Following the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the United States and Iran came within inches of an all-out military conflict. On January 10, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13902 which compounded a crippling set of sanctions on Iran.

Also in January, China was just beginning to identify and deal with an unknown and deadly virus that was starting to infect people in the Chinese city of Wuhan. In a very short time, that virus became a worldwide pandemic know as Covid-19 or the coronavirus.

The Spread of Covid-19 and Iran’s Situation

As this virus made its way around the world and continues to do so, countries have been facing worst-case medical scenarios, which have led governments to enforce countrywide work stoppages, strict “social distancing” guidelines, and in many cases complete lockdowns.

Even the most advanced Western countries have come face-to-face with worst-case medical scenarios, leaving those less advanced in worse conditions.

For decades Iran has had a series of crippling sanctions imposed on them. These worldwide sanctions against Iran include preventing any international financial transactions and shipping, and trade, including that of medicine and medical equipment. These coupled with falling oil prices — Iran’s principal export — have debilitated the Iranian economy.

In a global economy, the sanctions have left Iran unable to compete in that environment. They have also left Iran prostrate should any worst-case situation impact the country. That worst-case scenario has arrived with the coronavirus.

Iran is in Dire Need of Help

As the virus spread through Iran, its government has been unable to react in the same manner that other governments have. The punishing financial nature of these worldwide sanctions against the country means Iran is unable to enforce the kinds of measures other nations have taken in order to properly combat the coronavirus.

According to Tehran Mayor Pirouz Hanachi, any kind of shutdown would be “nearly impossible to enforce because the government would be unable to financially support people unable to work.”

Like many countries battling the pandemic, Iran is in dire need of help — one citizen is dying every ten minutes and 50 become infected every hour.

As of 25 March, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering, Iran ranks sixth in the world with the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus. And the country is not expected to reach the apogee of the pandemic until May. Countries around the world, including top American adversaries China and Russia, and its strongest ally Britain, have implored the Trump administration to ease its sanctions on Iran.

However, US President Donald Trump is so committed to crushing Iran’s current government that instead he instituted a new round of sanctions on March 20, blacklisting 12 companies from trading in petrochemicals.

Is Trump Making the Iran’s Health Crisis Worse?

In addition to their request for the US to ease its sanctions, China defied US sanctions and sent a medical team, test kits, and ventilators to Iran after the country became a hot zone. As tensions between America and China continue to bubble, having Iran looking to China for help has the potential to upset the balance of power in the region away from the West.

In early March, Chinese Government spokesman Lijian Zhao poked fun at the US by tweeting, “might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.”

Not easing the tension between Iran and the US, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also taken a page from Zhao’s propaganda playbook by claiming that the coronavirus “is specifically built for Iran using the genetic data of Iranians.”

The accusations of both China and Iran remain wholly unsubstantiated.

Taking aim at both China and Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus” and said Khamenei’s “fabrications are dangerous and they put Iranians and people around the world at greater risk.”

The approach that the United States has taken with Iran has been called “maximum pressure.” Yet the US Special Representative for Iranian Affairs, Brian Hook, has said:  “US sanctions are not preventing aid from getting to Iran,” which isn’t entirely accurate.

If Iran Can’t Beat Coronavirus Neither Can the World

In order to see through the inaccuracy of Hook’s claims it is necessary to understand some rather obscure language. The arcane legalese used for sanctions is challenging but in President Trump’s January 10 Executive Order it is stated in Sec. 4: “I hereby determine that the making of donations by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests are blocked…”

This includes:

• The making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person 
• The receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services 
• Accepting deposits, making granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits
• Purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options

Because banks were unable to process financial transactions, the international companies who manufacture the equipment and supplies needed to fight the coronavirus have stopped shipping to Iran.

To put it simply: Iran does not have the ability to institute measures that could “flatten the curve” and stop the spread of the coronavirus. This “maximum pressure” policy that the US has applied to Iran strictly prohibits both foreign and domestic companies and governments from lending aid as the country still faces the worst of the pandemic. 

This isn’t just a problem for the Middle East because if the international community continues to turn its back on Iran because of punitive measures, the world will face an endless battle with a deadly disease.

Iran’s inability to constrain the coronavirus means a potentially never-ending battle against the deadly Covid-19 for all of us.

L'articolo US-Led Sanctions Against Iran Could Mean an Endless Battle with the Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

The worldwide use of mobile technology has increased by over 200% in the past five years, making building out a 5G mobile network for the American mobile market imperative. It’s critical for businesses to remain competitive and important for citizens. However, compared to current mobile speeds around the world, America ranks a distant 30th — Croatia has faster speeds. While most American telecom companies have introduced 5G to their networks, to describe the US roll-out as sluggish would be kind.

Huawei’s Desire to Capitalize on US 5G Market

The one company looking to expedite this and make an inroad into the American 5G market is Chinese tech giant Huawei. But in May of 2019, the Trump administration slammed the brakes on the tech behemoth.

Trump declared “a national emergency” and placed Huawei on the US Entity List. This list, issued by the US Department of Commerce, restricts those on it to severe exporting, re-exporting and transfer rules. It’s essentially a blacklist. The Trump administration felt that Huawei poses an “unacceptable” risk to national security, which includes the infrastructure of the internet.

President Donald Trump claimed that if Hauwei gained access to that kind of infrastructure there could be “potentially catastrophic effects.” There is no denying that security risks in technology are real – isn’t the internet as a whole is one giant security risk.

One of the Trump administration’s chief concerns is that Hauwei “can be compelled by Chinese law to hand over data or spy on behalf of the Chinese government.”

The Role of Telecom Lobbying

All things considered, it would be negligent to ignore the impact of lobbying on behalf of the Telecommunications Services industry. Two of the largest were AT&T who spent about $13 million and Verizon who spent $10 million. Considering that Sprint and T-Mobile are in the middle of a merger, it’s not surprising the Telecom Services industry spent $101 million on lobbying and political contributions in 2019.

Even though America has legally restricted Hauwei from attempting access, the tech giant has been pitching to the European Union with success. Claiming that their new 5G product would be important for markets like the UK, Spain, and Italy, who have a fragmented spectrum market. Going further Hauwei asserts their technology is “one generation ahead” of what is currently available.

The pitch has proven successful. Huawei has signed contracts to establish 5G networks with 47 European vendors, including America’s strongest EU ally, Britain.

UK PM Johnson Defies Trump on Huawei

In a rare defiant move against President Trump, Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has greenlit the company’s help in building out its own 5G network. The rationale being that Hauwei will not be included in the country’s “core functions” and only operating in about “35% of the overall network.”

This is much to the chagrin of British conservative and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage.

In a recent op-ed piece, the conservative lighting rod said there was “no room for compromise” and that Britain must reverse course and not partner with Huawei. Farage said that Britain must “remain with the Western democracies that have always been our allies” or risk falling “in with the Chinese Communist Party.”

Farage is parroting what US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said back in December of 2019 in a similar op-ed piece. Pompeo stated that under Chinese Intelligence Law, the Chinese Communist Party can “force any 5G supplier headquartered in China to turn over data and take other actions in secret.” Pompeo claimed that China has been accused of spying in the Czech Republic, Poland, and the Netherlands as well as corrupt practices in countries like Algeria, Belgium, and Sierra Leone.

Pompeo said the US Department of Justice has charged members of the Tianjin hacking group APT 10 of working with the Chinese Ministry for State Security. The DOJ claims that the hackers have attacked dozens of European and American firms stealing both intellectual property and sensitive personal information.

Huawei’s response to all of this has been simple: it’s not a security threat.

