Institute for Private Enterprise » Iran

Morrison Active But No Major Policy Statements

Des Moore — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:46:04 +0000

Morrison Active But Short on Major Policy Statements

My last Commentary (4 November) was headed “How Much Longer Can Morrison Last” and suggested that he must quickly address major policy issues and stop announcing handouts mainly designed to demonstrate that he is an “active” PM. But his decision to establish a electoral promotion bus to travel around parts of Queensland has so far not produced major policy statements. Of some interest is that senior Queensland Liberal Steve Ciobo (who voted for Dutton in the leadership spill) “refused to say yesterday whether the leadership switch to Mr Morrison would help improve the government’s stocks in the state”: ‘I don’t think it serves anyone’s purpose and I also don’t think, frankly, that Queenslanders or indeed Australians more generally, care about what’s happened,’ Mr Ciobo told Sky News (see Morrison Qld Bus Tour).

There have been, and remain, opportunities to make major statements or explanations of policies.

The first relates to the US’s announcement not only of a re-imposition of sanctions against Iran but an increase compared with what they were before Obama (with help from the Europeans) announced a virtual abandonment of them. An editorial in today’s Australian points out that “Just as Scott Morrison is right to have announced an updated review of Australia’s support for the deal, so should Europe do the same”. It also quotes the assessment by Colin Rubenstein (of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council) that “Archives of smuggled Iranian intelligence documents revealed by Israel have shown that, contrary to assertions Tehran has been complying with the deal’s terms, it has pursued “a (secret) strategy of noncompliance and incomplete disclosure of its nuclear capabilities and ambitions in violation of the (deal’s) letter and spirit” (see Sanctions on Iran).

With Iran so reliant on its oil exports, and already experiencing a high unemployment rate, the US sanctions will make it increasingly difficult to continue to finance terrorist groups in the Middle East and, in particular, those groups which are a major threat to Israel and which are taking quasi-military action against residents of that country. It will also make it difficult for European countries to sustain their agreement with Obama to accept Iran’s undertaking not to develop its nuclear capacity. A statement endorsing the US announcement could be presented as, inter alia, strengthening Australia’s support of the US and its alliance with that country.

The second opportunity for Australia to make a major statement has been on immigration. In my previous Commentary I drew attention to the excellent article by Judith Sloan outlining the strong domestic support for action to reduce immigration (see Reduced Immigration a Possible Morrison Winner).

A third opportunity would be less about making a major statement than providing an indication that Australia strongly supports the announcement by Chinese President XI that it will open its economy. Inter alia, XI has just stated that “China has pursued development with the door open and succeeded in transforming a semi-closed economy into a fully open economy. Openness has become a trade mark of China. China’s door will never be closed. It will only open still wider” (see China to Open Economy). China is of course far from providing the openness which XI claims as its objective: but it is a promising development.

So too is the apparent change in Chinese attitude to Australia through its invitation to our Foreign Minister to pay an official visit to China. As Greg Sheridan points out, Australia has been prepared for some time to stomach the failure to receive such an invitation while also being “as close to the Trump administration on broad security issues, especially Indo-Pacific security issues, as any nation in the world”. While one has to see how this works out in practice, it should be officially acknowledged as being as welcome as the open economy is (see Improved Chinese Relations Reflect Trump).

Australia should also recognize that these developments in Chinese policy almost certainly at least partly reflect the response to Trump’s trade policy. The apparent inability of the World Trade Organization to ensure that China conducts a “fair trade” policy has arguably forced the US in particular to take measures which force China to adopt such a policy in its trade with the US and, in doing so, this inevitably extends to trade with other countries. This has been widely criticized as threatening a move to a “protectionist war” between countries. But it appears that the US has set itself up as a de facto WTO and that genuine protectionist policies are limited. It runs a deficit on international trade (ie imports exceed exports) of over $US50 bn a year and this has been increasing.

Government Policies/Advocacies

Des Moore — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:56:06 +0000

Today’s media contains reports which are of serious concern in regard to the capacity of governments and political leaders to operate or propound policies which are in the interests of communities considered as an entity rather than of particular groups. These are briefly described below and, except for two, the attachments.

