LyrArc Article Gist
China's export dependent economy with 4% decline in fixed investment Jan-May 2026 and 27% jump in exports.1 million car exports per month in June. Exports make up 20% of China's GDP. China is challenging German companies in their home markets in Europe. Domestic sales of cars are down 16% in June. What this means is that China's growth now depends on exports alone, with construction slowdown, and weak consumer spending. How does this tie into China's posture in trade with the US? It negotiated from a position of strength on rare earths not to give in to DJT tariffs yet knows the importance of trade for the Chinese economic model, importance of US and EU markets, markets worldwide. China's strategy is to shift some of the lost US sales due to tariffs to other countries in Latin America and Asia. A top priority is to keep trade with the US and European Union on a good footing, so that its exports can be absorbed. How does it affect Hormuz? For China Hormuz as an oil source is much lower in importance and China can do without Iran, it absolutely cannot do without the US and European Union to take a big part of its exports. It also does not openly say this but it also shares concerns similar to the US, on nuclear weapons in Iran. India, Japan and the EU have similar concerns. As shown in the articles on this page China has large unused oil in reserves and coal supplies, has lower oil demand at 4% growth, and is accelerating renewable energy, so that it is now importing 8.5 million barrels a day down from 12.5 million barrels a day. By doing this China puts this oil back into the world supply leading to lower oil prices. This means the world can do without the supplies from Hormuz, keep lower oil prices, and go on as before if Hormuz remains closed. The US can focus on domestic issues and its involvement in the Middle East can be limited to naval blockade which the US Navy is capable of doing. This is good for China, good for the US, and good for the World. Local governments in China, provincial authorites, pushed growth in building road, bridges, factories during the 30 year growth phase 1990-2020. In 2026 local governments with debt loads and lack of good projects for investment are a bottleneck to growth. This is the first time fixed investment is in decline, except for the years in 1961 and in 1967. The year 1961 is a result of many mistakes made by chairman of CCP, Mao, by shifting 2 million in farm labour to work in iron foundries, and the shift from private farm plots to soviet style commune farms, coupled with floods leading to 43-46 million famine deaths (1994, Chen Yizi, top advisor to CCP General Secretary Zhao Zhiyang). 1967 is the chaotic situation of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched by Mao. What it shows is that the China Miracle like the Japan Miracle and the German Miracle of recovery after World War II, is based on certain conditions and will enter a phase of lower growth closer to 3% like other industrialized nations over time. India and Indonesia are larger than China and will be the next growth story, which is also shown on these pages this week, with the address to the Indonesian parliament by Modi, and Indonesian president Prabovo's saying that he has studied Modi's economic changes and is copying them as there is no copyright. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the US to do a economic bailout of IRGC Iran now would be a betrayal of the US interest, and of the Iranian people who protested, says WSJ. This strongly worded WSJ editorial from the WSJ Editorial Board says Iran entered 2026 with an economic crisis, then a political crisis with widespread protests and suppression by the IRGC, leading to the Iran war to take out nuclear sites intending to produce nuclear weapons. The US air strikes destroyed Iran's military industrial complex. For the US to do a economic bailout of Iran now, when this is the only time with the naval blockade that Iran can be asked to remove all nuclear materials to a third country, would be a serious mistake. It says the only reason would be close to the midterms and high gas prices. Yet says WSJ letting Iran have its way would mean DJT could lose standing with the American public and see this in the midterms. The US naval blockade should not be lifted until Iran not by words but by actions sends out all the nuclear material out of the country, says WSJ. Lifting the naval blockade for 60 days of talks putting off the nuclear issue is the opposite of what the US has insisted on from the beginning- the nuclear issue is the only issue and it comes first is the US position. The mediation by Turkey and Pakistan, Qatar, has done just the opposite, and in this sense it has failed, according to this view in the WSJ. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the US to do a economic bailout of IRGC Iran now would be a betrayal of the US interest, and of the Iranian people who protested, says WSJ. This strongly worded WSJ editorial from the WSJ Editorial Board says Iran entered 2026 with an economic crisis, then a political crisis with widespread protests and suppression by the IRGC, leading to the Iran war to take out nuclear sites intending to produce nuclear weapons. The US air strikes destroyed Iran's military industrial complex. For the US to do a economic bailout of Iran now, when this is the only time with the naval blockade that Iran can be asked to remove all nuclear materials to a third country, would be a serious mistake. It says the only reason would be close to the midterms and high gas prices. Yet says WSJ letting Iran have its way would mean DJT could lose standing with the American public and see this in the midterms. The US naval blockade should not be lifted until Iran not by words but by actions sends out all the nuclear material out of the country, says WSJ. Lifting the naval blockade for 60 days of talks putting off the nuclear issue is the opposite of what the US has insisted on from the beginning- the nuclear issue is the only issue and it comes first is the US position. The mediation by Turkey and Pakistan, Qatar, has done just the opposite, and in this sense it has failed, according to this view in the WSJ. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Most of the media has failed to cover this aspect, yet the Collective agreement is a big, a huge plus on June 17 2026 at the G-7 Summit (G-9 expanded with India and Brazil). There was discussion and effort to convey different points of view which was an healthy aspect of this G-9 meeting in Les Bain, France, near Geneva. German chancellor Merz described the atmosphere as very constructive with lots of open thoughtful discussion- "This is the ​first ‌time since [US] President [Donald] Trump took office that we ‌have issued a joint ‌declaration ​at a G7 summit and found common language on the major ​foreign and security policy issues of our time. ⁠I ​consider that ​a real success."  "This ⁠sets a new tone, including ⁠regarding ​trans-Atlantic unity and resolve." Merz says all issues on the summit agenda were talked about "very openly" and "very constructively." Merz  says he will support a peace deal in the Middle East, including a possible military mission if there is "a lasting ceasefire."  A series of "preconditions that are not yet fulfilled, so there is no immediate hurry." What this means, as most of the media has failed to cover this aspect including NYT, WSJ and Washington Post, is that the US and the EU, India and China, Brazil, the poorer countries  Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, are now in a lot better positions, coming at it from different angles,  and are all aligned for their own interests, to push hard to support the US effort to get to the Memorandum of Agreement with Iran, and future settlement in Ukraine. The onus is for Iran and the entire Middle East to collectively come to an agreement to live with harmony among the neighbors for the mutual interest- including a nuclear free Middle East that is in their mutual interest- so that the rest of the world's people, a massive 5 billion compared to 500 million in the Middle East can industrialize, modernize, and make economic progress that benefits all the people of the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the media in the US and world cover this issue the focus is on the war and Hormuz. In the background a different situation is playing out. US Iran peace talks with Pakistan/ Qatar mediation June 13 2026- different factions in Iran RGC and Foreign Ministry+mediators with different positions  put out conflicting reports throughout May and June. The mediators Pakistan, Turkey and also Qatar/Saudis which also have a keen interest in limiting the damage to their economies, are taking one position working with the Foreign Ministry and elected Iranian president Pezeshkian who won 16 million votes 55% in the 2024 election. Inside Iran the RGC under new leaders is pursuing its own interests that does not put the economy first in conflict with Pezeshkian and public opinion in Iran for putting the economy first.  Pakistan faces grave risks with its large population, the risks to the economy from oil prices at $125 a barrel to its balance of payments crisis. Turkey also faces risks to its economy with high inflation. Saudis and Qatar see their economic prospects as limited and need to cut economic projects as oil revenues decline. In this situation the US goal of getting nuclear material out of the country is now put into a phased process based on conditions for every step of the way by the US negotiators, yet with memorandum of understanding to accomodate a changing situation. This policy may also be now agreed on between China and the US, and to some extent Russia. This can be seen as playing out and media does not talk about it. China openly greets DJT in Beijing and US and China agree to work things out in May 2026. China cuts its oil use by 3 million barrels a day as shown in a WSJ report this week. This is a major