Trump's 180 on Iran: Refusing the Iranian bait

For all the post-fact criticism it receive from both sides of the political spectrum, Trump's zig-zagging course of action with Iran might have more than meets the eye. True to their chess tradition, Iranians tried a gambit, provoking US's military reaction.

Looking at the course of events, it is evident that the weaker player, Iran is playing the aggressor instead of US. First, with the attacks to tankers menacing with cutting the strait of Hormuz. Then, doubling down by downing an unmanned drone.

Trump was in both cases forced to react. His first reaction was foreseeable: threatening military action. The second -calling out an air strike- was not.

Most partisan pundits focused on Trump rather than Iran. Let's turn the attention to the aggressor.

Why a weaker country in dire economic straits invites military aggression from a rival with overwhelming superiority? 

What is Iran to win with provoking US to bomb its military installations?

The answer is clear: jacking up  oil price. 

An US attack would rise significantly giving Iran's economy a desperately needed shot in the arm. Trump's first vague threat of military action sent oil price 6 % up in an instant.

Prices could rise up to 100 usd per barrel giving an immediate 50% revenue boost to Iran's exports. Moreover, US efforts in keeping Hormuz strait open would paradoxically benefit Iran. 

Iran is playing the "mouse that roared" tactic. Like in Peter Seller's classic movie, war with US can pay handsomely to the defeated. 

That's why not taking the bait can be a good response, saving not only Iranian lives, but keeping the choke hold on Iran's economy while assessing more strategic military options, such as setting up a NATO/ Gulf nations joint force to protect Hormuz or even destroy Iranian anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilities.

Both countries seem to play their national games: Iran's chess gambit is met with US's poker's bluff.

Beyond the "Tale of Two Models": Texas and California in the long view

Texas and California are often used as belt-weathers to compare GOP and Democratic policies in practice, as The Economist recently did in a special report.

The "Blue-Red" stereotype of the two states is both historically and demographically misleading, a tired "tale of two countries" used for partisan polarization.

From 1848 up to 1952, Texas voted Democratic.   Texas voted for JFK and Lyndon Johnson during the 1960s and up to 1991 elected a Democratic, pro-choice woman like Ann Richards  as governor. 

Since 1936, California showed a  voting history characterized by strong swings between short Blue dominance (1936-1948) and much longer Red supremacy (1952-1960, 1968-1988) periods, in which it elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Republican governors.

Both states are testing grounds for  Republican and Democratic models of economic and social governance and beyond ups and downs, both show long-term success. 

Both states have economic entrepreneurial powerhouses in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley and the Texas Triangle, respectively. 

Both states have shown the ability to learn from mistakes and change course, often guided by the least-expected. Under the once ultra-liberal Jerry Brown, California  straightened its finances, controlled its deficit and turned around its economy.

Partisan views usually describe the contrast in tone-deaf, "B&W", "Hell vs Heaven" terms. Pundits such as libertarian Stossel

and progressive Robert Reich

duel like real estate agents over a candid customer.

Reality is more complex and more interesting.

The Economist report suggests looking at  Texas as a younger version of California, more free enterprise, low-tax like California was at the beginning of the 20th century, now trending towards an expansion of its welfare state network. That trend might be based on two key factors: increased affluence and Californian immigrants.

Voting trends seem to support this hypothesis, showing that Democrats have been making inroads in recent Texan elections.

Conversely, Californians have turned to Republican policies of austerity to stop losing business and jobs to lower taxed neighboring states (Texas first among them) and to shore up their bankrupt pension system.

If something can be learned from Texas and California's swinging politics is that there is no "Red or Blue"  model but rather policies that work, such as Texas' low taxation, business-friendly regulation or California's long-term investment in top universities, research and talent-friendly, internationally-minded ecosystems.

From a long view perspective, demographics will keep changing with success and growth. dictating long term social changes that politicians will follow rather than lead, as they always do. 

Looking at Californians migrating to Texas as a signal of victory for Republican views is most likely wishful thinking. 

Californians -quite like Europeans or Latin Americans- will happily take lower taxes and friendlier regulation without leaving behind their like for the kind of welfare benefits they grew accustomed.  