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime. This seems to be reflected in statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s, Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself, requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran). The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

ANU Programs, Abbott’s Priorities, Turnbull Wrong Again on CC, Iran Problem, Summit

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:44:28 +0000

ANU Programs Funded From Arab Money

My Commentary of 5 June suggested that the ANU should explain if programs funded by Arab money are free from attempts to persuade students of the benefits in the Koran. It appears that so far there has been no such explanation and Vice-Chancellor Schmidt has refused to interview The Australian’s rep (see ANU’s Program on Arab/Islamic Studies). However, according to The Australian report, the ANU’s Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies “has been at the forefront of contentious discussions around Middle Eastern politics and society with minimal backlash from its academics” and has received “sizeable donations from the United Arab Emirates and the governments of Iran and Turkey, frequently publishes articles supportive of a Palestine state and Iran, hosts lectures on ‘deconstructing the extremist narrative’ and ‘Islamophobia in post-communist Europe’, and has featured guest speakers who are critical of US policy”.

Even the Deputy Director of the Centre, Prof James Piscatori, has acknowledged that the clumsy handling of the question may be interpreted as “literary terrorism”.

So far, only two members of the Coalition have been reported in the media: Craig Kelly told Sky News that “They are accepting money from Iran. That’s a despotic government … that does everything to suppress academic freedoms, the freedoms of women”; and Tony Abbott also pointed out the “hypocrisy” of the union opposing the course on Western Civilisation when the university had accepted funds from Dubai, Iran and Turkey in the past. Today, however, Turnbull has indicated that he will discuss the matter with Schmidt. One wonders whether he might mention the extent to which his government funds the ANU.

Abbott’s Priorities

As it happened, Abbott had just co-launched a new relevant book by education expert, Kevin Donnelly, titled How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia; Enemies Within and Without. Fellow launcher, and top rating Radio Broadcaster, Alan Jones, praised Abbott for sticking around “as the nation confronted a crisis in leadership”. Responding to a comment by Jones that a crisis in Western political leadership and education would not have continued if Mr Abbott remained prime minister, Mr Abbott said: “I wish. What you discover in big jobs is that you don’t have all the power that you would like.I discovered, for instance, as prime minister that there were many things the government couldn’t do. It couldn’t get every aspect of its budget passed because the Senate wouldn’t let us. All too often, centre-right governments are in office but not in power.”

Asked to nominate one thing he would “fix” if prime minister again, Mr Abbott picked two.“Take the pressure off the cost of living by doing something about power prices,” he said. “The next thing you would do is scale back the rate of immigration.” (see Abbott’s Priorities).

Turnbull Wrong Again on CChange

In his tour of rural areas experiencing drought conditions, Turnbull told the farmers “There’s no doubt that our climate is getting warmer,” he said. “I don’t know many people in rural NSW that I talk to that don’t think the climate is getting drier and rainfall is becoming more volatile.” As pointed out in The Australian’s editorial, there is no evidence of increases in droughts and, as I have indicated many times, there is no co-relationship between increases in temperatures and in usage of carbon dioxide (see Turnbull Wrong Again).

In fact, the Wall St Journal has published an article by an expert in California pointing out that “while opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution” The author suggests that “climate change as an issue is over” (see Climate Change Over as Big Issue).

Increasing Recognition of the Iran Problem (But Not By ABC)

Israeli PM Netanyahu is providing support for Trump in his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu is having head to head meetings with the leaders of three major EU countries who still adhere to it. That their Finance Ministers are seeking support for exemptions from the sanctions being imposed on Iran by Trump suggests that he may be having some affect (see Netanyahu Meets Macron on Iran Deal).

The Australian has also weighed in, arguing that the three countries should withdraw. As its editorial points out, “the deal’s boost to Iran, with $US100 billion from the US in sanctions repayments, has done much to further Tehran’s ambitions across the Middle East, propping up the Syrian regime and providing weapons and resources to Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who want to destroy Israel. Whatever the commercial imperatives, European cosignatories cannot remain blind to the grave shortcomings of the Obama deal. They will be ill-serving the West’s strategic interests in doing so” (see New Evidence on Iran).

One might add that the Australian government should announce that it supports the US withdrawal.

AIJAC leader, Colin Rubenstein, has also complained at the failure of the ABC to provide any significant coverage of one of the most deadly recent attacks launched by Palestinian militants (who are supported by Iran/Hamas) despite more than a hundred rockets being launched indiscriminately toward Israel. As Rubenstein points out, this is only one of many failures by the ABC about the attacks on Israel and even Minister Fifield has sought an official response from the ABC.

NK Summit Supported By Kim

Reports of internal action taken by Kim indicate that the Trump/Kim summit will go ahead on June 12 ( a separate report says that a top NK official begged on his knees to have the summit !)

