LyrArc Article Gist
Sabotage of two tankers in the Persian Gulf and reports of activity of Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria have led to an American response with the dispatch of a aircraft carrier and other forces to the region.  This report in the NYT says Defense Secretary Shanahan has prepared plans for deployment of American forces in the region with one plan calling for 120,000 troops to be dispatched to the region. As president Trump is against American involvement in land wars in distant places, the force is designed as a precaution in case of an Iranian attack through proxy forces in Syria or Iraq and not for a land operation. National Security Adviser Bolton has taken a strong position on Iran since the days of the Bush administration. The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the sanctions on Iranian oil, are part of a new policy of the Trump administration. The European Union countries have followed a policy of preserving the nuclear deal of 2015, even though the U.S. is pressuring EU countries. The oil sanction have led to a sharp drop in oil exports and is hurting the Iranian economy. President Rouhani of Iran says Iran may withdraw from parts of the Iran nuclear deal and the Iranian response is leading to heightened tensions in the region.  It was only recently that the Democratic party Obama administration pursued the Iranian nuclear deal with opposition from Republicans in Congress and skepticism of Israel. The election of president Trump who says the deal was a bad one has reversed U.S. policy leading to a complete change in policy and a possible confrontation with Iran. U.S. policy can veer back and forth depending on the party or president in power who completely different perceptions of the region. Obama had sharp difference with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a different perception of Iran. Trump and Bolton see Iran as a threat to the U.S. After Iran shipped most of its nuclear fuel out of the country in 2016 in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions under president Obama's nuclear deal it would take over a year for new uranium enrichment facilities to produce the materials for a nuclear bomb, according to this report in the NYT. When the Obama administration negotiated with Iran the window had shrunk to a few months.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kirkpatrick and Erlanger's interview with Egypt's president Mohamed Morsi. He says successive U.S. governments used taxpayer money to buy the dislike and hatred of peoples in the region by backing governments run by corrupt dictators who suppressed popular opposition. Morsi calls for a new attitude from the American people and Arab people of mutual respect of each other's cultures, and recalls his own days studying engineering at the University of Southern California.

LyrArc Article Gist
John Bolton on the efforts needed to secure nuclear and biological weapons in North Korea and to reunite the two Koreas, by joint concerted action between China, the U.S. and South Korea. Prof. Cha of Georgetown University, and the Editorial Board of the Washington Post call for similiar preparation and action on Dec. 20, 2011, soon after Kim's death.

LyrArc Article Gist
The CBO annual report on the budget and economic outlook shows a deficit of $1.1 trillion for the current fiscal year, a decline of $200 billion from the prior year. Health care spending is a key factor driving the deficit. Cost of spending on healthcare programs is expected to double in the next 10 years, increasing by 8% a year and reaching $1.8 trillion in 2022.

LyrArc Article Gist
Karen Elliott House, a widely respected expert on Saudi Arabia, gives her assessment of the Saudi situation as the Obama administration completes a nuclear deal with Iran in July 2015. She says the Saudis have few options in the short term. She also points out that the unfreezing of $100 billion in assets of Iran by the end of 2015, and the lifting of economic sanctions, could exacerbate tensions in the Middle East if Iran uses the money to increase support to proxies in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has a large population of young people and high youth unemployment, increasing political risks, says Karen House.

