Trrmp wants a USA-friendly autocrat in Iran

"You say you want a Revolution
Well, you know
We all wanna change the world. . . 

You'd better free your mind instead"

   The Beatles, "Revolution 1, 1968

Trump wants to leave Iran's rulers in place. Forget revolution.

Keep the police. Keep the public employees. Keep the government structure. Keep all but the very top military. Keep the autocracy.

Trump doesn't want something new and organic to rise up in Iran. That is too unpredictable.  Forget messy democracy. He wants a pro-American business partner who owes his position to Trump. He wants another Venezuela deal.

Jim Stodder put this insight together for me. Jim is a college classmate. He left school for a while amid the anti-war disturbances of the era, then returned to complete college and then get his Ph.D. in economics from Yale. He taught international economics and securities regulation at Boston University.

Guest Post by Jim Stodder

Will Trump offer Iran the same kind of deal he’s offering Venezuela and now Cuba?             

 

The deal is – “Go ahead and run your own affairs; repress your people however you want. Just stop messing with U.S. security and give us a piece of that oil and gas revenue.”  

 

He’s already made this deal explicit with Venezuela, mentioned it to Cuba, and said he’d like to discuss it with Iran.  All that democracy stuff was for his American audience.  For getting what he wants, democracy in these countries would be a bug, not a feature.

 

There are many things in such a deal that would appeal to Trump:

* It would be the easiest and quickest resolution.

* It would therefore win the most political support in the U.S.

* It offers many avenues of enrichment for his friends and family.

* Even if it’s just a ploy or falls apart, the prospect of such a deal makes it less likely Iran retaliates with serious terrorism like a dirty bomb. (It still has enough nuclear expertise to do it, and it doesn’t take an ICBM.) 

* Controlling Iran’s oil gives the U.S. leverage over China. The Economist magazine says China gets 4% of its crude from Venezuela and more than 10% from Iran.

 

There’s a counterargument to the last point, however.  It is that making Iran less secure for China makes Russia more important as its supplier. China gets about 20% of its oil from Russia, via several oil pipelines and ships from Russia’s Far East. It also gets almost 40% of its natural gas imports from Russia via the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline and LNG ships, again through Russia’s East.

 

Against this growing importance of Russia, the fact remains that 40% of China’s crude oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could choke off.  On balance, I’d say that controlling Iran increases Trump’s leverage over China. And giving Russia more power has never been something about which Trump seems too concerned.

 

If I were advising Trump, I'd make the case. Given the direct benefits to him, he'd give it serious thought. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

 

Showdown in Texas

"Texas tough" or "Turn Texas Blue?"

Texas Democrats vote today.

Crockett

Talarico

Politics is war continued by other means. Carl von Clausewitz had it backwards.

The question is how one fights the war.

There isn't a lot of difference in the political positions of the two candidates for the U.S. senate for Texas. Jasmine Crockett isn't a member of The Squad, although her style makes it appear that she is. Talarico isn't particularly moderate or centrist, although he has a "can't we come together" tone that comes across as middle of the road.

Crockett: Media star and a tiger in Congressional hearings.

"Raping children, right or wrong?"

Democrats are making a choice about style: Crockett's in-your-face or Talarico's Mr. Nice Guy. Crockett descries herself as "tough," and willing to call out injustice. She communicates "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." She seems fearless and ready to take on Trump, MAGA, and the Texas GOP machine. Talarico isn't conceding the ground. People with knowledge of Christianity understand the reference in Talarico's message of flipping the tables. Jesus wasn't passive in the face of abusive commerce in front of the temple. 

It is possible that a majority of Democrats prefer Crockett and her style, and in a blue state they would vote for her. Texas is a red state and the potential of electing a Democrat is central to Talarico's message. Some Democrats are likely making a strategic decision to nominate the more electable candidate, presuming that is Talarico. There is a school of thought that Crockett is more electable. She gets the "mad as hell" vote, and it is bipartisan. Trump proved that. Talarico may not be able to persuade people that he is a change agent.

Predictions markets favor Talarico. The consensus betting is for Talarico to win with a margin of 3 to 15 percent, with a small midpoint bulge expecting a 6 to 12 percent margin. Here is how Kalshi.com lays out the betting opportunities:

Few people are betting on Crockett to win, but the payoff would be high if she did. Since the betting was structured around vote margin, not just a flat win-lose, every "Yes, Tararico wins" bet is a longshot because the bettor has to predict his margin. Polls have been wildly inconsistent, some showing Crockett winning, but the prediction markets reflect the consensus of people putting money on the line. Bettors think that Talarico will win.