The electoral trend towards Democrats is a good indicator of it. Partisan Republicans might cheer the Californian exodus at their own peril. For them, it has all the makings of a Pyrrhic victory. The Hill explains why:

"Hundreds of thousands of new residents are moving into Texas every year, choosing to live in fast-growing cities and suburbs around the state’s four largest metropolitan areas. Six of the nation’s 10 fastest-growing counties are in Texas. About one in every 10 Texas residents did not live in the state when Sen. Ted Cruz (R) first won his seat six years ago.

“We have a lot of new voters who have held up their hands. There’s thousands of new voters moving to Texas every week,” said Chris Homan, a veteran Texas Republican strategist.

Those new residents are changing the partisan hue of once-reliably Republican suburbs and fueling a massive surge in new voters in solidly Democratic urban cores that even Republicans acknowledge will put the state’s massive haul of electoral votes in play for the first time in a generation."

Politics are a lagging, not a leading indicator.

Policies are just the opposite.

In any case, the Texas-California rival models are a good lab for testing ideas for the future of the country.

Purple Hearts: US Electoral College Reform

At the heart of the current fight between the Trump administration and the Democratic party is the dispute about the legitimacy of electing a President that lost the popular vote.

Instead of trying to win through impeachment (as the GOP in opposition tried also with Clinton) or reforming the Constitution -which the Framers wisely designed to preserve smaller states right and requires an almost impossible two thirds majority- there is a simpler and fairer way: turning the election of states delegates for the Electoral College from "winner-takes-all" to some proportional system (I suggest checking the Swiss D'Hontd system also known in US as the Jefferson method) 

If each state were able to allocate electors for both parties in a proportional way there will be immediate benefits for both those who want a more "democratic" election and for those wot want a more "state-rights" representative one:

1. Both states rights and majority rule would be better protected
2. The reality of "purple" states (almost all) would be better reflected
3. Candidates should campaign and visit all 50 states more often and more likely
4. Voters in small and large states would feel treated more fairly.
5. There would be less interest in using impeachment to uphold "legitimacy" claims, and less sore losers.

Proportional systems have been implemented in some states.

Who would have been elected if implemented in past elections? Just take a look and make up your mind. You might want also to check the Jefferson method.

Notice that in all close elections (2000, 2016) third parties would have made also a difference by becoming "king-makers" and forming coalitions.

That would also give those outside the two-party system more relevance and dilute extreme partisanship.

Rule of thumb: you know the system is fair when no partisan soul is happy with it.

One Down, One to Go: Fixing the Asylum problem

The asylum system is one of the key factors behind the  flood of migrants from Central America overwhelming US's immigration systems. After receiving 490,000 new asylum-seekers since the beginning of 2019, it's evident that "humanitarian reasons" are a bad and fuzzy concept to handle immigration from failed countries south of the Rio Grande border.

The Democratic La Raza-lobbied Congress must be forced to act in putting strict restrictions to asylum eligibility.  Economic need or general insecurity are unacceptable, unworkable criteria to accept migrants, much less minors. 

Mexico has responded to the menace of crippling tariffs with a promise of militarizing its Southern border sending 6,000 troops of its newly created National Guard. Wall Street Journal specialized editor in Latin America Maria Anastasia O'Grady and former Mexico's Foreign Minister under Vicente Fox, Carlos Castaneda have pointed out to Mexico's evident lack of institutional capacity and spotty record of following through its US agreements as major factors that make the new agreement unlikely to succeed. 

The alternative of the current status quo is unsustainable and much worse. Economic pressure will certainly work better than words and paper to make Mexico act on at least part of its commitments.

Now is time to turn to fixing US's institutional weaknesses: asylum and enforcement.

Here are some concrete proposals to do it.

A Maverick Kissinger

Whether you agree or disagree with Steve Bannon -and it's likely that the word "strongly" will be attached to either sentiment- it's clear that his track record reveals more than what his rather sparse words show. For all his enormous influence Bannon, like the young Kissinger, prefers to stay away from cameras and public statements.

After helping Trump win the US presidential election, Bannon fell out of good graces with him and turned to Europe to work as a self-appointed shadow Secretary of State. During his two years in "wilderness", Bannon managed to help seat Victor Orban in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy, turn Brexit into the default position in UK politics and the rise of Marie Le Pen and the yellow vests protesters in France, Vox in Spain and build a formidable bloc to take over the European Union.

