LyrArc Article Gist
Iran's (IRGC's not the people of Iran who are protesting) strategy in talks is to stall peace talks, to use the help of global media which is creating perception for Iran, and see if the strategy of no nuclear materials turned over to Russia or some other country, see if that strategy works. This is  what German Foreign Minister Wadephul is saying on Day 16 of the Naval Blockade. Earlier this week German chancellor Merz called it unfortunate that the Iran War is continuing in explaining to ordinary Germans why the German economy is slowing down, yet he understands the danger posed by nuclear weapons in Iran or for that matter anywhere inthe volatile and explosive Middle East. Almost like the volatile and explosive Balkans that ignited World War I in 1914. This strategy of IRGC Iran does much irreparable damage to the Iranian economy in weeks to come. Iranian protests were intended to put the economy on a new path in which not just students, the middle class in the bazaars, the younger generation of Iranians who had the most to lose participated. Why is this happening? It is happening because of the complicated politics of the Middle East and centuries old differences within the Islamic world between different sectarian beliefs and cultures. It is not happening because of the US. The US cannot be responsible for what colonial empires of the British and French did in this region in the 1920's by creating artificial states of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, out of the Arab portion of the collapsed Ottoman Empire defeated in World War I with Shia, Sunni populations in these states mixed up into unmanageable states. Five decades of wars in the Middle East are the result of these unmanageable artificial states of French and British Empires by 1921. The British Empire also controlled Iran in the 1900's and its oil resources. There was no involvement of America as the British and French did what they wanted to do even in the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI.  The fall of the pro-Soviet Mossadegh regime in 1956 was the only fragmentary situation which is an anti Soviet Cold War move by the US in 1952, and was done by a group that had British connections deep inside the Eisenhower administration led by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that took this unfortunate step for America (looking back over  5 decades of wars). A British oriented group was active inside the Republican party that continued to operate in the Reagan administration's involvement in support for Iraq in its war with Iran. And which no longer exists in the Republican party led by DJT which puts America First, grasps the fact of unmanageable states of British and French Empires and seeks to distance the US from the Middle East. Gandhi and Patel (and Jinnah) avoided the creation of such a state in British India's partition into India and Pakistan. Afghanistan is simply an extension of this Middle Eastern complicated setup, including 9/11. Why is all this important? Arab Middle East is a dangerous place for nuclear weapons- this is all the US is trying to accomplish, thankfully without the cooperation of the British and French whose Empires are responsible for the creation of a hodge podge mix of peoples in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq which (check this out) never existed before British and French Mandates of 1921. The global and American media that sees DJT Republicans as too conservative on cultural issues and the political establishment intending to return to power have completely obscured or not presented this side of the Middle East, yet is key to devising a policy that keeps America out of Middle East wars but keeps the goal of no nuclear weapons in this powderkeg of a region. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Violation of international law or tacit approval of drug states and suppression of the election results in Venezuela- position taken by Oxford's Dill and Germany's Steinmeier is itself controversial. Merz's is realistic. For those concerned about international law is it restricted to any particular period? Then the British policy in China supported by the other powers Japan, Russia, Germany and France to suppress the Boxer rebellion in 1901 and expand Treaty ports that forced opium on China in the period 1850 to the 1930's was not just a egregious violation, horrendous violation of basic human rights on a scale unimaginable in modern times. Much of the prosperity of the Netherlands and Britain, France was achieved through such policy in Asia. Yet Oxford's Dill and Steinmeier have chosen not to look at European history and the Empires of Europe in Asia and Africa for 300 years since 1700. By comparison Venezuelan action comes after the great patience of well meaning people, and the silence of elites in the US and Europe about massive migration encouraged by the regime in Venezuela of one third of its population about 9 million people to neighboring countries including the US, and suppression of free elections, complete mismanagement leading to 150% inflation destroying its economy.  It was not only these elites in the US and Europe that were responsible through their silence, but also the Bush and Obama wars in the Middle East which sapped the resources of the United States. Why is this happening when the Venezuelan people are the main benificiaries of the action taken by the US president to send in its military. All oil sales revenue will no longer go to a corrupt "drugs" state but be used to directly help the Venezuelan people achieve a better standard of living, bring down inflation  and invest in modernization, in these unusual circumstance a program run by Bessent at US Treasury. Those who dislike the unconventional but well meaning style of the US president and his occasional poor choice of words, find every opportunity for criticism even ignoring facts and common sense. Under Chavez and Maduro the Venezuelan economy was simply mismanaged to the point of being destroyed and an affluent country reduced to poverty and inflation so bad that one third or 9 milllion people left for neighboring countries. On this Dill at Oxford and Steinmeier have only this to say- it is somebody's else's problem. we will remain silent. Similarly on introducing nuclear weapons in the Middle East -where most nation states have intermittent wars and economic mismanagement for the last 50 years the artificial states from the Ottoman Empire of Syria and Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan every state impoverished by war and economic mismanagement - Dill at Oxford and Steinmeier in Germany also have only this to say- it is somebody else's problem not ours, we will remain silent. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The purchase of F/A-18 aircraft by Germany capable of delivering nuclear weapons stationed in Germany is critical to keeping the nuclear deterrance and the "nuclear sharing" agreement with the U.S. Older aircraft, the Tornadoes are now 40 years old. Chancellor Merkel has supported the purchase but this is now being called into question by its junior partner in the coalition government the SPD.  Leaders of the SPD party say they would block the purchase of 45 Boeing Company made F/A-18 jets proposed by Merkel's defense minister. Under NATO's nuclear sharing agreement going back to the 1950's it is believed there are about 180 B61 tactical nuclear bombs in rope, some 20 in Germany and spread out over Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. President Trump has said the U.S. will withdraw from a treaty with Russia that limits the presence of nuclear missiles in Europe because Russia is not living up to the agreement. This could lead to an arms race. The issue is leading to the beginning of a fundamental debate about nuclear armanent and military spending of a type that has not happened in Europe since 1982 when a rebellion in the SPD over the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe led to the ouster of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.  The Christian Democrats view the purchase of the F/A-18 at a time when Russia is updating its nuclear deterrance as fundamental to NATO and nuclear sharing. The SPD's leaders say nuclear sharing does not mean the need to host nuclear weapons, and give the example of Canada, a NATO ally that does not have U.S. weapons on its soil. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear deal reached in the 2013 Geneva negotiations between Iran and the EU, U.S., Russia, France, Germany, UK and China, a diplomatic bloc named the P5+1. Iran gets sanctions relief that would bring in an additional $6-7 billion dollars. In return Iran agrees to increased International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of the heavy water reactor in Arak, to not start the facility or lead it with nuclear fuel. Earlier France had pushed for a complete dismantling of that reactor. Iran will cap its uranium enrichment to levels needed only for fuel in a reactor, of 3.5%-5%, and maintain its total low enriched nuclear fuel at the current level of about 6 tons for the six month period in which further negotiations will take place. As the EU representative put it, this provides the time and space to reach a serious deal. It does not ship out and destroy the estimated 19,000 centrifuge machines in Iran to produce nuclear fuel. A sticking point was Iran's insistence that it has a right to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which Iran says is part of the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty....

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.