No Iran Nuclear Deal, Tax Cuts

Des Moore — Tue, 01 May 2018 04:17:33 +0000

As previously advised, I have been updating the people who receive my Commentary. This is now complete, although some new recipients may not wish to receive them. In that case please email me and I will delete your name. I was encouraged, however, by the number who have welcomed their inclusion. My aim is to draw attention to the need to change stated government policies from either major party (and smaller ones) where this does not appear to be in the interests of the community.

Israel’s Discovery of Secret Iranian Nuclear Policy

It is difficult to understate the importance of Israel’s “discovery” that, after in 2005 Iran signed a deal with the US (under Obama) and major European countries, it did not in fact comply with the agreed restrictions on its nuclear activity in return for the lifting of sanctions which included considerable US dollar “reserves”. The press conference by Israel PM Netanyahu and initial reactions from Trump are reported in Trump on Iran. This report appeared in my inbox at about 10 am this morning but was not mentioned on “our” ABC’s lunch time news. Another one for CEO Michelle Guthrie to explain.

Israeli PM Netanyahu told the press conference in Jerusalem that “After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret files,” he said. “In 2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran.” It is amazing that Mossad was able to penetrate the Iranian hiding place and then smuggle the 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs back to Israel. Netanyahu rightly describes Israel’s ability to acquire the archive as marking“a massive intelligence coup”.

The “atomic archive” was compiled by Iran with the express purpose of preserving its secretive nuclear weapons plan known as Project Amad, which aimed to “design, produce and test… five warheads, each with a 10 kiloton TNT yield, for integration on a missile.“That is like five Hiroshima bombs to be put on ballistic missiles,” asserted Netanyahu.

Netanyahu outlined Project Amad as containing five key elements described by the Times of Israel thusly: “Designing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear cores, building nuclear implosion systems, preparing nuclear tests and integrating nuclear warheads on missiles.”

Netanyahu said that in 2003, Iran shut down the version of Project Amad that existed at the time and instead divided its nuclear program into both covert and overt components. Besides archiving the material for future use, Netanyahu said Iran continued to research nuclear weapons.

The nuclear deal signed with Iran comes up for renewal in a few days and Trump has already indicated that the US will not renew the same deal but it was prepared to negotiate a different agreement. The European countries which signed the agreement indicated before the exposure of Iran that they would sign the initial agreement, but will now at the very least have to fall back to saying that the existing agreement is finished. Given Iran’s deception, they should also say they are not prepared to negotiate another deal. Such action would now also be pointless given that Iran has already secretively developed nuclear weapons.

Relevant here is the recent appointment by Trump of a new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and the appointment of Robert Bolton as a White House Adviser on foreign policy. Both had indicated a more aggressive approach by the US to handling Iran and North Korea. Significantly, Pompeo has already had discussions with Kim in NK and Netanyahu in Israel, where he stated publicly that the US is supportive of Israel. Possible results from those visits is that it was timely for Netanyahu to publicise Israel’s discovery of Iran’s deception and to have Israeli air force attack Iranian air bases in Syria, as it appears to have been doing in the past week or so.

Note also that Trump claims that the exposure of Iran’s deception will not stop the denuclearisation program of NK. Such a program may also be attempted with Iran.

Coalition’s Neglected Policies

The last Newspoll on 23 April showed a slight improvement in the Coalition’s TPP (from 48/52 to 49/51) but was followed by a report that this improvement reflected a sudden change in the allocation of preferences by the YouGov Galaxy agency. The situation has now been clarified and it shows that there has been a change in preferences last December. The table below suggests that the Coalition’s polling has improved slightly since March.

The poll next Monday will be of particular interest as it occurs the day before the budget which, according to foreshadowing by Treasurer Scott Morrison, will include personal income tax cuts over the next four years. It remains to be seen whether the apparent decision to give priority to such cuts, rather than to further reducing the deficit, is well received.

Trump at Davos & Australian Comments on US Defense Strategy Statement

Des Moore — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:16:43 +0000

Trump at Davos

What with the likely winners of both the women’s and men’s Australian tennis being Swiss and the address by Trump at Davos, the Swiss are in the News. Once again Trump found a phrase which helped rebut the criticism of his “America First” statement by adding “but not America alone” and, with China in mind, emphasising the need for “fair” trade as well as “free” . Separately, it is reported that Trump approved increased duties affecting about $US10bn of imports but it is not clear whether this was “justified” on a fair trade assertion. An article in The Economist, republished in yesterday’s The Australian, says that the actions were “broadly in line with the steer from the US International Trade Commission” and were weaker than sought.