Huawei leaders have said that the US has not provided evidence that it works inappropriately with the Chinese government or that it would in the future. They also claim there are ways to mitigate any security risk, ones that have worked in other countries.

‘The US is Right to Treat Huawei as a Security Threat’

In an interview at The Verge, seven China-watchers, professors and politicians were asked if Huawei was a security threat. Six of the seven agree with OpenVPN CEO Francis Dinha who said:  “The US is right to treat Huawei as a security threat…No matter what equipment we use for 5G, there will be security risks.”

The dissenting voice was Qing Wang, Professor of Marketing & Innovation at the University of Warwick. Wang likens Hauwei to another Chinese based e-commerce, retail, and technology company, Alibaba — which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and has a valuation of $500 billion (US). Alibaba is considered one of the 10 most valuable companies and is the 59th biggest public company in the world.

For Wang, the tech giant is a textbook case of a great company on the rise. However, they’re being proh9biting from achieving their full potential because of the “anti-globalization policy and sentiment of the US and the ongoing trade war with China.”

One American company feeling the pinch of the blacklisting is Google. Since any American company is unable to do business with Haiwei, the tech company is forbidden from loading its usual native suite of Android and Google apps and services on new Huawei phones. Google issued a release saying that due to the ban on the company they are unable to certify new Hauwei phones, which run on Google’s Android Operating System.

Android & Play legal director Tristan Ostrowki cited “the risk of compromised security either in the devices or via an app that has been tampered with” in an effort to prevent owners from sideloading the missing Google apps.

No Setup of 5G Will Ever Be Risk-Free

There can be no denying two things. One is that 5G is here and it’s inevitable and two, there are security risks. With that being said, there are security risks all over the internet. Are there ways to capitalize on the opportunities of a 5G network and while still marginalizing security risks? I suspect there are.

However, for every security risk thwarted, there are loads of hackers looking for a way to subvert that.

The White House is working with American tech companies to create software to run on the next generation of 5G networks. However, it faces a real problem that in order to do that effectively it would need the telecom and technologies to agree on common engineering standards to run code on any hardware manufacturer. Considering that many of these companies consider that technology to be their lifeblood, that seems unlikely.

Furthermore, even if that happened, it would only lessen — not eliminate — the reliance on Hauwei.

In the tech world, you never want to be playing catch-up. And with America playing catch-up it portends that having the 30th fastest mobile speed in the world will only fall further. It also places the two things America claims to love most, capitalism and Americans, in jeopardy.

L'articolo Is Huawei a Security Threat, Friend or Foe? — Or All Three? proviene da InsideOver.

On February 6, US President Donald Trump announced that al Qaeda leader Qassim al-Rimi had been killed during an airstrike strike in Yemen. The terrorist group has been in America’s cross-hairs for many years since declaring jihad against the United States.

What Is ‘Jihad?’

Radical terrorists like al Qaeda have used the term “jihad” to describe and defend their heinous acts around the globe over the years. For many in the West, it’s become the norm for many reporters to conflate the words “jihad” and “terrorism.” However, in the Islamic religion, “jihad” can also mean the struggle within oneself against sin.

Much to the chagrin of Islamic clerics and scholars who prioritize religious piety, Islamic radicals like the Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS subscribe to the more radical and jingoistic physical definition of “jihad”: namely “a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam.” It’s these Islamic radicals and terrorists, that have committed many of the atrocities around the world since al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001, followed by the so-called global “War on Terror.”

The Post-Cold War Void

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a large void was created that was quickly filled by the military juggernaut of the United States. With the collapse, former Soviet countries were also freed from the grip of their rule and began fighting for independence. While involvement in military conflict rooted in religion was not a new issue for the United States, it was during the Bosnian War in 1992 when many Americans first became aware of jihadism.

At the same time the US was gaining exposure to this jihad in Bosnia, Osama bin Laden was further radicalizing his group of al Qaeda mujahideen in Afghanistan. He was backed by the US and Western powers in hopes his fighters would defeat the Soviet Union.

Capitalism, Communism And Jihad

The conflicting ideas of capitalism and communism and their influence was what defined the Cold War. In today’s cold war, however, Islamic jihad is seen as a singular force opposed to the forces of freedom. Jihad is overly simplified as solely being associated with Islamic violence, however as aforementioned, jihad is not only a military “fight against the enemies of Islam” but there is also a political componet to jihad that can not be denied.

In a recent article on The Intercept, anthropologist and author Darryl Li (The Universal Enemy: Jihad, Empire, and the Challenge of Solidarity) put it well when he wrote:

“Consider for a moment three different things: the Irish Republican Army, the Republican Party in the United States, and Plato’s Republic. All of these employ the term “republic,” and all of them somehow have a connection with violence. If you lumped them together and claimed they represent an ideology called “republicanism,” that obviously wouldn’t make any sense. Yet that’s what the category of “jihadism” essentially does.”

The Varieties Of Violent Jihad

While not always regional, today’s jihad militants can vary from a small army in one country to a splintered section of regionalized cells in others to mass shooters and automotive attackers. It’s this transient nature that makes the battle against jihad—or terrorism—more complicated.

The nearly two decades old “War on Terror” has seen periodic military successes, but given the nature, mobility, and breadth of the combatants, it’s proven a challenge to end. Many of those successes may have been short-lived. While they may have curbed further advancement of one Islamic terrorist or group, the success, in turn, radicalized others. After ten years on the run, the death of bin Laden would splinter al Quada and lead to an even more extreme version of jihad, the Islamic State or ISIS.

The ISIS Terror ‘Caliphate’

ISIS initially began by calling for a worldwide caliphate and would go on to help the Iraqi insurgency during the American invasion. ISIS has proven to be horrific in their jihad: they videotaped beheadings of civilians, aid workers, and journalists, in addition to the destruction of cultural heritage sites as well as human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The group spent many bloody years fighting in Iraq and Syria, but in February of 2019, President Donald Trump declared that “ISIS was 100% defeated.” According to the US military, this was categorically “not true.” Like many of Trump’s comments about the US military, this bold statement was given without consulting military leadership. The Pentagon was left scrambling to defend the statement and explaining why the US should maintain involvement in Syria.

ISIS ‘Re-Surgence’

Six months later, the Pentagon issued a report saying that ISIS was “re-surging” in Syria, stating: “The reduction of US forces has decreased the support available for Syrian partner forces at a time when their forces need more training and equipping to respond to the ISIS resurgence.”

Two weeks after that report was issued American Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stated ISIS is “not in a re-surgent state” despite the Pentagon report.

Because this type of jihad or terrorism is so amorphous, it transcends state, region, country, and continent. It also isn’t limited to one fundamentalist Islamic concept. While ISIS may be considered the more extreme and well known, there are other international groups like the Afghan Taliban, Boko Haram, and al-Shaabab.

The Rise Of Terrorism In Africa

The Middle East is still ripe with plenty of military and ideological conflict. It remains the hotbed of jihad where peace, when found, is sporadic and short-lived. However, over the years Africa has seen the rise of these Islamic extremists and jihad, making it a growing global concern.

It’s gotten so bad in Africa that in January of 2020, France President Emmanuel Macron threatened to withdraw French forces from Africa. He summoned the presidents of Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania to a meeting to curb hostilities and work out how to stop the “rapid advance of armed Islamist extremists in their regions.”

Russia and China have also begun asserting more influence on the continent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has increased arms sales while creating security agreements and training programs for some of the unstable African countries like Libya. There Putin has dispatched both troops and aid to help militia leader Khalifa Haftar curb the civil war.

China has increased its commercial investment in Africa. They’ve helped build factories and infrastructure in addition to operating a major port in the East African country of Dijibouti. The Chinese military is currently considering a new port in Senegal under the pretense of assisting the Senegalese Navy.