LyrArc Article Gist
A Syrian opposition group describes the mislabeling of opposition groups in Syria by the Obama administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
Egypt's military declares the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization in December 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
Israeli intelligence from a Syria unit that oversees the movement of chemical weapons in Syria was the source confirming that the weapons were moved to Damascus suburbs to prepare for an attack on a rebel held area.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama in his speech at Georgetown, April 13, 2009, describes the thinking behind the decisions made in the first 12 weeks of his administration- why the actions are not aggressive and overreaching as some critics say, and why they are not timid as other critics have said. This was not a typical downturn of the business cycle, but a perfect storm arising from irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking in Washington, Wall Street and Main Street- in effect several crises colliding for something like an explosion, if not dealt with at once, and with strong action. He says "the key to dealing with our deficit and debt is to get a handle on out-of-control health care costs, not to stand idly by as the economy goes into free fall." The recognition that the crisis itself brings with it new possibilities, the opportunity for coming to grips with and forging a good solution to health care, energy and education issues that were neglected while Wall Street directed investments to areas other than investment in building for the future. To the critics like Krugman, Rosenfeld and others who say that the takeover of insolvent banks should be done quickly before the situation worsens, he says it is not because of any ideological or political judgement he has made about government involvement in banks, but because it is more likely to undermine than create confidence at this point. He goes on step by step, through the process of decisionmaking, first to step in and boost spending vigorously, second to get lending flowing again to businesses and families, strengthening the non-bank credit market for consumer purchases and loans, the housing plan, the auto plan, and the work at the G-20. Then President Obama goes on to project his vision and the road to getting there. The five pillars he sees for the future are: redirecting Wall Street and banking to constructive investments for the future, investments in education, investments in renewable energy and technology to create new industries and new jobs, investments in health care to cut costs for businesses and families, and new savings in the federal budget to bring down the deficit. Obama says he will look for savings line by line in every corner of the budget, and has already identified two trillion dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade. And the goal is to reduce discretionary spending for domestic programs as share of the economy by more than 10% over the next decade. Procurement reform will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 billion. Secretary Gates is attacking th problem of hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and cost overruns that have bloated the defense budget, without adding to the nation's safety. And education programs that don't work will be removed, and waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program will be controlled. Finally, Mr Obama points to the nation's political system as one more reason we are in this perfect storm- "a fundamental weakness in our political system." He cites the putting off hard decisions for another day, scoring political points instead of rolling up up sleeves to solve real problems, an impatience that is only worsened by the 24 hour news cycle, and a short attention span that focusses on the immediate results and on poll numbers. And there is too much responding to the "tempest of the moment until the furor has died away and the media coverage has moved on, instead of confronting the major challenges that will shape our future in a sustained and focussed way." After these 12 weeks President Obama says, for the first time there are glimmers of hope, and way off in the distance can be seen a vision of America's future that is far different than its troubled past. And citing the parable in the Sermon on the Mount about that "house built on a rock", he sees America's house built on a rock, a house for which we use this moment to lay a new foundation, come together and begin the hard work of rebuilding, persisting and persevering in the face of disappointments and setbacks that surely lie ahead. Then he has no doubt "that this house will stand and the dreams of our founders will live on in our time." Its a remarkable speech in its directness, its simplicity in approaching the subject, and its borrowing from the Bible for that story of that house built on a rock, and its Lincolnesque reference to the house that will stand. And more than a speech, it describes a vision, and the set of actions and steps taken and to be taken to get there. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The story of Brazil's sugarcane plantation industry, and also of its ethanol producing region. A detailed account of the people who own these plantations and why they are reluctant to sell. The difficulties of getting into the sugarcane planation industry in brazil with its small owners and fragmented nature, and use of labor that violates Brazilian laws and international standards. These sgar cane plantations are located next to the mills because of the available infrastructure, and family owned sometimes handed down for generations, even hundreds of years, as Brazil was once a portuguese colony and a location for the slave trade which provided labor to the plantations. Note that most of the plantations use poorly paid labor and most of the work is done by hand, with the owners living in large ranchlike fazendas. Its probably another world for international investors not used to such a landscape. There are labor and environmental liabilities in owning some of these mills. Then most of these mills do not keep reliable accounting books and have tax and debt issues which cannot be easily resolved in Brazil's slow legal system. There are about 210 companies running 368 sugar and ethanol mills. The five largest companies generate only 17% os sales gives some idea of the fragmentation in the industry. There is also the perception that if large foreign companies like the ADM, Australia's CSR, Germany's Sudzucker AG, or even India's Bajaj Hindusthan, or others gain control over Brazil's ethanol industry Brazil's sugar producing regions would benefit less than if they get loans from large Brazilian or international banks and consolidate and modernize themselves, leading to political pressures in this direction. One such example is given here, one valuable sugar mill Vale de Rosario has been pursued by Bunge with an offer of $640 million for outright ownership, but Vale de rosario's board rejected the offer. Cargill looked at the possiblilty of owning 30% but was also turned away. Attempts at consolidation by Cosan, Brazil's largest sugar manufacturer, which made agreements with relatives owning 50.2 % of the shares in the company which has about a 100 relative clan with shares in the company over generations, also failed. The Biagi and Franco families which run the company made use of a defense under the cooperative's bylaws which allows the smallest shareholder to have 30 days to equal any takeover offer. The Biagis offered their own Santa Elisa mill to secure a $675 million credit line from Brazil's largest private bank Bradesco which was then used to buy out relatives who wanted the money. Now the Vale de Rosario and Santa Elisa mills have merged and are looking for international financing for the new company Santelisa Vale, which becomes the second largest after Cosan. Goldman Sachs plans to invest 200 million in Santelisa Vale.What this shows is the extraordinary lengths these family owned mills would go to to preserve their independent ways of operating and hand over to the next generation. Another difficulty is that industry experts are hard to recruit from these family owned companies as they have spent alifetime working there and remain loyal. With allthese obstacles the logic that the foreign companies can use Brazil to supply the world with ethanol from sugarcane does not take hold. Some of the attraction of sugarcane is that it contributes less to global warming than corn as a source for ethanol because sugarcane absorbs some of the CO2 when it is replanted. With a 51 cent per gallon tax credit subsidy on USA corn based ethanol and a 50 cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol imported into the USA, corn based ethanol can sustain in the US especially with the current high price of gasoline. Brazillian ethanol is more efficient to make from sugarcane and can be made to compete with gasoline even if gasoline prices drop. Instead there may be more years of unstable supply of ethanol from Brazil ahead which is what the Japanese in their negotiations for a supply of ethanol from Brazil have discovered since seeking such an agreeement since 2001. In the 1980's Brazilian sugar producers chasing high sugar prices lowered production of ethanol and left drivers without ethanol at the pumps. One company that is looking at another solution is Brenco, Brazilian Renewable Energy Company, a startup company backed by Ron Burkle and Vinod Khosla. It plans to put up its own green field sugar cane fields away from Sao Paulo state where the Brazilian sugar cane industry is presently concentrated. But this will take six year before the fields are ready for ethanol production. Henri Reichstul, a former head of Petroleo brasileiro, Brazil's national oil company, now leads Brenco. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This interview with Donald Trump by the publisher, editors and columnists of The Washington Post, Ryan Jr., Hiatt, Lane, Marcus, Diehl, Armai, Attiah, provides an exceptional insight into the views of Donald Trump on domestic and foreign policy, on his campaign for president. It is the result of an effort to get Trump to state his policies on different issues without the fuzziness in which Trump has carried out his campaign, often taking different sides of the same issue. In some situations Trump is pressed hard on his positions or controversial statements, to clarify what he has not clarified in the burst of media attention Trump received in the past 6 months, especially on television media. First some myths and realities. A recent March 19, 2016, issue of the Economist cites the Pew Trust in showing that only about 17% of eligible Republican voters voted in the primaries. A person watching television news media coverage on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, would get the impression that the voter turnout was tremendous- this is not confirmed by the Pew Trust survey. The Economist points out that had the other eligible voters cast their ballots and even if Trump had a share of these votes, the results might look different. With a highly fragmented vote in the Republican primaries, and about half of the vote going to candidates other than Trump, Trump's voter support would add up to about 8-9% of eligible Republican voters based on the Pew Survey results. The question here would be is this a representative sample of the U.S. or of the Republican Party. And is one likely to make false generalizations about the nature of the Republican party from such a limited sample of voter opinion. Is voter sentiment inadequately reflected, and results hopelessly skewed because of the lack of good candidates in the Republican Party, and Trump's tactical rhetoric