There will doubtless be media criticism of his use of Davos to again attack the media itself (the boos he received when doing so are unusual at the more official-type Davos). But judging by the BBC report on his reception (see BBC on Trump at Davos), his decision to attend (and his meeting with May confirming that he will make a visit to the UK and will have tea with the Queen) will not have adversely affected his image. According to the BBC report “ mention his name in the bustling foyer of the Congress Centre, and the reaction is surprisingly benign.Many attendees shrug indifferently, rather than launch into an angry rant”. Of course, because of its small size, “protesters” were not allowed in Davos but there was ample opportunity for critics at the Forum. I have seen no comments on Mother Nature’s climate decision to present attendants with what seemed on TV to be large amounts of snow!

US Policies on Defence and Iran

In earlier Commentary I have referred to policy statements by US Foreign Secretary Tillerson and US Defense Secretary Mattis and suggested that their capacity to make such statements seems to reflect Trump’s recent (unannounced) decision to extend a much greater delegation on relevant policies than Obama allowed.

An interesting development is that Tillerson has now persuaded the three European countries who signed up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran to identify possible problems and how they might be dealt with. On 27 January Tillerson is reported as saying that “The working groups… are looking at the scope of what to address in the Iran deal, as well as how to engage Tehran on possible fixes to those issues”. “What we have agreed to do is work with our European counterparts, the E3 most particularly, and ultimately the [European Union], to identify what areas we believe have to be addressed and a mechanism by which we can address those.” (see Tillerson on Iran Nuclear Deal).

On 20 January Defense Secretary Mattis published a new Defense Strategy indicating that “Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we’re engaged in today, the great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security,” Mattis said in his opening statements at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.The new strategy is “fit for our time,” Mattis said. “Though he identified a number of threats to the US like North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda, the NDS was focused more on China and Russia. “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other. Nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,” Mattis said.In the document itself, China and Russia are both mentioned by name in the introduction” (see Mattis Statement on US Defence Strategy Jan 2018).

The text of this important 11 page statement is in the attached. It implies that the US aims to restore a defence policy which will extend more widely and effectively in geographic terms. Of course, it is one thing to attempt an upgrading of defence policy, but quite another to find the money to effect the upgrading of equipment et al. It is reported that Trump proposes to ask Congress for an increase of 7 per cent in defence in 2019 and is likely to find that difficult to obtain (see Trump Proposes Big Increase In Defence Spending).

An important aspect of the new Defense Strategy is the emphasis on alliances. The following extract (see page 10) indicates the broadness of the approach adopted by Mattis.

“Enduring coalitions and long-term security partnerships, underpinned by our bedrock alliances and reinforced by our allies’ own webs of security relationships, remain a priority:

Expand Indo-Pacific alliances and partnerships. A free and open Indo-Pacific region provides prosperity and security for all. We will strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to a networked security architecture capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains. With key countries in the region, we will bring together bilateral and multilateral security relationships to preserve the free and open international system.
Fortify the Trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance. A strong and free Europe, bound by shared principles of democracy, national sovereignty, and commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is vital to our security. The alliance will deter Russian adventurism, defeat terrorists who seek to murder innocents, and address the arc of instability building on NATO’s periphery. At the same time, NATO must adapt to remain relevant and fit for our time—in purpose, capability, and responsive decision-making. We expect European allies to fulfill their commitments to increase defense and modernization spending to bolster the alliance in the face of our shared security concerns.
Form enduring coalitions in the Middle East. We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes. We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran.
Sustain advantages in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. derives immense benefit from a stable, peaceful hemisphere that reduces security threats to the homeland. Supporting the U.S. interagency lead, the Department will deepen its relations with regional countries that contribute military capabilities to shared regional and global security challenges”.

Yesterday the Australian Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, acknowledged the importance of the Mattis statement made a week ago but neither she nor Turnbull appear to have made any statement. In the report below The Australian’s National Security Editor, Paul Maley, suggested that “We look like strategic amateurs”. I would not be surprised if Payne has yet to meet Mattis. We await an announcement that out pitful defence spending will be increased from below 2 per cent of GDP to reach that size by 2021.

Pence Address to Knesset & Threatened Turkey/US Clash in Syria

Des Moore — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:05:16 +0000

Pence Visit to Israel Indicates Extensive US Interest in Mid-East

Although the Palestinians refused to meet him, US Vice-President Pence’s visit to the Middle East and his address to Israel’s Knesset highlighted a wide range of important issues and explanations of the US’s foreign policy not previously made clear. Considerable publicity has been given to his confirmation that the US embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but his Knesset address (text here) says a lot more than that. As with such speeches, it probably includes statements of policy which may not be achievable: but Pense has made an important US foreign/defence policy statement.