The win, if it happens, will launch Talarico firmly onto the national stage representing a Christian-progressive-economic populism vibe. That puts him in a space that is more overtly traditional and less technocratic than Pete Buttigieg; a space "Whiter" than Senator Raphael Warnock; and a space unburdened by the California vibe of Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. 

Talarico is a fresh face. Possibly the public will not want that fresh face to look like a choir boy, because the world is too vicious for choir boys. Still, Talarico will flesh out a political brand and he pushes "reset" on the Democratic brand. Even though he is thoroughly "White" in his brand, he downplays identity calling it an economic battle between the billionaires and the average American, and that the competition between ethnic and gender identities is a phony war to distract Americans from the fact that their pockets are being picked. Talarico, like Jesus, talks about economic justice.

Talarico has a lane and a story to tell. It will be disruptive to a core support group for Trump and the GOP: self-identified Christians. Trump is the champion of Christians, the one who fights in a decidedly un-Christian way on behalf of the Christian brand. Talarico conspicuously talks the language of Jesus, doing so from a position of apparent sincerity and belief, not opportunism. 

Americans will go to bed tonight having learned which direction Texas Democrats signal they want the party to turn. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

Here is why we are at war.

"(War, huh) Lord, lord, lord, lord
(What is it good for?) Oh, absolutely nothin'"
       Edwin Starr, Motown anti-war song, 1969

People who go to war have very good reasons.

Reason: We cannot let Iran have nuclear weapons.

"They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore."

And more reasons:

Reason: Payback. Trump said Iran took Americans hostage in 1979, they carried out the bombing of a marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and they might have been involved in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. He wrote on Truth Social that “Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump." This made it personal.

Reason: Regime change. Trump sent a message to the Iranian people. Start a revolution. Create your own government amid the chaos. He said, "Now is the time to seize control of your destiny, and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass."

Pundits offer other reasons.

Reason: Domestic politics, to improve his low approval rating. This one has instant credibility because it was top of mind for Trump himself when Barack Obama was president. Trump is unhappy about his bad polling. As is common with Trump, his accusations reveal a confession:

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
2:39 PM - Oct 9, 2012

and

Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.
10:44 AM - Sep 25, 2013

Reason: Do what Bibi Netanyahu wants. Voices on the antisemitic, or merely anti-Israeli -- American right and left accuse the U.S. -- and Trump especially -- of having turned our Middle East foreign policy over to Israel. We are their patsy because "Jewish interests" in the U.S. control both political parties through campaign contributions. Bibi needs this war; the U.S. is dragged along.

Reason: Distract from the Epstein mess. The war pushed Epstein out of the news. The war changes the Trump news story from the lecherous playboy with teen beauty pageants into a bold military leader involved with far more important matters than unprovable sex crimes. 

Reason: Iran is a package deal with Venezuela. U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are set up to process heavy oil.

Venezuela has the world's largest reserves of that sludge-like oil. It needs to be mixed with very light oil to transport via ships and pipelines. Our new Venezuelan oil resource is incomplete without Iranian solvent. Trump is not a sentimentalist. Strong countries don't go to war for intangible democracy or human rights. They go to war for resources. 

Reason: The U.S. picked a side in the Middle East rivalry, the side that wants to do business with Trump, not the side that cares primarily about religion. This is a regional war: the Saudis and Arabic oil kingdoms versus Persian Iran. The oil kingdoms are now modern capitalists at heart.  We -- and Israel -- can do business with them. 

Burj Al Arab ultra-luxury hotel in Dubai

There is a reason that Iran lobbed a missile into this Dubai hotel.

Reason: We can. The U.S. has a big military. It isn't there to have on standby and not use. Why have it if not to use it?  The change from "Department of Defense" to "Department of War" reflects a change in policy and purpose.

Reason: Trump seeks a grand legacy. He seeks glorification. Leaders who have had their names associated with "the Great" have led successful conquests. They do big, bold things. The giant ballroom and arch projects, plus Trump's name and image on buildings, airports, currency, warships, and geographic features are not enough. Trump wants conquest. Cuba is next.

Reason: Save face. If things go poorly, there is always the fallback reason to keep on fighting even after all original reasons are gone. We cannot let the world see we did not win. That was our reason when the war dragged on in Vietnam. That is Russia's situation in Ukraine now. There is always a reason.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

Easy Sunday: Message to Iran

This isn't a new war. It is a new phase of a very old war. 