Kissinger would certainly envy such accomplishments, but Steve Bannon is a man on a mission and unlike his former boss and current ally President Trump, he's not running for or to stay in office. He's single-mindedly focused on politics and long-term, structural changes in the balance of power in the West, engaged and engaging in a crusade against what he sees as US's foes in a Second Cold War: China and Islamic fundamentalist powers, the Europe promoted by George Soros' Globalist Left.

In spite of his Breitbart, Far Right-, Tea Party- track record, Bannon remains in an almost cynical, pragmatic stance, providing critical views of all his current allies, including Trump, speaking at large to the most recent Martin Wolff's insiders' expose. Bannon's previous declarations in Wolffs book Fire and Fury precipitated his fallout with Trump and his ousting from Breitbart, turning him into his favorite role: a maverick and a loose cannon.

Unlike Kissinger, Bannon is not a prisoner of his former boss, nor he depends on a White House or DoS job. He runs his own operation, initially funded by the Mercer family and later with other wealthy donors coming from his newly acquired connections and fund raising ability. He's a maverick Kissinger rearranging the world order to the nationalist, anti-globalization Right as much as his arch rival George Soros is a Metternich trying to tilt the world order towards the progressive, cosmopolitan Left.

His Oxford speech shows his extreme ideological bent as well as his vision of a worldwide "war" between Left and Right in its extreme versions:

A force to be reckoned with, sooner better than later. Those who ignore or underestimate his influence do so at their own peril.

• Bannon's views on Europe (interview)
• Nougayrede, N. (2019) Bannon is on a far-right mission to radicalise Europe

Mexico's lesson: TR/Trump sticks work better than Obama/Bush carrots

President Trump's tariffs' threat worked, forcing Mexico to commit to serious and accountable actions to stop and stem illegal immigration.

The result was a US-Mexico Joint Declaration, which summarizes Mexico's acceptance to comply with US's demands:

“those crossing the U.S. Southern Border to seek asylum will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims.In response, Mexico will authorize the entrance of all of those individuals for humanitarian reasons, in compliance with its international obligations, while they await the adjudication of their asylum claims. Mexico will also offer jobs, healthcare and education according to its principles.The United States commits to work to accelerate the adjudication of asylum claims and to conclude removal proceedings as expeditiously as possible.” 

Looking from a long view perspective, this success might indicate that Theodore Roosevelt (TR) policies of "carry a long stick and a big smile" work if applied in such order -first show the stick or give a first hit with it, then smile, not the other way around- precisely because of the credibility generated by Trump's unpredictable, belligerent and heavy-handed approach to long-time deadbeats like Mexico and China.

The art of the Mexico deal is in understanding that AMLO -as President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is known- is a populist that uses far Left rhetoric but has a long track record of cutting pragmatic deals with "foes" that generate taxes, investment or exports revenue.  After a few rounds of posturing, AMLO sent a commission to capitulate in Washington, quite much like Generalissimo Santa Ana did 150 years ago.

Obama's and Bush's rational diplomacy were seen as signs of weakness and opportunities for cheating and taking advantage of a naive or self-doubting neighbor.

At the root of the problem lay the Schengen-inspired migratory policies that both Republicans and Democrats have kept since Reagan's 1986 Amnesty in the hope that the problem would correct itself. Those policies, designed to capture (and or manufacture) Hispanic votes metastasized even further in the form of  "sanctuary cities" that openly ban migratory laws' enforcement in exchange for a permanent majority-making  influx of voting- and welfare net- enabled constituency.

The proponents of such policies have suffered a major blow that will reverberate in the coming 2020 elections against their candidates.  Instead of choosing to bargain with the wall for accommodation, they preferred to sustain a ridiculous denial of the chaos in the border that self-fed into a Tsunami of asylum seekers, scaring a sizable majority in all border states.

Trump and his foreign policy instincts have a point: raw power seems to be more effective than nice words with authoritarian governments with a track record of serial cheating.

Nice words and noble self-criticism -such as Obama's Cairo speech- seem only to encourage more abuse by ceding the moral ground to declared enemies of most of what US stands for: free trade, free markets, freedom of the press, rule of law.

China's next.

• DoS (2019) US-Mexico Joint Declaration