In fact, the whole address is worth reading. The following summary points include many of importance, particularly in regard to US policy on Iran and what he describes as radical Islamic terrorism sponsored by that country. In effect, he is indicating that a change of government in Iran is a major US objective and that it is in the interest of Iranians that this happens. As the attached editorial in The Australian points out, the Palestinian leadership’s failed to recognise that Pence’s offers are in the interests of Palestinians (see Palestinian Reaction to Jerusalem as Capital).

Pence stated succinctly but firmly that “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital” and that the US embassy “will open before the end of next year”. Trump made this decision “in the best interests of peace”.
The US “remains fully committed to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians” but it is ”not taking a position on any final status issues” in regard to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. “The US will support a two state solution”.
“We strongly urge the Palestinian leadership to return to the (negotiating) table”.
” The United States will never compromise the safety and security of Israel”.
Pence said his discussions with President Al-Sissi of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan covered “the remarkable transformation that is taking place across the Middle East” and that “the winds of change can already be witnessed” there.
Referring to Trump’s address to more than 50 nations at the Arab Islamic American Summit, Pence said “we will continue to bring the full force of our might to drive radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth”.
“We will not relent until we hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source”
“The United States has redirected funding from ineffective relief efforts and, for the first time, we are providing direct support to Christian and other religious minorities as they rebuild their communities”…. across the wider Middle East”.
”The United States will continue to confront the leading state sponsor of terror –the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
“The brutal regime in Iran is merely a brutal dictatorship that seeks to dominate its citizens and deny them of their most fundamental rights. History has proven, those who dominate their own people rarely stop there. And increasingly, we see Iran seeking to dominate the wider Arab world”.
”That dangerous regime sows chaos across the region. Last year alone… Iran devoted more than $4 billion to malign activities in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere across the region. It has supported terrorist groups that even now sit on Israel’s doorstep. And worst of all, the Iranian regime has pursued a clandestine nuclear program, and at this very hour is developing advanced ballistic missiles”.
”Two-and-a-half years ago, the previous administration in America signed a deal with Iran that merely delays the day when that regime can acquire a nuclear weapon. The Iran nuclear deal is a disaster, and the United States of America will no longer certify this ill-conceived agreement. At President Trump’s direction, we’re working to enact effective and lasting restraints on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs”.
“Earlier this month, the president waived sanctions on Iran to give the Congress and our European allies time to pass stronger measures. But as President Trump made clear, this is the last time”.
”The United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon”.
”Just this month the United States issued tough new sanctions on Iran”.
”The miracle of Israel is an inspiration to the world. And the United States of America is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends”.

Threat of Turkey/US Clash in Northern Syria

The New York Times reports that on Wednesday Trump warned Turkish President Erdogan “against the growing risk of conflict between the two nations. The Turkish president, for his part, demanded that the United States end its support for Kurdish militias. The two men, both populists and unapologetic nationalists, spoke by telephone as Turkish forces attacked Kurdish militias in Syria…Trump ‘urged Turkey to exercise caution and to avoid any actions that might risk conflict between Turkish and American forces,’ the White House said in a description of the call. ‘He reiterated that both nations must focus all parties on the shared goal of achieving the lasting defeat of ISIS’, or the Islamic State” ( see Turkey in Syria & US Support for TPG).

This exchange between the two Presidents appears to partly reflect the development of a closer relationship between Turkey and Russia (see Turkey Russian Relationship). This has encouraged Turkey to act to protect its borders from the YPG of Kurds, who with US military assistance helped fight against ISIS and who want to establish a separate State. Turkey has over 10 million Kurds but claims the YPG are “terrorists”. As part of Turkey’s cross-border operation in the Afrin region in Northern Syria, which is controlled by the Kurdish fighters, it has threatened to attack the town of Manbij (see map above), where about 2,000 US soldiers are based.

With Russia’s help, Syria’s Assad has almost freed itself from ISIS groups and this has makes it susceptible to attempts by both Turkey and YPG Kurdish groups to establish territories in Northern Syria. The head of NATO has expressed cautious support for Turkey’s military activity - “Turkey is one of the NATO nations that suffer the most from terrorism,” Stoltenberg said in a statement on Thursday. “All nations have the right to defend themselves, but this has to be done in a proportionate and measured way” (see Turkey Threatens Confrontation to US). However, the fact that Trump urged Erdogan to avoid conflict suggests that the US is taking an active interest in developments here and, even with only a small number of troops on the ground, it has the potential to avoid Turkey or Assad establishing control.