Greek City States fought the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great beginning in 499 B.C.

Design on Greek pottery: Fallen Persian soldier on left. Greek hoplite on the right.

 We are still in the honeymoon phase of this war. It is a time to imagine a happy ending: a short war; a lasting peace; Iran a  friendly neighbor in the region; and a new government in place establishing domestic tranquility among a people well-disposed toward the U.S., Israel, and the world. It isn't impossible. 

Trump carried out a sneak attack while amid supposedly-sincere negotiations with Iran. Trump did not sell this war to the American people, nor get the support of Congress, nor make this war a coalition of willing allies with a shared goal. We did this alone, with Israel. 

Sometimes process is important to the end result. This process is quick and dirty. It is swashbuckling. Heroic. It is Trump's style, especially in this second term. He doesn't wait for permission or consensus. 

Trump dismisses impediments that hobble presidents burdened by the Constitution, American laws, international laws, or norms of behavior. He is a modern-day Alexander the Great, solving Gordian Knot problems by slashing them with a sword. He is a winner and no one can stop him. Trump is consumed with hubris. He is dangerous, a dynamo in the center of our politics, the center of attention. Millions of Europeans, many of them French, died because of Napoleon's ambitions. Nevertheless, or because of it, the French have a giant memorial for him.

College classmate Chris Kellogg captured Trump's hubris in this imagined message from Trump to the people of Iran.

               TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAN

Ready or not here I come.

I have finally and successfully provoked an attack from your Ayatollah. I don’t care much if tens of thousands of you are going to be mowed down, detained or tortured by your security forces, but I don’t want your current leaders to make atomic weapons. Therefore, I personally have decided that the U.S. should bomb your country’s infrastructure even though bombing-only campaigns have only created complete chaos with few intended results elsewhere, e.g. Libia, Ukraine, etc. So now, no matter that you have no capable resistance organizations or weapons to protect you, I expect you to overthrow the regime. Then maybe I can get a long-deserved, Nobel Peace Prize - I only have a few years left to try, and the one I've got has a Venezuelan name on it.

Also, since you are not as valuable as White Christians, the casualties you suffer should not be a concern. I know I said I was going to do something to protect you, but should you consider fleeing to the U.S., just remember that although ICE is very nice, you should go to Canada instead.

Just remember there is no peace without war unless you avoid military service altogether. And good thing I did not consult Congress although it was not in response to an imminent attack.

 Despite the distration of the chaos and buildings falling around you, I thank you for your attention to this matter.

From my golf course - you should see how beautiful it is today - where I am winning too much.

DJT

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

We have gone to war.

"War is the health of the state."
Randolph Bourne, American public intellectual, 1917

We are in the startle phase this morning. The startle phase is the orientation: "Wow. It happened. War."

The "shock and awe" phase comes shortly, when we see video of our missiles and airborne firepower. The U.S. likes fighting from the air. That's our wheelhouse. There is something exhilarating about sitting in a safe, comfortable spot, seeing what looks like fireworks, when viewed from the shooter's view, and far away.

This is the honeymoon period. 

We can hope that this comes to a good end. What would that be? Maybe a friendly Iran, no longer a state sponsor of anti-west terror. Maybe it becomes a secular, multi-ethnic, democratic state seeking peaceful trade deals with the world. In the honeymoon period, anything is possible.

Notice that Congress did not declare war. Indeed, it was not consulted. The American people were not consulted either, beyond the fact that we elected Donald Trump. We did not elect a dictator; we elected a president within a constitutional structure. We did not sign off on this war.

Congress has abdicated its responsibility. Every president wants to accumulate power. Under Trump, Congress became an advisory body: partly Greek chorus, partly hands-off board of directors, partly a bullpen and audition space for future executive offices. They have let this president accelerate the transition to an imperial president. Trump wants all of that power and more, and he takes it. Congress lets him.

"There will be casualties," Trump said early this morning. This is war, it is intentional, and we are taking the initiative. There are questions deserving debate and the consensus envisioned in a constitutional republic. Is this war in our interest? What are our war aims? Are we willing to put boots on the ground?  How are we going to pay for this?

Randolph Bourne warned that the war concentrates power in the executive. This war has a second front, in the multi-decade war over our form of government. 

In a battlefield war map, officers would mark this month's tariff case in the Supreme Court as a setback for the executive in the battle line of power. (The Court acted independently, as a temporary but inconsistent ally of Congress.) Congress fought back the tariff bulge initiative.