step. UAE leaves OPEC and calls for cuts in oil prices. Next Delsy Rodriguez of Venezuela visits New Delhi, India, and meets to set up economic relationships that include large purchases of Iranian oil to replace supplies lost in Hormuz and what India can offer in exchange for these purchases to Venezuela, including infrastructure building support. This points to a Win-Win for the US, China, India, as oil needs are met from places other than Hormuz for major users of energy. China may have realized that its prolific use of oil for 25 years of rapid development may have led to wasteful use of oil- some of that wasteful use can now be cut- 3 million barrels of oil use cut accepting some slower growth for quality growth. Germany and Japan are using less energy per unit of GDP and China will be looking at their model of energy use as an example to follow. This has huge potential for limiting climate change, as without China and India becoming more efficient in energy use, nothing the US could do was going to make a big difference for climate change. This may be one of the unintended benefits of the Hormuz situation in 2026 - ways to cut energy use for climate change action. And ways to move away from Hormuz and Persian Gulf for supplies so that poorer countries and advanced economies have to pay less for oil helping the poorer countries (Pakistan, Turkey) survive and grow, helping middle economic status rapidly modernizing economies  continue rapid growth (China and India), and helping advanced economies with cost of living hurting the majority of their people (US and EU).  With less money Russia, Iran and other countries will face serious constraints for more military expenditures as for the first time alternative supplies (other than Hormuz) and lower oil prices are being brought about in a newly unfolding plan of the US, China, India and other nations, that is not discussed in today's world media headlines. This means when seen objectively there is room for optimism based on the one thing going for the US, China, India, EU, a host of poorer nations in Asia /Africa/ LatinAmerica, the  5 largest development blocs and population blocs today, which is that the US and China can agree on being custodians for peaceful development accepting their responsibilities for guaranteeing this world order- as DJT and Xi Jinping stated in Beijing in May 2026- with the US aim of nuclear free Iran also accepted by China, Russia, India, and large sections of the Iranian population that put the economy first. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Peter Baker shows President Trump only reluctantly agreed to certify the Iran Nuclear Agreement. He opposed it in discussions with the Secretary of State Tillerson. It took the combined effort of Tillerson Dunford of the combined chiefs of staff, Defense Secretary Mattis, and of National Security Adviser McMaster, to get Trump to agree to go ahead with the deal. President Trump wanted a new strategy to counter Iran in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister Zarif has not yet met with Tillerson of the U.S. Zarif says Iran may withdraw from the deal if there is significant nonperformance by the U.S. Trump advisers are wary about the influence on Europe as the EU is not interested in taking a new look at the Iran nuclear deal. The EU sees things differently- that the issues of Iranian influence in the war torn Middle East is a separate issue from the nuclear deal, and that in any case a nuclear constrained Iran is better than one with nuclear weapons. Another factor is that the Middle East is now a complicated place with relations crisscrossing in different and even conflicting directions. The U.S. played a part on the Iranian side in the retaking of Mosul in Iraq with U.S. bombing strikes against Islamic State. In Iraq the U.S. is supporting the Abadi government which is mainly Shiite in its structure and is supported by Iran. The Trump position is that president Obama gave away too much in negotiating the deal and was not against the negotiating process.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Secretary of State James Baker III on the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran for a nuclear deal. He points out the importance of the U.S. making the removal of sanctions gradual manner as Iran fulfills its part of the agreement. Baker says Iran in the past has broken agreements to resume nuclear weapons research, making the verification process and snap back of sanctions critical. Baker does not address the issues related to how effective verification would take place, calling this the work of negotiators to work out the bureaucratic and cumbersome provisions. He also does not address the problems other critics have raised about any future snap back of sanctions because of the reluctance of European countries, saying only that the U.S. should maintain its credible position on the negtiations with its other partners- China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK.