Iran & US Sanctions Policy, Climate in 2017

Des Moore — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:56:31 +0000

Iranian’s Judiciary Head Sanctioned

It appears that the protests in Iran have virtually ceased following deaths and many arrests by the Revolutionary Guard. However, according to a Reuters report Supreme Leader Khamenei still felt it necessary to make a public statement that “citizens had a right to air legitimate concerns, a rare concession by a leader who usually voices clear support for security crackdowns.These concerns must be addressed. We must listen, we must hear. We must provide answers within our means”, Mr Khamenei was quoted as saying, hinting that not only the government of Rouhani, but his own clerical leadership must also respond”. “I’m not saying that they must follow up. I am also responsible. All ofus must follow up” (see Khamenie Statement 10 Jan).

That this is a similar statement to that made earlier by the elected President Rouhani might mean some form of agreement at the top to moderate governance in Iran.

It is interesting that the head of Israeli’s Mossad, Yossi Cohen, saw it appropriate to respond to Khamenie’s remarks and his accusation that the disruption in Iran is partly caused by Israel. Cohen argues that it is mainly due to a failed economic policy and adds that he “would be happy to see a meaningful revolution”.

Needless to say, if a revolution succeeded in establishing some form of democracy and ridded the existing dominant role of Islamic extremism, it could have major welcome effects in the Middle East.

Following Khameni’s remarks, Trump has announced that the US would “certify” the nuclear deal made between Iran and the US/Six European countries under Obama (a regular certification is required so as to provide an opportunity for the US/Six to check that Iran has in fact stopped the development of nuclear weapons). However, Trump qualified his certification by saying he was giving Europe and the US “a last chance” to fix “terrible flaws” in the agreement. At the same time, the US announced new sanctions, including on Iran’s head of judiciary on the ground that he was responsible for the deaths and arrests of protesters. A separate report states that the new sanctions extend to 14 Iranian officials and companies and businessmen from Iran, China and Malaysia, freezing any assets they have in the U.S. and banning Americans from doing business with them.

The Iranian foreign ministry responded by describing the sanction against the judiciary head as ” hostile action” and as having “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic.” It accused Trump of “continuing to take hostile measures against the Iranian people and repeating the threats that have failed many times” (see Iran Nuclear Deal Certified Again But Sanctions Imposed Against Judiciary Head).

As previously commented, the Turnbull government has expressed no sympathy for the Iranian protesters seeking the removal of the dictatorship run by extremist Islamists and has offered no support for the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone for the many Iranians who have left their country. Under Trump, the US has taken a close interest in developments Iran and it is in Australia’s interests to do so too.

Climate and Energy Policies

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to serious questions about the basis of Australia’s carbon reduction policies and to the misleading report on Australian climate in 2017 by the BOM, whose representative (but not head) included an unjustifiable prediction that “the odds [now] favour warmer-than-average temperatures more often than in the past”. I included Richard Morgan’s advertisement in the Herald Sun titled The Next Ice Age, which points out that “model failures demonstrate the underlying theory and assumptions used are not supported by the results”.

As to incidents in global climate in 2017, the CEO of London’s Global Warming Foundation, Benny Peiser, and respected climate analyst Matt Ridley, had an article published in the Wall St Journal pointing out that, while “the past year was filled with bad weather news”, “it has become routine for the media, politicians and activists to link “ such bad local news with climate change. However, they rightly say that “by looking at the world as a whole, and at long-term trends (climate) rather than at short-term events (weather), we can better test the claims that 2017 was an unusual weather year and that weather is getting more extreme as the world warms”. Their thesis is that “Bad Weather Is No Reason for Climate Alarm” and they say that although “on average the globe suffers some 325 catastrophic natural disasters a year, last year (through November) they were down to around 250 and “a third fewer people were killed by climate-related hazards” (see Peiser & Ridley Assess Climate in 2017).

Peiser &Ridley also quote other aspects relevant to an authoritative assessment of climate developments taking account of 2017 incidents:

While temperatures have risen since 1990 at between 0.121 and 0.198 degrees Celsius per decade, that is at a third to two-thirds of the rate projected by the IPCC.
Globally the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index—which measures the combined intensity and duration of these storms—is currently running 20% below its long-term average. In fact, the index for 2017 was less than half of normal cyclone activity for the Southern Hemisphere.
Although more than 9,000 wildfires burned some 1.4 million acres across California, the number of wildfires in California has actually been declining for 40 years. The global area burned by wildfires has also declined in recent decades.
As for drought, a comprehensive database published in 2014 in the journal Nature found that the proportion of the world suffering from abnormally low rainfall has slightly declined since the 1980s.
The number of major floods in natural rivers across Europe and North America has not increased in 80 years. Globally, too, floods have decreased in recent years.

