May 09

Today’s News 9th May 2018

  • Firepower: Russian Troops Get New Kalashnikov Assault Rifles

    As the United States Army marches towards acquiring the LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) light machine gun for their infantry, Russia’s Defense Ministry recently purchased the newest family of Kalashnikov assault rifles for Russian soldiers.

    Russian soldier aims the new AK-12 assault rifle. (Source: Sergey Bobylev, TASS)

    The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed in January that it acquired advanced Kalashnikov AK-12 and AK-15 assault rifles for service, which shoot 5.45×39 mm and 7.62×39 mm cartridges, respectively.

    “A decision has been made on the AK-12 and the AK-15. The submachine guns have been recommended as armament in the ground forces, the airborne force and [naval] infantry,” the Kalashnikov press office said in January, according to Russian News Agency TASS.

    AK-15 (left) and AK-12. (Source: Vasily Raksha) 

    Kalashnikov Group CEO Alexei Krivoruchko told TASS that a series of field training exercises were completed with the advanced assault rifles last year. He added that the firearms manufacturer would be shipping the advanced weapons to the Russian Armed Forces in 2018.

    “New Kalashnikov rifles combine famous, battle-proven high reliability with modern ergonomics, increased hit probability and capabilities to effectively use all modern accessories, from red dot, night and IR sights to underbarrel grenade launchers, forward grips, lasers and flashlights, sound suppressors and more.

    AK-12 and AK-15 rifles share most of its arts and assemblies, with key differences being in the ammunition used. AK-12 is chambered for Russian Army standard issue 5.45×39 ammunition, while AK-15 is chambered for older, but still very popular 7.62×39 ammunition. “Kalashnikov” group also designed compact versions of both rifles, known as AK-12K and AK-12K, which are better suited for CQB use by Special Forces, or as Personal Defense Weapons for heavy armament and vehicle crews,” the Kalashnikov Group said in a press statement.

    The AK-12 and AK-15 specifications:

    • Caliber: 5.45х39 (AK-12) or 7.62х39 (AK-15)

    • Length, overall: 34-37 inches

    • Length, shoulder stock folded: 27 inches

    • Barrel length: 16.33 inches

    • Weight, with empty magazine: 7.7 lbs

    • Rate of fire: 700 rounds/min

    • Magazine capacity: 30 rounds

    Russia Beyond Tests The AK-12 Assult Rifle: 

    The advanced assault rifles are part of the Russian military’s “Ratnik” program, which is designed to create future infantry combat systems, including upgraded body armor, high-tech kevlar helmets with special eye monitor (thermal, night vision monocular, flashlight), and communication systems. Initially, only Russian Spetsnaz will receive the AK-12 as part of the Ratnik program, while ground troops will continue using AK-74 into the early 2020s.

    According to Dmitry Semizorov, the CEO of the Central Research Institute of Precision Machine-Making, Russia’s Ratnik combat gear has been successfully tested in the Syrian civil war.

    “You all probably know that the Ratnik was used in Syria and I want to say that the combat gear proved its worth during combat operations. We checked the combat outfit that was used in difficult situations in one way or another. I want to assure you that none of the elements of the combat gear’s protection was ever pierced,” said Semizorov.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    While the global arms race between Washington and Moscow is clearly evident, what we do know today is that both countries are rapidly modernizing their standard military rifles before the next major shooting war.

  • Armenia Elects New Prime Minister, Confirms Alliance With Russia

    Authored via The Duran,

    New Armenian leader confirms Armenia will retain its alliance with Russia…

    Weeks of crisis in Armenia have ended with the Armenian parliament’s election of opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan Prime Minister.

    He was the only candidate after it became clear that the ruling Republican party’s attempts to install its own candidate in place of its retired leader Serzh Sargsyan – whose attempt to appoint himself Prime Minister triggered the crisis – was unacceptable to large sections of the Armenian public.

    Almost the first steps Pashinyan has taken as Armenia’s new leader is pledge to continue Armenia’s military alliance with Russia – which he says (correctly) is essential for Armenia’s security – and say that Armenia will remain a member of the Russian led Eurasian Union.

    Pashinyan has also said that he intends to attend the forthcoming Eurasian Union summit meeting, where he intends to meet Russian President Putin for the first time.