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the fifth North Korean nuclear test DW.com talks with Rudiger Frank about the test and what this means. Frank says the negotiations with North Korea and efforts to limit the program so far have been a colossal failure. Tests have continued and without a change in strategy more tests will be followed by the usual condemnations by world leaders and further sanctions. Frank says this change in strategy would include recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state, and getting North Korea to ensure the weapons are safe and secure in the country, getting a clear idea of what and where the weapons are. The International Atomic Agency would be asked to go in and make inspections. The next step would be to freeze the program at some level agreed to. This is a tough step to take but it only recognizes the reality of the situation, and continued development by North Korea of nuclear weapons if no steps for change are taken. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post interviews Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak on June 20, 2012. On the negotiations of the P5+1 countries with Iran in Baghdad, Istanbul and Moscow, Barak says the Iranians are simply buying time, hoping that by being a little forthcoming they can delay giving up nuclear weapons programs capabilities and see if the situation changes with a new President in office in the U.S.. The Iranians are trying to reach a "zone of immunity," the way Pakistan and N. Korea did, and it will take a resolute determination on the part of the U.S. the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese to prevent a nuclear Iran and nuclear proliferation. By the third meeting in Moscow it should be clear whether the Iranians are willing to give up capabilities that lead to nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Khamanei is the person in charge in Iran, but decisions are made collectively with the moderate Ayatollahs still ayatollahs, says Barak. The addition of the Khadima party to the coalition government of prime minister Netanyahu increases Israel's desire for dialogue and seeking progress on a peace with the Palestinian Authority- if not a peace arrangement then even unilateral steps towards peace by both sides. The way forward in Syria is for the U.S. to talk with the Russians about a new government. The important thing is for the removal of the Assad family, the entire Syrian state does not need to be dismantled as happened with the Baath party in Iraq. Israel continues to build a fence in the Sinai facing Egypt, as it fears infiltration during the period of civil strife in Egypt. Israel views Egypt from the standpoint of any future Egyptian government honoring its treaty committments with Israel, otherwise says Barak it is upto Egypt to decide its future government....

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT's Thomas Erdbrink makes a road trip from Mashad in the west to Tehran, just before elections in 2017. He sees abandoned factories and other signs of the impact of sanctions particularly on small businesses. Iran's economy has not rebounded from the sanctions period in the way it was expected. Lower oil prices have had an impact. Signs of decay and the effect of sanctions on people's lives can be seen, including the isolation from the outside world. It reminds one of a road trip across Cuba following the lifting of sanctions recently.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ahmari points out that with Iran's right to enrich uranium accepted by the Obama administration the goals of the Iranian government have been achieved.

LyrArc Article Gist
Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State takes a strong stand on North Korean missile testing and nuclear program in a visit to Seoul and Beijing. He said the U.S. would be forced to take pre-emptive action "if they elevate their threat of their weapons program"  to an unacceptable level. Continuing a policy of the Obama administration following missile tests by North Korea, the Trump administration has rejected any talks with North Korea. Tillerson said that "the policy of strategic patience has ended." It was also meant to signal U.S. intentions before Tillerson goes to Beijing from Seoul. President Trump commented on Twitter; "North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been "playing" the United States for years. China has done little to help." Because China sees North Korea as a bargaining chip with the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the situation has ended repeatedly in a impasse with the North Korean nuclear and missile program continuing during the Bush and Obama administrations. This has also meant that North Korea was unlikely to collapse on its own, with China pursuing a policy of using North Korea as part of its defense policies in the region, as pointed out by Sanger in this report. As the North's missile program continues the U.S., and with the North seeing the missile program as the only way to ensure the survival of the regime, the U.S. needed to come up with a new way to tackle the situation.   ...

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
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, has called for fresh thinking in U.S. foreign policy and foreign engagements after the wars in Iran and Afghanistan cost the U.S. about one trillion dollars. He says the U.S. should avoid single issue engagement, get the participation of other countries, and increase common ground on a host of issues which concern most of the major nations in the world. This is why we have a G-20 and not a G-8, says Hagel. This policy also helps the U.S. by having other countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East take up some of the responsibilities that would otherwise fall disproportionately on the U.S., and lets the U.S. devote attention to strengthening the domestic economy which underpins strength in world affairs. On Iran he sees continuing talks as the better approach to coming up with a solution, for which he has come under criticism from some Republicans.

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...