This makes US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s weighing the withdrawal of forces in Africa perplexing. Esper’s stated goal is a re-alignment of American troops amid heightened tensions in the Middle East between Iran and the US. With the inroads being laid down by both China and Russia, it makes this move by the US Military rather confounding. Luckily, late in January Esper decided not to re-locate the troops.

US Kills An Anti-ISIS Partner

The American assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani further complicates the War on Terror, not only because it inflamed tensions in the Middle East but the US also lost one of their staunchest indirect supporters of the elimination of ISIS.

There is no doubt that Soleimani orchestrated the death of numerous American’s and allied forces in the Middle East. However, by mastering the art of the “proxy war” under Suleimani, he was equally as deadly towards ISIS.

Not helping matters is that both Germany and Britain have begun pulling their forces from Iraq and The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS has ceased operating. In a recent NYTimes Op-ed, former FBI agent Ali H. Soufan said: “In 2016, Donald Trump, then a candidate for president, described Barack Obama as the ‘founder of ISIS.’ In the end, it may be Mr. Trump who comes to be known not as the terrorist group’s founder, but as its savior.”

‘Jihad’ And ‘Terrorism’ Aren’t Synonymous—But The Line Is Pencil Thin

Regardless of what it’s called or referred to, the American led War on Terror has been a financial sinkhole. According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, as America’s global war inches into its second decade, the financial cost for the US on both military operations and veteran care is around $5.6 trillion.

In addition to the astronomical financial cost, the human toll has also been significant. According to a report in 2018 from Brown University’s Costs of War Project, the cumulative toll on impacted countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan deaths by direct violence totals between 480,000 and 500,000, with fully 244,000 of them likely civilians. That number jumps into the millions when considering those impacted by disease, displacement, and loss of infrastructure. In addition the global wars have cost 10,003 American deaths and 56,422 injured or wounded.

Despite all the proclamations from various governments, the bombings, battles and the death in the Middle East—and increasingly in Africa—prove that jihad or terrorism is still very much alive and thriving. While the periodic leader may be killed or captured, there will be someone to replace them … and they’ll be even angrier. Given the shapeless and the inchoate existence of jihad militants, the global war may not be against terror but against time itself.

L'articolo Understanding Jihad And The Growth Of Terrorism proviene da InsideOver.

The upcoming election season promises to be the most expensive in American history. A study by Cross Screen Media and published at Politico estimates that $6 billion – a 57 percent increase from 2018 – will be spent. Currently leading the charge towards that $6 billion are billionaires Tom Steyer and entrepreneur and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

Can Money Buy Electoral Victory?

Of the $410 million already spent by all candidates, Steyer and Bloomberg account for 78 percent of that. This adds up to $320 million. Despite spending all that money, however, both candidates are mostly polling in the single digits. Steyer and Bloomberg’s expenditure has had very little impact on most voters. They’ve also been unable to compete with the top four front-runners of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg.

So far it’s only been age – Bloomberg is 77, and the second-oldest candidate – that has allowed either to compete with the top tier Democratic candidates. However, Bloomberg’s highest polling is 10%, which allows him to squeak into the top four in the Utah Democratic Primary ,and Steyer has purchased enough ad time in South Carolina to work his way into second place in that state’s primary. The only stiff competition these two billionaires are facing is how to outspend one another.

Bloomberg’s Bizarre Political Journey

Meanwhile, the four front-runners are sharpening their elbows and their policies as the season kicks into high gear and the stakes become larger. All of this has left many strategists curious about what the two billionaires end game is. Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg has a long history of bouncing around the American political party spectrum. He was a lifelong Democrat, then became a Republican, then an Independent and now he’s back to being a Democrat. After being elected as the Republican Mayor of New York City, he became an ardent supporter of less than progressive ideas like:

• The discriminatory policing policy “stop and frisk” which largely targeted people of color.
• Financial deregulation
• Social Security cuts
• Campaigned to change NYC Mayoral term limits
• Supporting George W. Bush and his second term

“I Don’t Know How True All Of It Is”

As a man who honed his financial prowess on the testosterone-driven Wall Street of the past, Bloomberg’s lifestyle managed to roll into his entrepreneurial life too. Bloomberg has been accused of creating a “frat house” atmosphere as he was building up his namesake, Bloomberg L.P. This may prove more problematic than Joe Biden’s touching “issue” from 2019. Indeed, there are currently three active sexual harassment lawsuits against his company.

Given the sensitivity in America to gender relations, equality, and identity, this may be a larger issue for the candidate. In 2018, in the wake of the disgraced CBS news anchor Charlie Rose dismissal for sexual harassment, Bloomberg was quoted by The New York Times as saying: “I don’t know how true all of it is.” This prompted spokesman Stu Loeser to issue a statement saying: “He (Bloomberg) believes his words have not always aligned with his values…”

Steyer And Need To Impeach: “A Weirdo”

Fellow candidate and billionaire Tom Steyer’s history doesn’t carry the same baggage that Bloomberg history does. Aside from his investments, which include private prisons and coal, he could almost be an almost “progressive” billionaire candidate. Most notably, he’s never been a fan of President Donald Trump. So much so that he started the group Need to Impeach long before conversations began about impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives. President Trump even took notice of Steyer by calling him “a weirdo.”

Steyer also has the type of pedigree that fast tracks a person to billionaire status. A Yale undergraduate who went to work for Morgan Stanley, then onto the Stanford Graduate School of Business before joining Goldman Sachs. From Goldman Sachs Steyer worked for a private equity firm before starting his successful hedge fund, Farallon Capital.

In a recent good-spirited, yet contentious, interview with The Intercept’s Medhi Hassan’s podcast, Deconstructed, Hassan asked Steyer repeatedly why he doesn’t take his money and invest it elsewhere. Hassan suggests things like using his wealth to conquer malaria or backing other Democratic state candidates to gain control of the U.S. Senate. Steyer emphatically retorted: “Because I think I can win.”

Income Inequality, Politics And Democracy

American politics is a menage a trois of income inequality, politics, and Democracy. And while it seems obvious to everyone but the two candidates, neither Steyer nor Bloomberg has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination this July. But maybe that’s not the point. Eric Levitz points out in New York Magazine that perhaps their message is really a visual dog whistle to other billionaires detailing that the real power and influence comes from running for office.

With a net worth of $58 billion for Bloomberg and +/- $2 billion for Steyer, the amount of money they spend on their campaigns will ultimately prove insignificant to their overall net worth. Considering the rates at which personal and business assets accrue, it’s more than conceivable that their net worth will increase during their campaign odyssey, no matter what they spend.

As George Soros and Sheldon Adelson represent, both Democrats and Republicans aren’t immune or new to billionaires purchasing influence. They and the other uber-rich billionaires have elected to avoid the front line of the political fray. Before Donald Trump, billionaires preferred to stay behind the scenes and not get dirty, while still reaping the benefits.

That was until 2015 when Donald Trump opened the floodgates on billionaires running for office. Trump created the template—both by actually winning and then creating his tax break of 2017. It was marketed as a boon for the middle-class but has proven to be everything but that. While the Federal Government ran a massive deficit, wealth inequality has “increased to its highest level in three decades.”

The latent message of both Steyer and Bloomberg is that ultimate power, win or lose, is on the campaign trail. Even if they don’t motivate their less vain and narcissistic billionaire brethren to jump into the democratic process, they’re proving that doing so won’t impact their wealth. It could be argued that they’re proving you can yield more influence by running than financially supporting a candidate.