    Pashinyan has expressed opposition in the past to Armenia’s membership of the Eurasian Union.  That will undoubtedly lead some to suspect that his recent pledges to continue Armenia’s alliance with Russia and to keep Armenia inside the Eurasian Union are cynical manoeuvres intended to buy him time whilst he builds up his power base so that he can chip away at the links to Russia later.

    I take a different view.  I think it more likely that Pashinyan’s earlier criticisms were simply intended to distinguish him from Sargsyan and the Republicans, and now that he has achieved his purpose of becoming Armenia’s Prime Minister they will be quietly forgotten.

    Even if that is wrong, the very fact that Pashinyan has felt obliged to make these pledges as soon as it became clear that he would become Prime Minister speaks for itself.

    The simple fact is that Pashinyan would almost certainly not have become Armenia’s Prime Minister if he had not made these pledges.  Quite simply there is no critical mass in Armenia of opponents of the nation’s alliance with Russia sufficient to propel to power a politician who pledges to end that alliance.  Far too many Armenians realise that given Armenia’s difficult geopolitical environment the alliance with Russia is – as Pashinyan says – essential for Armenia’s security to make it possible for an Armenian politician who wishes to end that alliance to gain power.

    That immediately limits what Pashinyan can do, even if he secretly does wish to break with Russia, which as it happens I strongly doubt.

  • Short Of War, China Now Controls South China Sea

    Authored by Richard Javad Heydarian via The Asia Times ,

    Beijing’s new missile deployment to contested land features has tilted the maritime area’s balance of power in its favor. Will the US respond?

    Tensions in the South China Sea are on the boil again amid new reports that China has deployed advanced missiles to land features in the disputed maritime area.

    According to new reports, China has installed several Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) and Anti-Cruise Ballistic Missiles (ACBMs) systems across the Paracel and Spratly island chains, parts of which are claimed by multiple regional states including the Philippines and Vietnam.

    Weeks earlier, China also deployed electronic jamming equipment to the maritime area, giving it the ability to disrupt the command-and-control communications of rival states’ military assets operating in the South China Sea.

    China’s neighbors and rivals fear that the Asian powerhouse is slowly but surely establishing the foundation of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in one of the world’s most important and busy waterways. Over US$5 trillion worth of global trade traversed the sea last year.

    Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy warships and fighter jets take part in a military display in the South China Sea, April 12, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Stringer

    Boosting China’s missile defense system in the area would allow it to progressively restrict the movement as well as squeeze the supply lines of smaller claimant states, all of which maintain comparatively modest military capabilities to fortify their sea claims.

    The reports immediately rekindled tensions between China and key Southeast Asian claimant states, including the Philippines. Crucially, it has also reignited an ongoing debate between doves and hawks within the Philippine government.

    In recent days, images of Chinese military assets in Philippine-claimed features, namely the Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs, have dominated news headlines in Manila.

    Senior Filipino defense officials have repeatedly expressed concerns over China’s militarization of the disputed area. Earlier this year, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana claimed that China promised not to deploy more military assets to Philippine-claimed land features.

    The recent reports will thus likely be interpreted by Filipino top brass as a betrayal of trust while giving new ammunition to already strong anti-China rally cries among nationalistic Filipinos.

    Amid rising public pressure for the Philippine government to take a harder stance, the Senate is scheduled to conduct an inquiry into the direction of Philippine-China relations and ways to protect the country’s interest in the South China Sea.

    Philippine Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, known for his dovish position on China, has inn recent days tried to strike a new balance: “We’re taking it seriously. We’re verifying the information [about the deployment of missile systems].”

    “The problem is it can’t be solved just by the Philippines and China,” claimed the Philippines’ top diplomat. “This is what the President was saying, that it’s not directed at us, but of course our allies and defense are saying that they may have missiles there. It could affect anyone.”

    Cayetano promised to coordinate with defense authorities, including the defense secretary and the national security adviser, to verify the reports and consider an appropriate response.

    In a high-profile press conference, the US Ambassador to the Philippines, Sung Kim, expressed his concern over any “aggressive unilateral action toward militarization,” while saying that China is “moving toward militarization” of the disputes.

    In Washington, the White House took a more strident stance. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told media that the Trump administration has “raised concerns” with China, warning the Asian powerhouse about “near-term and long-term consequences” if there was not a change of course.

