Friends, as you may have noticed, tensions have escalated once again between the U.S. and Iran. Iran has "closed" the Strait, and we have reimposed a blockade on Iran. What's more, President Trump briefly demanded that any ships passing through the Strait should pay a 20% surcharge to the USA, since we're so kindly securing the Strait for them. Of course, that "security" is apparently rather shaky, as very few ships are currently transiting the Strait anyway. Now, in any case, Trump has decided against the surcharge, which I feel is a smart move. Sure, there's no good reason why we should solve the world's Iran problem for free, but then again demanding payment makes us look...distinctly bourgeois. We can't have that. All of this is fairly academic unless we can secure the Strait effectively and get large numbers of ships comfortable about running the Iranian gauntlet. Here's hoping the indomitable U.S. Navy can achieve that objective, which alas it has not up to now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0608wy8pro
In other news, the (temporary?) cessation of hostilities between the U.S., Israel, and Iran was warmly received by stock markets, and it caused oil prices to decline and inflation to cool. That's all very nice, but it's an achievement that won't last unless we can keep that shipping channel open.
https://apnews.com/article/inflation-trump-food-prices-gas-53d221aa918c466172af494ba7debc00
Dr. Waddy: Our President may have pulled another slicko. He was later quoted as saying that some of the countries which would be effected by a "service fee" (my quote marks) promised , rather, extensive additional investment in the U.S. That's a better deal I think and perhaps its what he intended all along(?).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: An interesting situation may obtain in our Navy's efforts to protect shipping going through the international waters of the Straits of Hormuz.
ReplyDeleteWithin the last few years the Navy has commissioned ships of a class designated as "Littoral Combat Ships " especially designed for service in coastal regions.That is different from ships traditionally considered coastal defence ships, meaning the coasts of the countries which use them. I'd say most any Straits are pretty "littoral". Don't know if they have been used off of Iran or if so if the difficulties we may be having in policing the Strait are at all attributable to any possible shortcomings in these ships.
Dr. Waddy: I'm sure that many market professionals are astute and close observers of political development.
ReplyDeleteSo far, despite the present apparent breakdown of ehh, peace"processes" about which both sides may actually harbor few illusions , we are not seeing precipitate adverse reaction at the pump or in the stock market. Perhaps that is because those whose business careers depend on being able to discern relevant trends see this war as settling down to a prolonged "Western Front " style give and take phenomenon BUT one in which the winner is clearly inevitable as is the 7th century dwelling loser.
Dr. Waddy: In a very hopeful sign, I heard a broadcast of PA Senator Fetterman saying the following :(I paraphrase) I'm a Democrat but if my party takes a decisive antiIsrael stand "I will leave".
ReplyDeleteI've wondered for a long time how much longer he could abide being a nominal member of this precipitately DSA disgraced party. I'm sure the Dems would be glad to see him go but loss of his seat could be catastrophic for them. Will they try to appease him? Can they keep their ever more confident radicals in check through the midterms, after which they could gear up their vaunted personal attack hit squad? We know how very "intolerant" radicals are of apostates and heretics, do we ever.
Dr. Waddy: I'm assuming that Fetterman was reacting to the vote cast by approx. 100 Dem House members to cut deeply into aid to Israel. The DSA gives more and more evidence of being in charge of that immeasurably shamed party or imminently so.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: "Its always darkest before the dawn" it may be often said. The UK may be about experience it.
ReplyDeletePM to be Burnham is talking LABOUR! Like lots of groovy nationalization to start with. He purposes the redemption of Britain from the onerous legacy of PM Thatcher in her salvation of the country from imminent open Marxism. He'd even undo the works of collaborationist Tony Blair. He'll have been elected by his district alone plus Labour and fellow traveler MPs. Just imagine the Dems empowering PM Sanders! I'm not knocking Britain's Parliamentary system; after all it may enable early relief from Burnham's inevitable "socialist" bustling and bumbling. My guess is that Brits, fed up with the absurd manifestations of"woke" policies , will not abide a very intensification of it under this apparent British Mamdani.
Of course there is a young adult population in Britain which has no memory of what a close call the country had before PM Thatcher broke those unions the leadership of which had recklessly embraced imminent totalitarianism. The rise of our DSA suggests that we may have a similarly malleable young generation or two now. That faction of our boomer generation which was tragically misled by opportunistic commies who knew them for the naifs they were has done incalculable damage to American civilization and may yet succeed in undoing it. Yes, it was a faction but the boomer generation was so massive that that faction alone had an inordinate effect on our economy, polity, legality and culture.
Farage and Reform's hour is nigh; it will be a clash of clearly opposite doctrines for the "Sceptered Isle" .