But even more than that, they’re showing that should a political figure, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or movement, like universal health care, threaten themselves or their ilk, the cost to get their voices heard is near zero.

With this political season on par to spend $6 billion, consider that the world’s richest man, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, makes $6.5 billion a month. Should Bezos ever decide to run for political office for any reason, the kind of money he has would make a formidable adversary to any politician or policy that he opposed.

On their current track, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg will spend more than $500 million on a campaign that they have no chance of winning. The short-term impact these two candidates will have on either the Democratic party or the process will be negligible, if at all. The long-term impact will could see an increase in the number of uber-wealthy individuals attempting a run for political office.

So, by the time the Democrats open their convention on July 13, Steyer and Bloomberg will prove to their fellow billionaires to have won something more important and more impactful than public office…the power of influence…without the expense.

L'articolo Democratic Hopefuls Michael Bloomberg And Tom Steyer: Money For Nothing And Your Politics For Free proviene da InsideOver.

On 15 January, after 18 months of a trade war with China, United States President Donald Trump and Vice Premier Liu He of China signed a “Phase 1” trade agreement. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin proclaimed this as a “big win” for the president but also acknowledged that this phase did not achieve all of the reforms they had sought.

The trade war has had a profound impact on both countries and this agreement is believed to be the first step towards creating a more level trade environment between the two countries. Yet as the fanfare fades on phase one and the details begin to emerge there is some scepticism as to what was accomplished.

In December of 2019, in anticipation of this phase one, President Trump decided against imposing additional any further tariffs on China. He decided against adding $160 billion of goods from China for items such as cell phones and laptops but changed his mind, just in time for the holiday season. The United States also slashed the tariff rate in half for $120 billion worth of goods from 15% to 7.5%.

However, 25% of tariffs are still in place for some items that the United States buys from China. Much of those tariffs are attached to components that American manufacturers need to assemble and complete their products in the United States. The issue with these tariffs remaining is that American manufacturers have been one of the more affected sectors in America not only since the trade war but for years now. In response to this, President Trump claims that China is paying those tariffs but studies have found that these costs are largely paid by American importers.

As part of this first agreement, China has agreed to increase its purchases of goods and services from the United States by more than 50% over the next two years. This includes $38 billion in services, $52 billion in energy products, $78 billion in manufactured goods and $32 billion in agriculture.

Farmers, particularly those in the American Midwest, have been hurt by the trade war. Due to the lack of Chinese demand and low prices, many farmers saw a decrease of close to 50% of the value of their crops. While some of that loss was offset by federal aid, it hasn’t lessened the overall impact. It’s thought that the billions in agriculture that China has promised to purchase will turn that industry around.

As Minnesota soybean and corn farmer Kristin Duncanson said in a recent NPR interview: “We’re optimistic that signing the agreement will reopen opportunities…But I’m also a realist enough to know that until the beans are actually shipped to customers that we can’t count our chickens before they hatch.”

One of the more contentious issues in the trade war surrounded intellectual property rights. A particular irritant for American tech companies that wanted to do business in China, they were required to provide access to their intellectual property. The Chinese government claimed to do this under the auspices of market access and licensing approval. The reality is that Chinese tech companies would co-opt and re-produce that intellectual property and then undercut the American tech companies.

It’s more than likely that this will remain a troublesome issue between the two countries because China has only agreed to strengthen legal protections for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. To combat pirating of movies, games, and software, China has also conceded to improve “criminal and civil procedures to combat online infringement of pirated and counterfeit goods.”

As world leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, many trade experts say this first phase of the trade agreement was made to ease tensions. Mexican economic minister Graciela Marquez Colin said this deal is an “intermediate step.”

While in Davos, Chad Brown, and Jin Keyu, among others, point out the primary danger of this trade agreement is the impact on the global market. For China to meet its obligations with the US, it will inevitably shift purchases from other countries.

Brown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, spoke bluntly and has called the agreement a “disaster” and that it doesn’t address any of the “systemic issues.” Keyu, associate professor at the London School of Economics supported Brown: “You can have Chinese people buying more US goods and somehow the Chinese consumers will have to absorb the 2.4 billion dollars of American nuts and say goodbye to New Zealand, Australian suppliers…”

The baseline year for the agreement is 2017 in which the US share of China’s imports was 9% in those target categories (services, energy products, manufactured goods, and agriculture). According to Bloomberg Economics, that would almost double the US share by bumping it to 17%. Countries like Angola, the Republic of Congo and Mongolia derive 57%, 49%, and 47%, respectively, of their sales to China and would be profoundly impacted by the doubling of the US share.

Many world economic experts agree that the most difficult trade negotiations between the US and China have yet to begin. However, in spite of that and the potential global concerns since the 15 January signing and at the World Economic Forum, the head of the World Trade Organization, Roberto Azevedo said: “The political impact of (the phase one deal) cannot be underestimated.”

China has agreed to almost all of America’s demands for this first phase. During his visit to Davos, the Chinese malleability prompted President Trump to boast that while the deal is around $200 billion the number of purchases could end up closer to $300 billion. Of course, this would be contingent upon China following through and adhering to the agreement. And if they failed to do so, properly enforcing the agreement.

This enforcement is important because while China has agreed to end the forced technology transfer to market in China and agreed to strengthen intellectual property protections…they’ve agreed to this before.

The administration and adherence to the trade agreement are paramount to its success. According to the American Action Forum: “Any trade deal is only as good as its enforcement mechanism.” Traditionally, trade disputes have been handled by a neutral panel of experts, not the trade negotiators from the countries involved.

In this phase one agreement, the two countries have created a new resolution system. They’ve decided to resolve any issues on their own. Unfortunately, neither China nor the United States has been fond of resolutions, it’s one of the reasons the trade war lasted 18 months.

As the second-largest economy, behind the US, China has proven to be a formidable foe and that they won’t be bullied. What this means is that if there is a dispute after this first phase is implemented is that the most likely recourse will be more tariffs…or complete withdrawal by either country.

A source close to the Ministry of Commerce was quoted by the Global Times, a tabloid under the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, People’s Daily: “We can’t expect that the China-US trade fiction will disappear simply because of the signing of a deal.” It was also intimated that it will lead to negotiations toward the next round of agreements any time soon.

The phase one agreement goes into effect on 14 February and has many economists, politicians, manufacturers, and farmers anticipating what the outcome and impact will be.

With that said, one immediate outcome is that phase one signing has emboldened President Trump. The president has now set his sights on the European Union. Trump has threatened the EU with tariffs on the bloc’s auto imports if it does not bend to Washington’s will. In an interview with CNBC, Trump said that the European Union will “have no choice.”

L'articolo The US and China Phase 1 Trade Agreement – All That Glitters Is Not Gold proviene da InsideOver.

Late in 2019, as the tension and political chasm between America and Iran were growing and American sanctions were strangling the country, Iran was witnessing its largest and most vocal uprising since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Unfortunately, the American led assassination of the Iranian’s beloved General Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Quds Force – the covert section of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. – took attention away from Iranians day-to-day misery the sanctions were causing.

While the sanctions were divisive, Soleimani’s death unified the country and shifted the Iranian rabble’s attention from misery to patriotism. Not unexpected, both the Iranian citizens and government have since ratcheted up the anti-American rhetoric.

While most Americans, including the Commander in Chief, have called for an end to “endless wars” the US remains knee-deep in military actions around the globe. Legal wrangling and wordplay aside, Soleimani’s assassination is just about as close to war as possible. It’s as far as possible from ending “endless wars.”

This has left many inside America and out wondering what another military campaign would accomplish for America or its allies.