    US Navy sailors move aircraft from an elevator into the hangar bay of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the South China Sea, April 8, 2018. Photo: US Navy via Reuters/Michael Hogan/Handout

    A top Pentagon official told CNBC that China’s deployment of missile defense systems in the South China Sea shows “the further militarization of [artificially-created] outposts” by China and “will only serve to raise tensions and create greater distrust among claimants.”

    Last month, Admiral Philip Davidson, the incoming chief of the US Navy’s Pacific Command, said in written testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that China’s militarization of the disputes represent “a substantial challenge to US military operations in this region.”

    “The only thing lacking are deployed forces. Once occupied, China will be able to extend its influence thousands of miles to the south and project power deep into Oceania,” warned the American admiral. “In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

    Under President Donald Trump’s administration, the US has stepped up its freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, aiming to deter the establishment of a full-fledged Chinese exclusion zone in the area.

    Against that backdrop, US and Philippine forces launched on Monday their largest joint military exercises under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who previously aimed to scale down the so-called Balikatan, or shoulder-to-shoulder, drills in a move seen as appeasing China.

    A US Marine runs with a Philippine soldier during joint drills aimed at Philippine Naval base San Antonio, Zambales, October 9, 2015. Photo: Reuters/Erik De Castro

    Filipino officials insisted the regular exercises, comprised this year of around 8,000 Philippine and US forces as well as contingents from Japan and Australia, were not trained on China and focused more on counterterrorism.

    China, for its part, has remained adamant that its actions are purely defensive. “Our peaceful construction activities on the Nansha [Spratly] Islands, including the deployment of necessary national defense facilities, are meant to safeguard China’s sovereignty and security, which is also the rights a sovereign state is entitled to,” China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying recently said.

    Despite a growing public backlash, Duterte seems determined to continue with his rapprochement with China. In a controversial speech on May 4, the Filipino president went so far as to claim that China aims to protect, rather than imperil, the Philippines’ national interests.

    “China said, ‘We will protect you. We will not allow the Philippines to be destroyed. We are just here and you can call for our help anytime,’” said Duterte, desperately seeking to assuage rising criticism of his close relations with Beijing.

    Harry Roque, Duterte’s spokesman, claimed that “we are confident that those missiles are not directed at us,” given the “recently developed close relationship and friendship” between the Philippines and China. He did not explain, however, to whom the projectiles are pointed at instead.

  • Here’s How Much Marijuana Costs In The United States Vs Canada

    Submitted by Priceonomics

    A tidal wave of change is hitting the cannabis industry in both the United States and Canada.

    In the United States, medical marijuana is now legal in 29 states. Not only that, but the recreational use of marijuana is now legal in 10 states. You can walk into a licensed store in places like California, Oregon and Colorado and purchase cannabis nearly as easily as buying beer.

    Similar dynamics are taking place in Canada. Medical marijuana consumption was first legalized in 2001, and in 2017 legislation paved the way for the legalization of recreational use throughout all of Canada — a development that’s expected to be implemented in the summer of this year.

    With the emergence of legal weed in the US and Canada, we were curious, in which country is it more expensive? How does the price of marijuana vary across cities in the United States and Canada?

    We analyzed data from Priceonomics customer Wikileaf, a company that tracks cannabis prices at dispensaries across the US and Canada and aggregated the data at the national level and find out the answers.

    We discovered that cannabis is 30% less expensive in Canada than the United States. When you look at different cities, the price differential can be even more pronounced. Legal marijuana is 39% cheaper in Vancouver than San Francisco, for example.

    ***

    We begin our analysis by looking at the average price of an eighth of an ounce of marijuana in the United States versus Canada at the beginning of April 2018. Throughout this piece, Canadian prices are converted to US dollars to make the price comparison consistent.

    Across dispensaries tracked by Wikileaf in the United States, the price of an eighth of marijuana is $40.0, compared to $27.9 in Canada, where it is 30% cheaper.

    Part of the reason cannabis is so much cheaper in Canada than the United States is there is a much longer history of legalization in Canada, and thus a larger supply of legal marijuana growers and sellers. While cannabis companies in the United States can’t even have bank accounts, in Canada there are publicly traded cannabis companies on the stock market. In anticipation of nationwide legalization this year, supply of marijuana continues to grow.