Hence, while short-term weather fluctuations and extreme events rightly catch the headlines,P&R correctly say “they don’t capture the reality of the planet’s climate. Over the past several decades, the world has been getting slowly warmer, slightly wetter and less icy. It has also been no stormier, no more flood-prone and a touch less drought-prone. And sea level continues to creep slowly upward”. In short, 2017 provided no indication that we are threatened by dangerous warming.

Iran’s President Speaks Out Publicly

Des Moore — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:06:01 +0000

Iran’s President Speaks Out

There has been a significant development in the political situation in Iran. According to a Reuters report dated 9 Jan, “President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday young Iranian protesters were unhappy about far more than just the economy and they would no longer defer to the views and lifestyle of an aging revolutionary elite”. He is also quoted by Tasnim news agency as saying “It would be a misrepresentation (of events) and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands”… “People had economic, political and social demands.”… “We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that. It is impossible… The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours,” he said. Note also that it is reported that Rouhani said on Monday that “people should be allowed to criticize all Iranian officials, with no exception”.

These are quite remarkable words for the President of a country to make at a time of political crisis.

Of course, although elected, the President in Iran has little power. Power in Iran is with the religious head, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and appointer of the heads of the judiciary. Key ministers are also selected with his agreement and he has the ultimate say on Iran’s foreign policy. But the emergence in public of apparent different views by the two leaders confirms that the protests reflect a tense situation at the head of Iran governance. And as Rouhani’s statements would have been well circulated publicly, they would add to the pressure to change governance (see Iranian President Criticizes Hardliners).

Some expert analysts are confidently predicting just that. A US expert on Iran who has visited it since the protests started, Edward Luttwak, argues “there is a fair chance that Donald Trump, who contradicts Barack Obama and Europe’s leaders by refusing coexistence with Iran’s ayatollah empire, will also have the satisfaction of seeing the dissolution of a regime that Obama among many others preferred to accommodate”. He claims that“with some 80 million people, and with oil accounting for 80 percent of its exports, Iran would need to export some 25 million barrels a day to make a go of it, but it can barely export 2.5 million… Iran cannot even match the $6,000 income per capita of Botswana… its citizens are not required to pay for extensive nuclear installations” …or “support a foreign dictator at war with 80 percent of his own population or provide generous funding for the world’s largest terrorist organization, Hezbollah, whose cocaine-smuggling networks and local extortion rackets cannot possibly cover tens of thousands of salaries. The ayatollah empire is doing all those things, which means that average Iranians are actually much poorer than their Botswanian counterparts”(see Strategic Writer Luttwak on Iran).

As to US policy, Vice President Pence wrote on 3 February that “months before the protests started in Iran, the president predicted that the days of the Iranian regime were numbered. Speaking at the United Nations in September, he said, ‘The good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most’. Much like another president who made similar predictions about the Soviet Union, the president was mocked. These words now ring truer than ever. Where his predecessor stayed silent in 2009, Trump swiftly offered the Iranian people America’s unwavering support. He has also committed to provide assistance in the days ahead.

More broadly, the president declined to certify the previous administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, which flooded the regime’s coffers with tens of billions of dollars in cash — money that it could use to repress its own people and support terrorism across the wider world. We have already issued new sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the president is weighing additional actions to punish the regime for its belligerent behavior and assault on its own citizens.

The United States has spoken clearly and unequivocally. Unfortunately, many of our European partners, as well as the United Nations, have thus far failed to forcefully speak out on the growing crisis in Iran. It’s time for them to stand up” (see Pence Says Trump will Support Iranian Protesters).

As I have already suggested, under the Turnbull government no support has been given to the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone to the many Iranians who seek the removal of the dictatorship. It is estimated that, since the take-over by the Extremist Muslim Supreme Leader, about 7 million Iranians have left their country. They have been conducting protests in the countries in which they now live, including Australia.

Another opportunity to support the US will come if Trump refuses to certify the nuclear deal which was made by Obama along with other major European countries. The need to make that certification comes up in the very near future.

Where is Australia on Iran?

