14 December, 2011
12 December, 2011
Crap. I really hope this is wrong.
I'm not sure what bothers me more: that this might be true, or that the only place to get the story is from the alternative media and the Iranians. One whistleblower site working on the story reports that an Iraqi journalist based in London has told them
"Some of the US forces that left the Ain al-Assad Air base in Iraq last Thursday, did not come back to the USA or its base in Germany, but were transferred to Jordan during the evening hours.”Furthermore, they add
Update 1: Today at 12:00 P.M. we contacted DOD Press Office via two voicemail messages and one e-mail asking for comment(s) on this story. As of 6:00 P.M. EST we have not heard back.
Update 2: Another journalist with a major mainstream media publication was told by his editors that there would be no coverage or follow up on these developments.
Maybe it isn't what it looks like. But it sure looks like the media have agreed what to NOT tell the American people. Again.
Keep your eyes open.
Practicing to block the Straight of Hormuz
Member of the Iranian Parliament says the military was set to practice operations to block the Straight of Hormuz, one of the key choke points for world energy supplies. The Iranian military has not confirmed this, but you can probably expect a rise in oil prices just on the emotional impact of the possibility.
As it is, most of the crude oil and liquefied natural gas of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, the Emirates (and Iran) have to pass through the four-mile wide shipping channel, currently patrolled by the U.S. Navy.
Oil on the flames (cute title, huh?)
Exxon-Mobil is throwing in with the Kurds in the upcoming battle over Iraq. The battle takes off again.
Whatever the prospects of finding oil in the north of Iraq, observers are surprised that Exxon is prepared to hang its future in Iraq on the outcome of the power struggle between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government. Control of the right to explore for oil and exploit it is crucial to the authorities on both sides since they have virtually no other source of revenue.
The Kurds have won a degree of autonomy close to independence since the fall of Saddam, and the ability to sign oil contracts without reference to Baghdad will be another step towards practical independence and the break-up of Iraq. A parallel would be if the Scottish government were to sign exploration contracts in the North Sea without consulting London.
What makes the Exxon-KRG deal particularly inflammatory, says Mr Shahristani, is that three of the six blocs where Exxon is planning to drill are understood to be "across the blue line – that is outside the border of the KRG". This means they are in the large areas in northern Iraq disputed between Arabs and Kurds since 2003, but where the Kurds have military control.
The government must now decide if it will make good on its threats and replace Exxon at a mammoth oil field called West Qurna 1 at the other end of the country, north of Basra. Iraqi oil officials hint that Royal Dutch Shell might replace the American company.
Both sides have much at stake. The Iraqi government is totally reliant on its oil revenues to pay its soldiers, police force and civilian officials. It needs vast sums to rebuild the country after 30 years of war, civil war and sanctions. In 2009, it began to expand its oil industry by signing contracts with firms such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon to boost production in under-exploited and poorly maintained fields.
These companies thereby gained access to some of the largest fields in the world, each with reserves of more than five billion barrels. Vast sums are being invested, mostly around Basra in the south of Iraq. Oil output, now at 2.9 million barrels a day, is due to rise to a production capacity of 12 million b/d by 2017, potentially putting Iraq on a par with Saudi Arabia as an oil exporter.
Since the Kurds have had a bad deal for generations, my sympathies are with the Kurds. But even if they succeed to get the state they want, the transition is going to be hard.
06 December, 2011
02 December, 2011
"Tricky Mitt" Romney
Lately, I've been thinking about an old classic book in political science: The Making the the President. It followed the campaign of 1968, showing the controlled, professional, image-manipulating, divisive, strategic path followed by Richard Nixon to the White House. Hardly anyone "liked" Nixon. He wasn't seen as particularly trustworthy. He didn't like crowds, or campaigning, or the press. He kept to a script, and promised a vague "secret plan" to manage peace with honor in Vietnam. The best thing you could say about him was that he was not Lyndon Johnson's heir apparent, and even then it was a close-run election.
Sound like anyone we know?
Sound like anyone we know?
30 November, 2011
Policy wonks rejoice!
Economists Get Online Platform for Policy Debates - WSJ.com
Everyone else--it might prove to be an excellent cure for insomnia.
29 November, 2011
Boldly going where we've never been before
From the Institute for the Future, a visualization of trends and where they may be leading us
Would anyone care to speculate on what some of these imply for politics and economics? It sometimes seems like most political discussion is analogous to medieval debates over angels, pins, and biblical interpretation. I suppose it seems important in its own context, but the world is passing it by.
28 November, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)