    Next we look at the price difference between the two countries based on the size of the purchase? Is Canadian marijuana still less expensive if you buy a small amount (a gram) versus large amount (an ounce)?

    At every quantity purchased, it’s much cheaper to buy in Canada versus the United States. At the bottom of the chart, we calculate the percentage discount of Canadian weed versus American. Interestingly, the largest quantity you purchase, the smaller the price discount in Canada is. It turns out that in the United States, they give you a larger bulk discount on weed.

    Since the beginning of 2018, the prices of weed in Canada and the United States have been very stable. Below we chart the weekly average price for an eighth of an ounce of cannabis on Wikileaf since the new year:

    In the past year, the price of marijuana has been extremely stable in both the United States and Canada.

    ***

    Lastly, we conclude by looking at the price of marijuana in the most popular cities among Wikileaf users in the United States and Canada. Is there a large variation in the price of weed in the Canadian cities Vancouver and Toronto? How about in US cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Portland, and Los Angeles?

    San Francisco, a city which wins a lot of these “most expensive awards” (toast, real estate, coffee, etc), also has the most expensive marijuana of all the cities we looked at. In San Francisco, an eighth of an ounce of weed is 12% more expensive than in Seattle and 20% more expensive than in Los Angeles. 

    When compared to its US counterparts, the Canadian cities of Toronto and Vancouver offer a substantial discount. Someone from San Francisco visiting Vancouver can purchase weed at 39% discount compared to at home. 

    ***

    So, it turns out marijuana is about 30% cheaper in Canada than the United States. Those differences have persisted all year and are pervasive at all purchase sizes. By most accounts, the demand for marijuana in Canada is quite high, so that is unlikely to be the reason for the price discount versus the United States. 

    Instead, cannabis is cheaper in Canada because there has been a longer history of a legal supply of weed.  With marijuana, as with most things, when the supply is high, the prices are not.

  • Is "The Big One" Coming? Los Angeles Area Rocked By 4.5 Magnitude Earthquake

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    An earthquake this morning rattled a wide swath of Southern California, sparking fears that this may not be the worst. 

    The 4.5 magnitude quake struck near Cabazon about 6 miles south-southeast of Mt. San Gorgonio just before 5 am local time.

    Residents felt the quake and warned others to be prepared because this was minor compared to historical quakes, and the close proximity to the San Andres fault line.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    No damage has been reported yet as the magnitude appears to be fairly small, but the shaking was felt by residents across the Inland Empire. The quake occurred at 4:49 a.m. at a depth of 8 miles, the U.S Geological Survey said. Its epicenter was located in Riverside County, 6.8 miles north of Cabazon and 20 miles northwest of Palm Springs. It originally was measured as a 4.6 quake before being downgraded to a 4.5 magnitude. 

    According to The LA Times, the quake was followed by several aftershocks. This marks the second time in little more than a month when the region was hit by a small quake felt over a large area. On April 5, a 5.3-magnitude quake centered in the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara County rattled nerves.

    But experts have recently said that the Hayward Bay faultline in the San Francisco Bay area is more dangerous and volatile than the infamous San Andreas fault line. However, a large quake on either fault line would impact millions and cause untold amounts of damage based solely on population density.

    The scariest scenario for the next major earthquake may not be from the San Andreas Fault (though that one still threatens), but from the Hayward Fault that runs along the east side of the San Francisco Bay. In fact, many say that the next earthquake on the Hayward Bay fault line would be “disastrous.”According to KTUV, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along the Hayward Fault could kill as many as 800 people and injure 18,000, according to results of a new research released Wednesday. –SHTFPlan

    According to Business Insider, the statistical chances of this type of an earthquake occurring on the Hayward Bay fault line are not very comforting either. There’s about a 76% chance that the San Francisco Bay Area could experience a 7.2 magnitude earthquake within the next 30 years, according to some recent reports.

  • Pompeo Expected To Return With 3 Americans Held In North Korea

    Shortly after arriving in Pyongyang for meetings with North Korean officials, news broke that the new US Secretary of State may have a big surprise when he returns to the US: according to Yonhap, which cited a South Korean presidential official, North Korea is expected to release three U.S. citizens held in the communist state “in an apparent goodwill gesture ahead of a historic meeting between its leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump.”