The American exhaustion that surrounds our military actions over the past 20 years makes this march towards war odd. Even more peculiar is the president’s Republican party apparent blinders around the topic of wars and their capitulation towards the attack.

However, with that being said, it would be dangerous to ignore two monolithic hurdles the president is currently facing. President Trump faces re-election this year as well as a post-impeachment Senate trial to remove him from office (of which he is expected to be acquitted by his republican brethren).

As Trump begins ramping up his re-election, there is historical motivation to continue military actions. The precedence is that no president in America has ever lost re-election during a war:

• James Madison – the War of 1812, reelected in 1812
• Abraham Lincoln – the Civil War, reelected in 1864
• Woodrow Wilson – World War I, not at war but nearing it, reelected in 1916
• Franklin D. Roosevelt –  World War II, entered the war and re-elected for a fourth time in 1944.
• Lyndon B. Johnson – the Vietnam War issue through the Gulf of Tonkin, elected in 1964
• Richard Nixon – the Vietnam War, reelected in 1972
• George W. Bush – the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, reelected in 2004

Just nine days after being impeached on December 18, President Trump was forced to react to the attacks on the military base in Kirkuk, Iraq. The strikes that had killed one American contractor and wounded both Americans and Iraqi’s. When presented with the killing of Soleimani at this point, he rejected it. Instead, he ordered airstrikes to those sections of Iraq and Syria where members of the militia group thought to be responsible for the attack were reportedly located.

Watching television on 31 December, as news reports were coming in on the attack of the American embassy in Baghdad, the news captured President Trump’s attention… and ire. He went ballistic.

President Trump has vociferously vilified Hillary Clinton for her role in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi – the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and US Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. As he watched another American embassy being attacked, the president became even more adamant that nothing like Benghazi would take place on his watch.

Re-considering his options for retaliation of the attack on the embassy, Trump then gave the order to move on General Soleimani. By January 2 there were reports of an airstrike near the Baghdad airport and it was those early reports that claimed Soleimani had been killed.

It’s worth noting that the protests at the embassy had ended by the time America launched the attack that killed Soleimani.

Eschewing the attacks on the embassy as motivation for the targeted bombing, the Pentagon went political. To protect their boss, the Pentagon first claimed that Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”

Since then, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mike Esper have batted around reasons like the drone attack was a “deterrent to future attacks” and “a response to the attack in Kirkuk.” In fact, on FOX’s Laura Ingraham show, President Trump said: “I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies” Soleimani was plotting against.

That was news to Secretary of Defense Esper: “I didn’t see one concerning four embassies.”

Neither the US military nor President Trump’s administration has provided evidence to substantiate plots for future attacks by Iran or Soleimani. They have also not presented any verifiable imminent threat and have found difficulty rationalizing the drone attack.

Whatever his political motivation may or may not be, it’s impossible to ignore who important and relevant the attack is geopolitically. To ignore President Trump’s admiration of Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman is to discount the connection that exists between America, Saudi Arabia and the ongoing war in Yemen.

In 2014, Saudi Arabia launched a US-backed attempted overthrow of the Yemen Houthis to restore former president Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Since then, a cadre of Iranians has provided weapons and training to the Houthis. That war has devolved into one of the world’s most dire humanitarian crises.

The Intercept recently reported that on the night Soleimani was killed “the US launched a similar operation aimed at killing Abdul Reza Shahla, a top Iranian commander in Yemen and the commander of the Yemen division of the Quds Force.”

America’s strongest ally in the region, Israel, both complemented and distanced itself from America’s strike on Soleimani. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Trump was “worthy of appreciation” for the attack, but he immediately backed away calling it “an American event.”

In response to the attack on Soleimani, Iran bombed two US air bases in Iraq. After that, both countries appear to have taken a step back. President Trump stated on 8 January, claiming that Iran is “standing down.”

Unfortunately, this comes as no relief to members of NATO. In the same statement, Trump called for Germany, France and the UK to follow his lead and leave the Iran nuclear deal. He also called for all of Europe to take a larger role in the Middle East.

On the world stage, the Middle East and most of Europe may be chagrined by President Trump’s actions and words; however, there is a group of individuals and organizations that are excited by the prospect of more military dust-ups – the defense industry.

Many of the President’s most steadfast private sector supporters have been on American television supporting President Trump’s military moves. While their motivation may seem supportive or even patriotic, it can’t be ignored that these supporters and pundits have direct ties to the defense industry. Some of the most visible faces include:

• Chairman for the Institute for the Study of War Jack Keane, who is a partner at SCP Partners, a venture capital firm that invests in defense contractors.
• Former Iraqi Ambassador and FOX News regular John Negroponte who works for McLarty Associates, a defense lobbying firm.
• Retired General David Petraeus who works for Kholberh, Kravis Roberts & Co, a defense industry investment firm.
• Jeh Johnson is on the Board of Directors for Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest defense contractors.
• Former U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is a director at Raytheon, the defense company that builds the drone that killed Soleimani.

Since the attack on Soleimani in Iraq, the stock prices for all major defense contractors have risen considerably.

With all that said, the one thing that is without question is that for a few days, the American news cycle, and the world’s, moved away from Trump’s impeachment. Despite being dialed down, the potential for war with Iran remains real. Having a potential war as the top news story versus impeachment and a pending Senate trial is more than likely to yield political dividends.

President Trump’s foreign policy agenda could best be described as schizophrenically opaque. He has shown deference towards some of America’s biggest foes like North Korea, China and Russia while engaging in trade wars and increasing sanctions with them. At the same time, he’s played the hardliner with American allies like Canada and Mexico.

Whether this altercation with Iran is motivated by Trump’s desire for re-election or an avoidance tactic for his current predicament, or perhaps even a genuine interest in reforming the Middle East, he has left many in America and around the world scratching their heads.

Whatever his motivations and ambitions may be, President Donald Trump continues to prove himself a political enigma both in America and around the world.

L'articolo Will There Be War? Trump’s Knee-Deep in Global Military Actions proviene da InsideOver.

In 1953, after Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened to limit the oil reserve control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP, British Petroleum) and threatened to nationalize the country’s oil industry, the United States CIA put “Operation Ajax” (“Operation Boot” in the United Kingdom) into action. This successful coup d’etat put the Shah of Iran back into power and reestablished Iran’s oil policy in a favorable direction for Anglo-American interests. Thus began US involvement in attempting to control the Iranian government that holds approximately 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves and is “too close for comfort” to America’s closest ally in the Middle East with its vehemently anti- Israel position.

America’s Desire To Recapture Control Of Iran

The Western puppet regime of the Shah stayed in power in Iran for 26 years, until the 1979 Iranian revolution deposed the Shah and Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took over, establishing the Islamic Republic. Since then, the United States has been tightening the economic and political noose around Iran to varying degrees. In response to the 1979 revolution, President Jimmy Carter placed economic sanctions on Iran. Put another way, he engaged in “economic warfare,” with the country. These sanctions included the freezing of assets, including property.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan placed a second round of sanctions that were expanded in 1996 to include any firm doing business with Iran.

A third round of sanctions in 2006 were expanded to encompass banking and insurance transactions, shipping and web-hosting services in addition to the preexisting sanctions on oil, gas, the export of refined petroleum products and any dealing with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Trump’s Intensification Of Iran Sanctions

These already crippling sanctions were expanded for the fourth time in September of 2019 after President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the country was subsequently alleged to have perpetrated an attack on a Saudi oil field. These new sanctions specifically targeted the Iranian National Bank with the US threatening to sanction “any country that purchases oil from Iran.”

