides.

It is about Palestinians associated with Hamas trying to kill or capture any Israelis they can get their hands on purely in order to murder them or use them as bargaining chips. And on the other side, it is about the Israeli military, in spite of its denials, attempting to kill as many Palestinians as possible without regard to the distinction between fighters and civilian innocents.

There is no place to hide in Gaza--all available land is built up and there are no open spaces where refugee camps can be established and declared safe havens for non-combatants. And so those whose homes have been destroyed or live in fear are either trapped where they live, continuing to be subject to bombing, or flee to shelters provided by the United Nations.

But then, while cringing in these, they are not immune from attack. Just yesterday one of these shelters was destroyed and 20 more civilians were killed, many children. This is the third or fourth time a UN facility was destroyed with significant loss of life. In an era of smart bombs this cannot be explained away as "collateral damage."

So the Israelis claim it is the Palestinians themselves who have been attacking what should be sanctuaries. Hamas is doing this to its own people, they say, to make it look as if Israeli forces are intentionally targeting women and children.

The UN says it has evidence that it has been Israeli rockets and bombs that have destroyed these so-called sanctuaries.

And so it goes.

Each day we have updated body counts--remember body counts? More than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 100 Israelis.

Both sides are seeing "progress" in those numbers--Israelis believe that if they kill enough Arabs Hamas will give up its struggle to expel Israelis from land they claim to be theirs while Hamas, recently losing power and influence in Gaza, will become resurgent if they kill enough Jews and thereby reestablish their credibility as warriors for the Palestinian cause.

This is thus a blood feud fueled by decades of hatred on both sides--equally vicious ethnic stereotyping and bigotry that is promoted in schoolbooks and popular media. Recall that this most recent conflict began after an exchange of barbaric killings of Israeli and Arab teenagers. It is Old Testament retributive tribal warfare waged lustfully and hatefully by both sides.

Both have legitimate issues. Israeli has the right to live securely within some version of its current borders and Palestinians have the right to a contiguous state of their own. Both have ancient claims to these lands. But both have moved beyond the normal range of political and geographic struggle, even warfare, and descended into hatred-drivien, senseless slaughter.

July 10, 2014--Slovakia

One of the delightful young women at the checkout counter at Reilly's market in New Harbor told us that at the end of the season she will be going home.

"Where's home?" Rona asked, sounding rueful.

"Slovenia," she said.

"Where?" Rona asked not sure she heard correctly or if, for the moment, she wasn't able to locate Slovenia on a map in her mind. "Oh, you mean, part of the former Czechoslovakia. It was peacefully divided in the 1990s into two countries--your Slovakia and . . ."

"The Czech Republic." She smiled broadly, pleased to know that someone way up here was aware of that history.

Later, while driving to town, Rona asked why what happened in Czechoslovakia, a country that was reconfigured at least twice after both the First and Second World Wars, couldn't be a model for other parts of the world. Especially the Middle East.

"We keep talking about how with the exception of Egypt and Iran all the other countries there were created out of nothing more than Western economic need and greed and political maneuvering."

"We've even said this too is true for Israel, which was carved out of ancient Palestine and now includes parts of post-colonial Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon."

"And whenever anyone raises the subject of allowing the remapping of this region people object saying there are no good examples of this occurring with peaceful results."

"But," I said, "the Czechoslovakian division between Czechs and Slovaks occurred with no fighting and, unless I am missing something, there are no current border disputes."

"And then," Rona added, "there's what happened to the former Yugoslavia, another country that post-war was a forced amalgam of many peoples and religions."

"Though that remapping didn't happen peacefully after Tito died. He was the strong man who forced Albanians to live under the same flag as Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Montenegrins, and warring Christians and Muslims. There was ethnic and religious warfare with atrocities committed on all sides."

"Including 'ethnic cleansing.' Remember that wonderful euphemism?"