This war has a second purpose: the presidential power battle. It reasserts presidential primacy in major policy decisions. He just did it. Sit back and watch. This war is a back-door way into better control of state and local government by triggering the "wartime" exceptions and special powers. The president had asserted special powers because we were at "war" with drug gangs and unauthorized immigrants. It was a stretch, at best. But this is real war, with aircraft carriers and fighter jets. It opens the floodgates of new powers. He can make certain that the right people vote in November and that ballots are counted and reported by people loyal to Trump.

I don't feel hopeless. Congress could assert itself. The time to have done so is weeks and months ago. Congress will rise up off the mat if and when the war goes badly. Then voices will emerge saying that the president had no right to do this. 

I want success and safety for our troops. That would be a good outcome. But there are consequences to that. If things go well, Trump will say it is proof that he alone knows how to win and that we should cede him even more power. And he will take it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Epstein files keep dripping out

"Exonerated."

That is Trump's position. Not just "not guilty." Not just "unknown," nor "unknowable," nor "unproved guilt based on admissible evidence in a court of law." 

"I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein."
          Trump to reporters on Air Force One

Democrats who get their news from a mix of "mainstream news" and from social media feeds derivative of those sources think Trump is surely guilty of something illegal or hugely embarrassing as regards Jeffrey Epstein. After all, it is Trump-the-Lothario-predator. Otherwise, why his ham-handed coverup? And look at all the evidence. Photos. Flight logs. Birthday cards. Testimony from victims. 

Trump has protectors, not defenders. The Justice Department and his allies in the Congress withhold information the best they can. When they are forced to release information they mess it up with haphazard redactions and point at Democratic-coded people and institutions. That is why they questioned Hillary Clinton yesterday. 

No Trump defender says, "Manipulate a young woman into sex play? Why Trump wouldn't do anything like that." 

Being a sexual predator sounds exactly like something Trump would do if he could get away with it. He has had a lifetime of experience doing it. He bragged about being able to walk in on undressed contestants in teen beauty pageant dressing rooms. Trump's supporters heard the Access Hollywood tape and voted for him anyway. It was "just Trump being Trump," evidence of his forceful will, his ability to take what he wants. Trump-the-winner in sex, politics, and war. Maybe we can get Greenland.

Democrats who consider Trump to be a malicious sociopath, a narcissist, a flagrant liar and lawbreaker, and a man unfit for any position of responsibility -- a reasonable position -- have a hard time crediting Trump for his talents. Democrats overlook his skill in transactional negotiations. Trump takes an outrageous opening position. Greenland. DOGE. Tariffs at 100 percent. Ghislaine Maxwell -- herself negotiating for a full pardon -- asserts that Trump "was a perfect gentleman." Exoneration is a negotiating position.

I doubt the Epstein files will resolve anything, although I expect more resignations and public shaming, some well-justified, some guilt by implication and accusation. The files have gone through many hands. I presume some files were shredded, some are intact but haphazardly redacted, some released, some withheld for good reason, and some withheld for corrupt reasons. Even photos and videotape with clear images of Trump doing criminal acts with very young girls can be discounted as fake, manipulated, or created by AI.  No credible proof is possible. 

That is the real lesson Americans will learn: No one knows, and some people will get away with bad behavior. The result will be a general cheapening of America's respect for our business and political leaders and an overall sense that there is no true anything. The news is fake. Elections are rigged. Tabulating machines flip votes. Obama's birth certificate was faked. The CDC hides that vaccines are dangerous. College admissions are rigged. Sports are rigged. Members of Congress trade stocks on inside information. There really was an elite ring of powerful pedophiles, only it wasn't in a pizza shop basement. It was on a private island. 

Trump is hurt by the Epstein mess, but so is everyone else. Trump is adept at riding out a scandal: deny, accuse, deflect. Trump's malignant sociopathy gives him a powerful weapon: shamelessness. Others will resign. They will admit to some error in judgment. They will feel shame. Not Trump. After all, he was exonerated.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Report from Mexico (A Trump-free post)

February 22: State Department Travel Warning: Avoid much of Mexico.

February 25: Travel Warning lifted.

"All restrictions related to the events of February 22 on U.S. government staff in Mexico have been lifted.  The U.S. Embassy and all consulates in Mexico are operating normally."

What the heck was going on in Mexico this week?

The Mexican government, apparently with U.S help, killed a leader of a major drug gang while trying to arrest him. That triggered a well-established response in the form of localized violence staged by members of the drug cartel.