Dr. Waddy: Burnham is untested in a national election , having been put in office only by his district and Labour and allied MPs ( and of course his Majesty). We'll see. . . .
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I've always been convinced that the far left tried to steal the 2020 election but have never been sure that Biden's election was thereby swung. Every moment of DJT's presence in our national public life has been and is of intense emotional upset to them and as they place a dominating amount of stock in "feelings" it must be an unrelenting ordeal for them. Naturally they are desperate for deliverance from such infamous subjugation., the poor dears.
ReplyDeleteThey have long since amply demonstrated their willingness to employ "any means necessary " to achieve their all encompassing dream of ""fundamental transformation" of an unendurably imperfect America. Now, more evidence is apparent that their amoral and illegal election tactics in 2020 did result in Biden's catastrophic tenure. Current news from media not obsequiously subservient to "American" radicals has much of it. Fasten your seatbelts. . . .
Dr. Waddy: I wonder: are the Iranians playing us by threatening traffic in the Strait? Maybe they seek thereby to divert attention away from our prime purpose of ensuring that Iran never has a nuke. They may hope to persuade US public and world opinion that our main objective is to control the Strait, rather than the absolutely vital one of denying such a grotesque Iranian combination of neomedieval vindictiveness with modern technology.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: You have in , for example MIchigan, relatively "moderate" Dems as Congressional opponents to such as El Sayed who is frank about his hatred for lsrael . He makes a good foil for Dems who are accustomed to campaigning to the center but governing from the left,often the far left. Bottom line: most Dems, except for a lonely Fetterman are , or are obsequious to, Dems who are willing to countenance that which would bring death to Israel in their typically ignorant of MIddle East history perfectionist "solutions " .
ReplyDeleteWho is playing games there? Is it the open (and murderous whether or not they know so) Israel detractors or those who sham open minds until they have their chance in office to vote anti Israel. Same same! Vote for any Dem and you vote for a unrelenting assault on Israel, which Israel would defeat but at a staggering cost.
Dr. Waddy : I didn't watch the World Cup halftime show. I understand from reviews that it was in the Super Bowl halftime show tradition: tasteless and tawdry. Way to go, yes; show well over a billion viewers world wide the debauchery which shames so much of our popular culture. Its no wonder that many countries fear the imposition of it on their civilizations.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: An article in American Conservative reprised in today's RealClearPolitics , titled Farage's Great Gamble, holds that by voluntarily rerunning for his seat in Parliament, Farage risks directing even more scrutiny on the financial concerns already threatening his reputation.
ReplyDeleteBut nowhere in the article do I see any mention of the fact that Farage has already worked historical, perhaps redeeming benefit by leading the triumphant fight to extricate the UK from the bounds of ever more
expansive EU bureaucracy and presumption.
If a decisive part of the UK electorate sees this as having redounded to the UK's favor then one would think it would stand Farage in very good stead with voters . It can stand as proof of his political courage and his willingness to take resolute action to undo the British socialism which has recklessly countered common sense by refusing to fully utilize the North Sea Oil, has demonstrated a truly bizarre emphasis on the "rights" of criminals no matter the cost to the law abiding and has sided against Brits in favor of illegal immigrants who sneer at British ways . Socialist riddled Labour's response this week? Why more socialism if you will! What, hair of the dog?
I don't think Brits will abide it and I think Farage has much of exceeding merit to rely upon in his effort to become Head of Government. Labour has given him an ideal foil.
I don't think
Dr. Waddy: In listening to PM Burnham declare he will undo the evil done by those who stopped the UKs precipitous postwar decline into far left dysfunction: I'm reminded of Mondale's enthusiastic 1984 promise to raise taxes or " Beto" O'Rourke's asinine warning to Texans , of all people, that he was coming after their AR semi autos. They were treated to much deserved defeat.
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm not at all sure what naval assets we've placed in the Strait itself, as opposed to nearby. Clearly, not enough!
ReplyDeleteFetterman's increasingly blunt criticism of the Dems, and his acknowledgement that he might someday have to lead the party, puts his confederates in a real bind. They basically have to run the table to take over the Senate in January 2027...and that's assuming that Fetterman stays onside. His wavering makes Dem prospects much bleaker.
Well, tirades against Thatcher aside, what other signs are there that Burnham will take Britain in a fundamentally more leftist direction? What, precisely, would he nationalize...against the express intentions of his own party manifesto, I might add? I doubt he'll change much of anything, frankly.
I sincerely hope the DSA Dems are about to overplay their hand in Michigan (and elsewhere) and thereby lose a Senate seat that they desperately need. Run, El Sayed, run!
It's telling, I think, that none of the major parties in Britain decided to contest Farage's run for reelection in his Clacton constituency. I suspect this is because they don't think they have a prayer of beating him!