"I sure do. But after the Clinton administration and NATO finally and reluctantly got involved, including militarily, there was a version of peace--which has persisted more-or-less for at least 20 years. And now there are seven or eight countries that devolved from Yugoslavia. If this were final Jeopardy, how many could you list?"

I began to hum the familiar Jeopardy music as Rona raced to tick off, "Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia," and then paused, searching for the others. I kept up my annoying humming. "What about Macedonia? Yes, that's another one and . . ."

"Sorry, time's up."

"OK smart-ass, what are the rest?" And she then began to hum quite loudly.

I stammered and tried to distract Rona but she persisted. "Time's up!" she roared, clapping her hands triumphantly.

When we got home we Googled "the former Yugoslavia" and found that we had forgotten--or had never known--that there were at least two other new countries formed after Yugoslavia collapsed--Herzegovina and Montenegro.

"So," Rona said, "when the nay-sayers claim the Middle East can't be remapped and that there are no current examples of that working, we have at least two to cite."

"I doubt if tomorrow morning we'll get too many folks at the diner interested in talking about Montenegro or Slovakia. If we try to do that, no one will sit with us."

"Good point," Rona agreed, "Let's forget the whole thing."

Later that afternoon, I heard her humming the Jeopardy music from the shower.

June 20, 2014--Persia

I am having second thoughts about our working in tandem with Iran to push back against the jihadist ISIS forces that are threatening to fully overrun Iraq and implement a holocaust against Shiite Iraqis and impose sharia law. They are already massacring thousands in parts of Iraq they have seized

These really are bad people. Even Al-Qaeda has renounced them as too violent. When you have Al-Qaeda pronouncing you to be too violent that qualifies as violent.

Already openly engaged in talks with Iran about its nuclear program, something that would have been difficult to imagine just a year ago when the drumbeat in Israel and among militarists in our own country were pressing the Obama administration to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran; as ISIS fighters stormed across northern and central Iraq, the US and Iran, again openly, began to talk about the possibility of coming to the assistance of the Iraqi government, as ineffective and exclusionary as it is, because the prospect of ISIS controlling most of the country, and the region that includes Syria, was too apocalyptic to contemplate.

There are at least three possible scenarios for the tormented Middle East--

Perhaps most likely is decades of interminable warfare ranging from small scale internecine civil wars between ethnic, tribal, and religious rivals to region-wide strife. Libya is an example of the former while what we are now seeing across Syria and Iraq is characteristic of the latter, with ISIS already proclaiming that what they are up to is not just the imposition of sharia law but the reestablishment of the Caliphate of the 7th through 15th centuries.

Second is the reemergence of a class of local tyrants who can, through force and terror, suppress the aspirations of the region's fractious peoples. Saddam Hussein in Iran, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Shah and ayatollahs in Iran, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and currently Bashar al-Assad in Syria are all examples of leaders who were or have been for decades successful at keeping the lid on discontent and political rivals.

Third, though ultimately unlikely, is the scenario I have been reconsidering--the emergence with subtle U.S. support--of three or four regional powers that reassert their historic leadership roles across the region.

Egypt would need to see its revolution concluded to again play its dominant role among Arabs. Turkey would have to see it influence spread among moderate Muslims. Saudi Arabia would have to open its society further and come to play a greater regional role. And Iran would have to again become Persia.

Some have argued, for example, that Iran's nuclear aspirations have less to do with developing atomic weapons to use against Israel than an expression of national pride. For a people with an ancient and proud history to see itself overshadowed by the Saudis and Israelis is deeply humiliating. To again be able to play an influential role in the region might satisfy those national ambitions.

Of course the likelihood of any progressive scenario advancing is remote. The Sunnis and Shia have been murderous rivals since the death of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran eye each other venomously.

But perhaps our trying to find a way to bring Iran into the family of moderate nations is worth a try. Everything else seems too depressing to think about 24 hours before the summer solstice.

June 16, 2014--The Middle East? Hands Off

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was evocative of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.