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:16:18 +0000

Despite reports of thousands of arrests and over 20 deaths, the anti-government protests in Iran appear to be continuing, albeit on a much smaller scale. A member of the US think-tank, Brookings Institution, Suzanne Maloney, is a senior fellow on Middle East policy and describes them as reflecting “Anger over these [financial] losses came on top of years of pent-up frustration over a sluggish economy. When the government announced recent price increases and released an austere budget bill, it ignited at-times violent protests that spread rapidly to dozens of cities nationwide. Demonstrators quickly turned their fury on corrupt officials and the Islamic republic as a whole”… “What’s different is that it seems to have tapped into a deep sense of alienation and frustration, that people aren’t just demonstrating for better working conditions or pay, but insisting on wholesale rejection of the system itself ” (see article from the Washington Post dated 7 January, “Iran Expert says…”).

The article also suggests that there was a recent deterioration in the economic situation for most Iranians and that there was an apparent failure for them to benefit from the Obama-led decision to allow Iran access to its large $US reserves, which had previously been frozen when Iran was discovered to be developing nuclear weaponry. Officially, unemployment is at about 14% with youth unemployment about double that. But others suggest it is probably higher.

Other analysts draw attention to the increased opposition in Iran to the strict application of Islamic rules, such as the requirement for women to use hijabs and burkas. In an article in Weekend Australian, Caroline Overington argues that the protests have been “extraordinary for the bravery of women, many acting alone” against “the brutality of Iran’s Supreme Leader”. Overington refers to what is now a widely published picture of an Iranian woman standing on a bollard or a box who “has removed her hijab and is waving it at the end of a rod” as a part of the protest. But where, she asks, is the West? The hijab, she claims, is “not a democratic ideal” but “a symbol of repression of women in the Middle East” (See Women in Iran, Jan 6).

That is a question which Turnbull should help answer by supporting the leadership shown by US President Trump in forcing a meeting of the UN Security Council and the Europeans and Russians to expose their Iran policies there. Their difference of opinion with the US at the UN shows that country’s importance as a world leader in ensuring Western values and that it is shameful that others have held back. Australia should make it clear that it is not in that group.

The fact that Trump has been attacked in a just-published book entitled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House should not mean that US foreign policies, such as the one above in regard to Iran, be dismissed: they should stand on their merits (or not), which in this case is laudable and important in a world exposed to extremist Islamic beliefs and policies, such as those adopted by Iran.

It might be noted that, contrary to the impression given by the news presented by the ABC and SBS, Trump’s popularity measure of about 40% (and has increased recently) in the US. That is higher than Turnbull’s Performance measure of 32% in last December’s Newspoll. Our unemployment rate is also higher than the US’s, which recently recorded the lowest ever rate of 6.7% for black Americans.

Iran After Five Days

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:17:18 +0000

Today’s Australian published my letter calling for the Turnbull government to support the US initiative opposing Islamic regimes in Iran as it did with the caliphate in Iraq (see below). At the same time, however, it published what can only be described as a strange Op-Ed by Clive Williams, who is a visiting professor at the Australian National University’s Centre for Military & Security Law and an adjunct professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

My interpretation of the analysis by Williams is that he sees merit in a situation where terrorist groups fight each other and that, as such, they do not necessarily pose a threat to Australia or Western countries generally. He refers, for example, to Hezbollah, which is heavily supported by Iran both militarily and financially and which is treated as a terrorist organisation by the US (and some other countries) but whose military segment is the only part so treated by Australia (and some other countries). He claims that, “from a counter-terrorism perspective, Hezbollah is a useful contact, as it is violently opposed to Islamic State”. This may be the case but the fact is that it is an active Islamic group whose objectives are contrary to Western values and, whatever segment, it should be treated as a potential threat and as a disruptive force in the Middle East in particular. It is certainly surprising that Williams is employed at the Defence Force Academy.

Analysis by the Gatestone Institute provides a more realistic picture. The analyst there argues that “Without Iranian money, Hezbollah would not exist. At least, not exist as an Iranian foreign legion, militarily engaged against Israel and in other Middle East regional conflicts. Without Iranian subsidies, Hezbollah would be just a narco-mafia”. He also argues that “Hezbollah has developed deep connections to Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, directly to facilitate the distribution of drugs throughout the Middle East and the US”.

As to the present situation in Iran, it appears that, while the government has succeeded is stopping or significantly reducing protests, the protest movement is by no means over and one report suggests that there is a leader of some of the protesters particularly in regional areas (see this article by an Irainian-American) and that there is more than one group of protesters. The fact that, after five days of protests, the government felt that is had to arrange a large number of counter-protesters to take to the streets suggests that it remains in an uncertain position (see AFP article). Similarly, it took five days for the head of the Revolutionary Guard (the supposed protective force for the Supreme Leader) to be claiming publicly that the “sedition” is over when it doesn’t seem to be.