appealing to a group of working class Americans left out in the technological progress of the last decade. In the process is the hard work of the founders of the Republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the framers of the Constitution being undone by a minority of disaffected voters with legitimate grievances on distribution of economic benefits of the technological progress, trade and global manufacturing networks- with a level of divisive rhetoric and decline in levels of public debate rarely seen. These are the clarifications sought from Trump and his response. Attiah raises the question of divisive rhetoric on minorities Hispanics and Black people- Trump says he is only talking about people here illegally, that he gets support from Hispanics here legally. He turns the question to Muslims and says there is a serious problem there that means being careful about how people are being admitted into the U.S. Questions about Trump's controversial statements about a wall with Mexico are not raised. Ryan pushes hard on the question of the libel laws standard that Trump says he is going to change, asking whether this would happen if Trump thinks the reporting "is wrong" but there is no malice. Trump wants the reporting to be fair for him, that reporters call him to check if he did this or that and why, before writing stuff about him, and he sees the reporting from the Post as very bad about him. He says his lawyers would have to tell the media, that he believes he should loosen up the standards so that this kind of coverage does not continue. On ISIS Trump pulls back when asked by Diehl about statements that suggested he would send the number of troops the generals wanted on the ground- estimated at 20,000 to 30,000- saying he would find it very, very, difficult to do that. On a nuclear option for ISIS Trump says he does not favor that. Suggesting that Trump like the other candidates in the election know there are no easy ways to tackle ISIS. Trump would rely on other countries in the region for help with troops on the ground, something that president Obama also favors, with limited results. Diehl also pushes hard on NATO- Trump says hundreds of billions of dollars are going to NATO and the whole burden for defending South Korea falls on the U.S. when it is not now a rich country that it once was. Diehl corrects him by saying for the public record that its not hundreds of billions, and South Korea, Japan pay 50% of the cost for defending their region. Trump wants to see 100% for the Korean peninsula defense borne by the South Koreans and Japan. Trump seees NATO as a good concept but needing more help from Germany, Poland, Baltics. At one point the Washington Post journalists tell Trump this is a position he shares with president Obama. Trump responds to questions from Hiatt about how he would handle the situations in black communities such as Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. Trump says he feels law enforcement is important and should play a big role in preventing the destruction of property from day one. He says jobs are what hurts inner cities but offers no solution about how to get the jobs lost in the steel industry for Baltimore, black neighborhoods sitting ironically next to the John Hopkins high technology university complex. Trump brings up the response that jobs could be created if the U.S. simply did not spend money on supporting nationbuilding overseas, a policy that president Obama has supported, and which the public has favored in the U.S. As Holman Jenkins brings up in a column on March 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal, these policies are being pursued today, and most of these jobs are not coming back so how would Trump bring them back or do anything about it, especially when Chinese workers in China's factories are being displaced by robotics in places such as Hon Hai factories. The more one thinks about it many of things Trump is saying are already being done, and there are no new solutions Mr. Trump has for today's problems of lack of upward mobility for the middle and working class- a priority for Sanders and Clinton also, not just for Trump. As a television personality and a candidate with a understanding of voter concerns, Trump artfully voices voter concerns of working class Americans for problems that defy easy solutions. Are there risks with Trump's approach that Trump has failed to think through or grasp? Does the unpredictable behaviour Trump suggests that would get allies thinking and trade partners responding lead to unpredictable consequences? Divisive rhetoric creates additional distractions in tackling the problems of the middle class and working class Americans. Divisive rhetoric within the NATO alliance would create additional distractions in tackling the problems of defending the European Union, such as using the very show of unpredictability. Diehl pushes Trump on this question. Would trade threats to China lead to a withdrawal from the Senkaku Islands by China? Trump says he thinks this would cause the Chinese to retreat . What if the Chinese see it differently, in their relations with Japan and South Korea, with a long difficult history, not necessarily in their relations with the U.S. Would a trade war hurt the global economy, and hurt confidence in U.S. fianncial markets just when the U.S. and European economies are staging a recovery, and when the economes of China, Japan and India are in a sensitive phase? These questions could not be raised because of time constraints, but must be on the minds of the editors of the Post and the WSJ, coming from different ends of the political spectrum. How would this help tackle the problem of upward mobility for working class Americans that all the candidates in the presidential election share? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A short biography of Wisconsin Congressman and Romney's vice presidential pick, Paul Ryan.