From my home in Medford, Oregon it seemed dangerous. Roadblocks. Burning cars. The State Department travel warning confirmed my concerns. College classmate and Mexican expat Erich Almasy seemed quite sanguine when I telephoned him. I didn't hear gunfire in the background while we talked. Quite the opposite. He spoke of concerts and dinners with friends. He said there is a pattern to these events and he doesn't expect trouble. He agreed to send me his perspective.

Erich Almasy and wife Cynthia Blanton

Guest post by Erich Almasy

México has an extremely violent history. Although, to be fair, many of the over 70 countries my wife and I have visited can claim a similar heritage. Including the United States. When they think of the Mexican Revolution, fought between 1910 and 1920, most Americans imagine a bandolier-wearing mustachioed Pancho Villa. During that conflict, a population of roughly 15 million was reduced by an estimated 19 percent due to disease, famine, and warfare; that's more than the German Army lost in World War I. The late 1920s were not much better, as 200,000 died in the Cristero Wars fought between Catholics and anticlerics. 

During Prohibition, the families of the Tequila empires of José Cuervo and Cenobio Sauza fought pitched gun battles on the streets of Guadalajara. Since the founding of the Mexican Republic in 1824, three of its presidents have been assassinated, including two in the twentieth century. (NOTE: The United States tops this with four presidential assassinations, including two in the twentieth century). Partly because of this history, by law, Mexicans (and expats) are not allowed to own guns, even for hunting. The weapons used by the cartels, 

including the surface-to-air missile that recently damaged a police helicopter, were all bought in the United States and illegally smuggled into México.

NBC News headline

The death during arrest on February 22 of the New Jalisco Generation cartel head Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, better known as “El Mencho,” has sparked concern of major political and social upheaval in México, with cartel members blockading roads, burning buses and vehicles, and shooting National Guard members. On Sunday, tourist areas in Puerto Vallarta and Guadalajara were placed under lockdown. Many American airlines canceled flights to México, and in San Miguel de Allende, our mayor called for a curfew. By the next day, all was calm and back to normal. My Mexican friends tell me this is par for the course and cite some compelling evidence that both the capture (and sometimes death) of major cartel heads, followed by noticeable violence, is actually a choreographed element of Mexican politics. Known as the Kingpin Strategy, it began with the capture and extradition to the United States of Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, head of the Guadalajara cartel in 1989. Since 1995, nearly every Mexican president has conducted a major raid on cartels.

• 2022 (Andrés Manuel López Obrador presidency) witnessed the capture of Rafael Caro Quintero, head of the Guadalajara cartel.
• 2016 (Enrique Peña Nieto presidency) witnessed the third recapture and transfer to the United States of “El Chapo” Guzman, leader of the Sinaloa cartel.
• 2013 (also Enrique Peña Nieto’s presidency) saw the capture and extradition of Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales, boss of the Los Zetas cartel.
• 2012 (Felipe Calderón presidency), Heriberto Lazcano, known as “El Lazca” (the Crazy One), head of Los Zetas, was killed by Mexican marines.
• 2010 (also during the Felipe Calderón presidency) saw the deaths of “Tony Tormenta,” the boss of the Gulf cartel, and “Nacho” Coronel, leader of the Sinaloa cartel.
• 2002 (Vicente Fox Quesada presidency) saw the death of Ramón Arellano Félix, head of the Tijuana cartel.
• 1997 (Ernesto Zedillo presidency) saw the death of Amado Carillo Fuentes, head of the Juárez cartel.

The follow-up to these raids is always the same, with blockades, threats of assassination, and vehicle-burning. They are not to be taken lightly, but again, my Mexican friends are both cynical and sanguine about these violent demonstrations. They point to the apparent appearance of “captured” cartel heads in places like Bali, years after their supposed incarceration. They have a point that this is theater. It is not in any of the cartels’ interests to harm tourism and damage an industry that welcomes 48 million people, employs nearly 8 million people, and accounts for 8 percent of México’s GDP. As of today, Tuesday, February 24th, the U.S. State Department has removed all warnings for Americans. The peso stayed steady at about 17.3 per U.S. dollar.

My wife and I moved to San Miguel de Allende in the fall of 2019. The town is almost 500 years old, and its colonial architecture and UNESCO World Heritage Site designation make it one of the most popular tourist attractions in México. We are surrounded by twelve-foot colonial-architecture walls, and we pay for a nightly neighborhood security guard. We have suffered no personal or property crime, unlike our six-years in San Francisco, where our car was broken into twice, and our home was attacked with an ax. Just as we did in San Francisco, New York, and Toronto, we are vigilant about our surroundings.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]