This type of sanctioning or “economic warfare”, isn’t unique to Iran. Currently, America has about 8,000 (7,967 as of March 2019) sanctions in place around the world. While this is a lot, under President Bill Clinton it’s estimated that around 40 percent of the world’s populations (2.3 billion people) were subjected to some form of US sanctions. Nonetheless, given the tumultuous nature of the Middle East, Iran’s oil reserves, and the country’s strongly anti-Israeli stance, Iran is undoubtedly currently the biggest target for sanction by the US.

What Is America’s Sanctions Strategy?

America uses these sanctions to disrupt not just Iran’s national government but to impact all areas of the affected country, typically with a desire to cause unrest in the populace and change the regime. This economic strangling in place of an active or sponsored military coup d’etat has been the preferred method for the US government for decades now. Naomi Klein refers to the disruption of both the economy and the sociopolitical environment as “the Shock Doctrine” and is explained in detail in her book by the same name.

While “economic warfare” had been practiced for decades, the marriage between the economy and the sociopolitical aspect of a country began to take full shape in Indonesia and Greece in the 1960s. The strategy was fully realized by Milton Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” who assisted the CIA in the overthrow of socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 through a combination of economic and sociopolitical manoeuvring and subversion. The successful coup resulted in the death of the Chilean leader. He was replaced with the American-endorsed dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet promptly privatized all of what Allende had nationalized. This allowed Western multi-national companies to bilk the country of both resources and money. Under the guise of “free-market capitalism”, this is the desired end game of Friedman’s plan and the US sanctions philosophy.

Overthrow, Replace, Plunder: Different Justifications, Same Strategy

Under the guises of “anti-communism” and the Drug War, Friedman’s ideas became the template for most of Latin America or anywhere America determined a threat. Today, “anti-terrorism” has been added to the list of reasons to enact this model of economic warfare.

Often requiring some element of military force to be effective, economic warfare prevents growth, prohibits manufacturing and causes businesses to fail which results in higher unemployment. Sanctions and economic strangulation also squeezes the middle class. Ironically, while these sanctions are designed to punish a regime or government, a disproportionate amount of the burden of them lands at the doorstep of the poorest and most vulnerable.

The efficacy of sanctions or this type of “economic warfare” remains questionable. In almost every case, some form of the military advisor or involvement was required to see the sanctions fully realized. The military involvement was either sanctioned and sponsored by America or was direct use of American troops. For example, during the Salvadoran Civil War from 1979 to1992, the US-supported and financed the creation of a junta to change the political environment. More recently, 13 years of international sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s starving and slowly killing hundreds of thousands of its population still ended up with the 2003 US-led invasion.

Iran’s Economic Nosedive And Resulting Civil Unrest

In Iran, the Milton Friedman boilerplate of strangling a country into submission by using both the economy and sociopolitical measures has seen the country spiral into an economic nosedive. This, in turn, has led to civil unrest. While these current sanctions were meant to bring Iran to the negotiating table to discuss their nuclear program, it’s not working. According to the NY Times, “the Iranians may be trying to reassemble the elements of the nuclear program and they have not yet re-engaged in negotiations. But the uprisings are soaking up political time and attention.”

These most recent sanctions on Iran have pushed Iranian citizens into the desired result of open protests, but the Iranian government and military have responded differently than other countries have in the past. Instead of ceding ground they have responded with even more ruthlessness. In November of 2019, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini summoned his forces to “do whatever it takes” to quell the current uprising. They did this by opening fire on unarmed Iranian protesters. While both the US State Department and Amnesty International put the death toll in the hundreds, the Iranian Interior Ministry reported to Reuters that the crackdown has led to a death toll closer to 1,500.

Sanctions Are Hurting Iranians More Than The Iranian Government

It seems as though the traditional model of sanctions and “economic warfare” is working as designed but not having the desired outcome of regime change. While citizens feel the brunt of them, they have only strengthened the resolve of Iranian hard-liners. They argue that “any negotiation” with America is futile because all the US wants is regime change and is vociferously “anti-Islam.” Moreover, because of America backing out of the nuclear deal, Iran’s government can often successfully argue that America’s government is inherently untrustworthy.

No one anticipated the resolve of the Iranians. Despite negative economic growth, the halving of Iran’s oil output and the skyrocketing cost of gas for its citizens that led to the current uprising, Iran’s leaders show no sign of acquiescing to American demands or caving into international condemnation and pressure.

Trump Is Strengthening Iran’s Hardliners

Almost unwittingly, combined with everything else, these latest sanctions by President Trump have almost made America an ally in Iran’s “quest for political dominance.” While these crippling sanctions continue to force Iran towards the edge of economic collapse they’re also leading Iran to align itself with the two largest foes of America: China and Russia.

As Iranian leadership continues to spout anti-American rhetoric, its citizens continue to suffer and the economy marches toward certain implosion, the Iranian Navy is preparing for four days of naval exercises with America’s two other adversaries, Russia and China.

It’s fair to say that Iran is facing its toughest period since the 1979 revolution. It’s also fair to say the current situation is not America’s desired result of the ongoing economic sanctions.

L'articolo Iran Uses Economic Sanctions To Become Third Biggest American Adversary proviene da InsideOver.

Many myths surround a successful entrepreneur. One of the biggest is that you’ll find success with your endeavour. However, the fact is about 20% of new businesses fail within the first year. That number climbs to 50% by the fifth year. Other myths include the traits of entrepreneurs: that they’re ‘genius’, they have “created a need, then fill the need” or that they’re hardscrabble people who built something in a dingy basement or a garage.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the world’s richest man, is none of those things. He is, in fact, one of those rare “once in a lifetime” entrepreneurs. A Princeton University graduate who worked on Wall Street before deciding to start Amazon. It could be argued that he was the right person at the right time.

Luck also plays a role in the success of an entrepreneur.

Amazon.com opened its cyber doors in 1994 as strictly an online retailer of books. It’s grown since then and now along with Google, Facebook and Apple it’s considered one of the “big four” tech companies. The company also has an incredible market capitalization approaching one trillion dollars. Today, almost every type of product and service, aside from public insurance or medicine, is offered through Amazon or one of its many subsidiaries. Unless you live off the grid, Amazon is touching your life whether you’re aware of it or not.

But does Amazon have a strategy for an endgame? Surely their double-digit corporate growth and expansion can’t go on forever. Maybe they’re hedging their bets to see how big they can get before the United States Department of Justice steps in with antitrust law violations?

In short, antitrust laws exist for the benefit of consumers. The laws serve to keep companies from playing dirty. While price rigging, market allocation, and price-fixing all violate antitrust laws, it’s monopolies that are most associated with antitrust laws. One of the most recent well-known antitrust cases involved Microsoft’s anti-competitive practice by forcing its browsers on computers that had the Windows operating system.

Amazon’s reach, with almost 700,000 employees around the world the companies reach is far and wide. It’s largest and fastest-growing division, Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud hosting, has captured about 37% of that market but still isn’t considered a monopoly. If you stream shows from Netflix, they are AWS’s number one client spending around 19 million dollars a year. Other users in the top tier of AWS clients include Facebook, LinkedIn, and the BBC.

But they’re not only servicing companies like Netflix, ESPN, and the BBC, but they’re also in competition with them through their streaming service Amazon Prime Video and their production division, Amazon Studios. Their shows have won Emmy Awards, Golden Globe Awards and their 2017 Kenneth Lonergan film Manchester by the Sea was nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, the first for a streaming service.

Have you watched a movie or show on Netflix and then looked up one of the actors on imdb.com? Well, that’s also owned by Amazon. Shopped at a Whole Foods? They’re owned by Amazon. Through Amazon Maritime, they own a Federal Maritime Commission license to monitor their shipments from China. The company is also in the process of building out its logistics division to directly compete with Federal Express and the United States Postal Service.

It’s hard to imagine that Bezos’s goal was the extinction of small businesses but it was most certainly to re-shape the way people shop. Unfortunately, both have taken place. In the world of retail, Amazon has had a crippling impact on many businesses, both small and large. Their flagship product, books, decimated the locally owned bookstore. They also levelled what was once a competitive national bookstore landscape in America that included Borders Books, B. Dalton, and Barnes and Noble, etc. Of those big-box retailers, only Barnes and Noble and a handful of discount bookstores that remain.

The Amazon impact on local economies is equally as dire. Since the advent of the indoor mall, local stores have struggled but with Amazon, they were run out of town. However, Amazon has said that it helps small businesses. In a press release from 2018, Amazon claims that small and medium-sized companies that sell on Amazon have created more than 900,000 jobs worldwide. Additionally, “more than 20,000 small and medium-sized companies surpassed $1 million in sales in 2017.”

As Amazon continued to grow and succeed, it became evident that Bezos wasn’t just going to stay within the confines of the internet. In 2013, Jeff Bezos paid $250 million to purchase, and save, The Washington Post newspaper. Even though many have claimed traditional media like newspapers were dying, even at the time, this was viewed as a smart investment.

Traditional media in America has a history of being liberal and The Washington Post was no different. Its long history includes breaking the Watergate story in the 1970s that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Hoping to get a piece of the lucrative government contracting business, in 2014, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) awarded a $600 million contract to Amazon Web Services. Awarding the service to an outside contractor was considered a “radical departure” for the traditionally guarded and conservative intelligence community.

When Bezos purchased The Washington Post, he promised to maintain a distance and not have any influence over editorial decisions. But in 2013 no one could have predicted that Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States. By all accounts, Bezos has been very hands-off with the newspaper but given the current political climate, it’s no surprise that The Washington Post, like many others around the world, has been critical of President Trump. Accordingly, the newspaper, Amazon, and Bezos has caught the ire of President Trump.

Five years after landing the CIA contract, Amazon and other tech companies were bidding for a $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract. During the summer, President Trump began publicly questioning whether this contract was being competitively bid among companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. An upcoming book “Holding The Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon with Secretary Mattis” even claims that President Trump told then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis to “screw amazon.”

Already having a foothold in the business, Amazon was considered the top contender for the contract. However, after an intense lobbying effort by other tech companies, the $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract was awarded to Microsoft, shocking many.

Amazon responded to losing the Pentagon contract by filing a lawsuit claiming “the procurement process was compromised and negatively affected by the bias [against Amazon] expressed publicly by the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump.”

The many businesses of Amazon would encompass a Venn diagram that incorporates almost every aspect of modern life. With that said, the antitrust law definition of monopoly, “dominance of an industry or sector by one company or firm while cutting out the competition” is probably the very thing that has allowed Amazon to continue to thrive. By that definition, Amazon doesn’t qualify as a monopoly. For example, Amazon doesn’t prohibit a small business from selling its products on Amazon, they encourage it…and they will even distribute it.

Furthermore, Amazon came to prominence in a new environment, the internet. And to be a monopoly it must be proven that Amazon didn’t become the behemoth it is through anything other than business acumen and innovation.

In 2018, Forbes Magazine published an article stating that Amazon was not a monopoly because “a monopoly occurs when complete control of the entire supply of goods or a service in a certain area or market rests with a single entity.”

Alarm bells don’t ring at the US Department of Justice until “a market share of greater than 50%” has been reached (and at 37% of the market, Amazon Web Services is coming close).

At a cursory look, Amazon looks like it would be a monopoly. However, they currently account for about 5% of retail sales in the US (and 1% globally) and even though that number is expected to double to 10% by 2020, they would still fall below the 50% needed to qualify as a monopoly.

The endgame for Amazon and Bezos looks to be rather simple – world domination. That may sound hyperbolic, but the company has a foothold in almost every imaginable business, currently operates in 17 countries and for the quarter ended 30 September 2019 had a 24% increase in revenue compared to the previous year. The company continues to grow and continues to diversify.

All things considered, maybe world domination isn’t Amazon’s endgame. With Bezos’ space travel company Blue Origin, he’s got his eyes set on space too.

L'articolo Amazon Looks Towards World Domination…and Beyond proviene da InsideOver.

According to polling aggregator Real Clear Politics, Democratic Presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana has seen an eleven point surge in the past six weeks. Meanwhile, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have each vacillated three to five points and Elizabeth Warren has dropped about 10 percentage points.

This recent rise of Pete Buttigieg in American politics could suggest several things. It could suggest that homosexuality is less threatening than gender or radical change. It may also suggest that he is a good alternative to the septuagenarians he’s currently running against. More importantly, as his current first-place standing in both Iowa and New Hampshire indicates, it strongly suggests that people are hungry for change.

However, as a 37-year-old two-time mayor of a mid-size American city what can be said about his ability to govern on a national level and influence and manage the complex world of international politics?

As a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University and a Rhodes Scholar, his educational pedigree is stellar. In 2009, he enlisted in the US Naval Reserve. In 2014, he took a seven-month leave of absence as mayor of South Bend to serve at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan as an armed driver.

Combining the education and military experience, this gives Buttigieg a platinum political platform to stand on and is unmatched by any other current candidate, of either party. While he’s certainly proven to be a driven individual, what has he accomplished as a mayor?

Race has been an issue in America since its founding. According to the Brookings Institute, in the past three and a half years, it’s become even more of an issue. It could be argued that the divisions between race, gender, income, political party, etc. have been exacerbated during this time. This divisiveness is reaching the point of normalization.

The challenge for any political candidate over the next 11 months will be how to present themselves as the candidate of unity.

In particular, racial unity is particularly important in the race for the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has long been a favorite among black American voters and as progressives toggle between Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg is left trying to find an inroad and solid ground. His rising success in the polls suggests he’s done a good job of pinching the more centrist voters away from Biden, Sanders and Warren. However, he’s struggled in pulling black voters away from supporting Biden.

Despite his proclamations of, and efforts toward, racial unity he polls near zero with non-white voters. More than anything it is Pete Buttigieg’s relationship with race that continues to be the largest hurdle he has to overcome. His political history and recent gaffs are not doing him any favors.

Over the summer, Buttigieg conflated the issues around mass incarceration in America. He said that “a black person is four times as likely as a white person to be incarcerated for the same crime is evidence of systemic racism.” The data suggest that there can be no denying that racism exists in both American courts and the penal system.

After being pressured about his sweeping comment, Buttigieg admitted that this statistic refers to an America Civil Liberties Union study that noted black people were 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for pot and the statistic didn’t represent all crime.

While this may be true, as mayor of South Bend Buttigieg’s police force executed a drug policy that can be described as discrepant at best and racist at worst.

In the United States, marijuana usage is more or less equal between blacks and whites. However, since Buttigieg’s leadership began in 2012, the arrests made for marijuana in South Bend were considerably disproportionate. Of those arrested for possession, 64% were black and 36% were white: and of those arrested for selling pot, 22 were black and four were white.

Those percentages become more impactful when considering that, according to population statistics in 2019, South Bend is racially comprised of 63% white and 26% black citizens.

A spokesman for Buttigieg, Sean Savett, wrote: “While mayors don’t make the law related to drug possession, Pete has been an outspoken advocate for legalization.” The candidate claims to be in favor of legalizing marijuana, expunging past convictions, reducing sentences and applying them retroactively. As the Mayor of South Bend, the data suggest something different.

In Buttigieg’s recent unveiling of “The Douglass Plan”, his proposed plan that targets racial inequality. It promises a “comprehensive and intentional dismantling of racist structures and systems.” A bold initiative that had any importance it contained overlooked when his campaign used a stock photo image of a woman from Kenya to promote the plan on his website.

However inadvertent it may have been, it was used as an example of Buttigieg’s racial deafness. Furthermore, The Intercept reported that three politicians that were included on the list of 400 South Carolina supporters of the “The Douglass Plan” claimed to have been mischaracterized as endorsing the candidate.

Mayor Pete’s relationship with blacks is so poor that long-time South Bend City Councilman Oliver Davis recently endorsed Vice President Joe Biden over native Buttigieg.

In truth, despite his efforts on the campaign trail, his relationship with non-white voters makes his policy on marijuana and the Douglass Plan roll-out gaff exponentially more stunning.

However, while Buttigieg may poll at near zero for non-white voters and struggle connecting to younger voters, it doesn’t mean his message isn’t registering. He’s found a way to connect with baby boomers. As his lead in Iowa and New Hampshire suggest, even more than the three actual baby boomers running against him.

At a recent stop in Iowa, Buttigieg gave himself the moniker of “the retirement guy” after he introduced his plan for long-term healthcare. In describing his alternative to Sanders and Warren’s “Medicare 4 All” and his plan to save Social Security in the United States, he referred to it as his “Gray New Deal”.

As a history major at Harvard Mayor Pete must’ve also become a Teddy Roosevelt fan. In one speech he name-checked the 1912 dissident Bull Moose Party that nominated Theodore Roosevelt for president. An unusual reference because even among baby boomers, Teddy Roosevelt is nothing more than a Wikipedia entry and it might be safe to say that very few have any idea about the Bull Moose Party.

Many American political pundits will pontificate and speculate over the coming weeks on how whoever wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire will be the candidate that wins the Democratic nomination. Of course, this may be true but if the presidential election in 2016 taught Americans anything, it’s to expect the unexpected.

No one would deny that Pete Buttigieg is a Democrat on the rise. His age and lack of national or international experience don’t seem to be an issue for many and he can hold his own against far more experienced politicians. But to win any race today, all candidates, regardless of party, should seek to unify and bridge societal chasms, like race, that exists.

Most people and polls suggest, that Mayor Pete has had success reaching many demographics. At the same time, they also agree that his record is a bit sparse on results and that his inability to resonate with anyone other than white voters will be problematic.

It’s this less than stellar relationship with race that will make Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy more challenging, yet not impossible, to overcome.

In 2016, no one thought that a real estate entrepreneur, reality show television host and political neophyte end up as President of the United States either.

L'articolo Pete Buttigieg: The Whitest Candidate U’ Know proviene da InsideOver.

In October, President Donald Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of troops supporting the Kurds in northeastern Syria was placed under the umbrella of the president’s effort to “end the endless wars.” Barely a month later, the US Central Command ordered 500 troops to resume fighting in that region to quell any ISIS growth.

The American military is now “conducting training exercises, active combat, and air and drone strikes on six continents.” Or put another way, the United States military is currently operating in 40% of the world’s nations.

Despite the proclamations and efforts of American presidents, and presidential candidates, the “end of endless wars” has no visible expiration date.

The end of the Second World War began the start of the Cold War: the battle between democracy and communism and the United States and Russia. With the Cold War came a stronger relationship between the military and private industry. The Cold War was good for business and as the saying goes, business was good.

This relationship wasn’t given a public name until President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961, when he said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

The military-industrial complex relates specifically to those fluid relationships that include political contributions, political approval for military spending and lobbying. Perhaps it’s best understood by the flow of money and resources among individuals, defense contractors, private military contractors, institutions, the Pentagon, the US Congress and the executive branch of the United States.

Famed linguist Noam Chomsky disputes the concept of the military-industrial complex. In On Power, DIssent, and Racism: A Series of Discussions with Noam Chomsky, he asserts, “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext.”

With only a handful of years where defense spending decreased, it has steadily increased since 1948. After the end of the Cold War, military spending in the United States increased very little until September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the “War on Terror.” In 2002, the military budget was 362 billion dollars and for the 2020 budget, 718 billion dollars has been designated for the Department of Defense. And that is expected to grow to 776 billion dollars by 2034.

However, a 0.5% annual military increase from 2020-2034 seems to be a miscalculation based on historical military spending. In the years between 1996 and 2015 that had an uptick in military spending, it was an average increase of 3.75%. A 0.5% annual increase appears to be small when America is doing battle on 40% of the world.

The relationship between military contractors, the military and government oversight is such that it’s often referred to as the “iron triangle.” This “iron triangle” is made up of the decision making relationships between congressional committees, the bureaucracy and interest groups. Given these relationships and the various US military activity throughout the world, the question that must be asked is whether this “end of endless wars” is a possibility.

The rhetoric from President Trump and the presidential candidates around this topic would lead you to believe that an end to all of the American military conflicts is on the horizon. The reality is more complicated and can’t be explained or marginalized to a 240-word tweet or a 20 second sound bite.

All of the Democratic front-runners have released articles and proclamations saying there must be an “end to endless wars” and “forever wars” must cease. However, all the candidates are short on specifics on how to do so.

In a release from June of 2019, Vermont Senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders offers a plan that falls short on specifics. While maintaining the US fight against terror he calls for a softer approach like diplomacy.

Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan calls for a similar approach but has made more than one gaff in explaining how. For example, in October, she mentioned that America needed to “get out of the Middle East.” This left her team scrambling to immediately issue a follow-up tweet to clarify that Warren meant “combat troops.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden, and current Democratic presidential front-runner, also claims a desire to end “forever wars.” However, given his hawkish foreign policy views and history on pro-war voting as a member of Congress, one must consider his statements with scepticism.

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump won over a large number of voters by also claiming he was going to end the wars that America was embroiled in. This has also been part of his rhetoric for the length of his administration. However, to date, his record indicates otherwise.

As President, he’s been unable to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, he vetoed an order to exit Yemen and has not ruled out military action in Venezuela. He’s also been less than shy about his animus towards Iran.

The American military’s presence around the world isn’t contracting it’s expanding.

In 2007 the United States established Africa Command (AFRICOM). The American military has thousands of troops, planes, air bases, drone bases, outposts, etc. spread all over the continent. In March of 2019, AFRICOM’s outgoing commanding general, Thomas Waldhauser, told congress that AFRICOM is bound to be a “forever outfit.” His thinking calls up shades of the cold war as he believes that “Russia has taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.”

In Somalia alone, 2018 saw U.S. forces strike the leaders and fighters of Islamist terror group al-Shabaab 47 times, tripling the amount carried out by the Obama administration in 2016. The U.S. military is increasing its presence there, placing 500 troops and an estimate from the Pentagon says that those troops in Somalia will be there for “at least another seven years.”

And just recently, as a result of the heightened tensions with Iran, 1,400 additional troops have been ordered to the Persian Gulf as a precautionary measure.

The past sixty years have seen America expand its military influence across the globe. In addition to no less than five wars: Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the War on Terror there have been countless military skirmishes and billions of dollars spent on varying degrees of military support for American allies.

The sentiment behind removing troops and slowing down global military expansion is largely a  bi-partisan political issue. It’s also a perspective shared by a large swath of voting Americans.

However, given the intricate web and fluidity of geopolitics and the influence of the military-industrial complex an end to all the military conflict America is involved in is a really optimistic point of view. Furthermore, anyone who claims to have the definitive idea or plan to end these “forever wars” should be considered dubious.

L'articolo An End to the “End of Endless Wars” Rhetoric is Unlikely proviene da InsideOver.