    The official reportedly added that Pompeo was expected to return with “the exact time of the Trump-Kim summit, along with the three U.S. captives in North Korea.”

    “We expect him to bring the date, time and the captives,” the official said, while speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Pompeo arrived in Pyongyang earlier in the day, according to reports, marking his second trip to the reclusive North in less than a month, although this one not nearly as top secret as his first one over Easter.

    Trump earlier said the location of his meeting with Kim has already been set.

    Pompeo earlier said the North’s release of the three U.S. citizens would be a “great gesture,” noting the U.S. has been asking for their freedom for 17 months. Pompeo was earlier expected to bring the three captives through the inter-Korean border, but the Cheong Wa Dae official said that will likely not be the case. The three U.S. citizens are all said to be Korean-Americans.

    It was not clear when Pompeo is set to leave Pyongyang.

     

  • No Country For 'Old White Guys'

    After millions of baby boomers lost their life savings during the financial crisis (a catastrophe for which no senior bankers were ever held accountable), more old white men are being forced out of retirement or simply being forced to work until a much later age.

    Unfortunately for older Americans, rampant ageism in the workforce is making it difficult to get well-paying work – or even, as the following case shows, a job at the local restaurant and bar.

    To wit, Darden’s Season 52 chain of restaurants was has been forced to pay $2.85 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  alleging that job candidates interviewing for jobs at the chain’s 41 locations had been told that they wouldn’t be considered because the company didn’t hire “old white guys,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.

    “Often, discrimination cases are hard to prove,” said David Seltzer, an attorney on the case with the EEOC’s Miami district office. “But here, Seasons 52 interviews across locations repeatedly told applicants things like ‘We don’t hire people over 40,’ ‘Seasons 52 girls are younger and fresh’ or asked them for their date of birth, high school graduation date or a driver’s license.”

    […]

    The EEOC alleged that one manager bluntly said Seasons 52 didn’t employ “old white guys.'”

    Though the company escaped an admission of liability (and continues to deny the allegations) it will now be required to hold new training for all hiring managers regarding “age-neutral and non-discriminatory recruiting, interviewing, and hiring; and how to avoid stereotypes in hiring and in the workplace, including ageism and age stereotypes.”

    Also, the victims of the company’s purported discrimination will be invited to reapply for positions at the restaurant. Season 52 has also been required to have its hiring practices monitored for three years by an independent attorney.

    The case, which was filed in February 2015, alleged that Darden’s Seasons 52 chain tried to portray a “young and hip” image by hiring younger servers and hosts.

    Season

    Both the plaintiffs and Darden said they were happy to put the case behind them, while the plaintiffs said the victory was an important step toward showing American employers that older workers could keep up (though we imagine the victory won’t impact the decision making of managers at independent restaurants and bars across the country).

    “We are pleased to resolve this EEOC matter,” said a statement from Darden spokesman Hunter Robinson. “Putting this behind us is good for Seasons 52, good for our team members and good for our shareholders.”

    […]

    “In Florida, we’ve seen over the years numerous situations where there’s a preference for younger workers over older workers, whether it’s just for show, or they don’t think older people can do the work because they don’t think they can keep up,” said Robert Weisberg, an attorney in the EEOC’s Miami office. “It’s a pervasive problem in many industries and particularly pervasive in hospitality.”

    One lawyer who spoke with the Sentinel described the case as a “significant victory” for the EEOC and the nation’s (rapidly swelling) number of senior citizens who are being forced to continue working – or in some cases reenter the workforce – in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

    No doubt, most Americans know somebody who is being forced to linger in the workforce for longer than they ideally would’ve liked.

    As we pointed out last year, almost 19% of people 65 or older were working at least part-time in the second quarter of 2017, according to the US jobs report released on Friday. The age group’s employment/population ratio hasn’t been higher in 55 years, before American retirees won better health care and Social Security benefits starting in the late 1960s.

    Least the millennials who are presently dominating the American workforce hope they might be spared a similar fate, perhaps thanks to the adoption of progressive social welfare programs like UBI, we have some disheartening news: They won’t.

    Older Americans are working more even as those under 65 are working less, a trend that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects to continue. By 2024, 36% of 65- to 69-year-olds will be active participants in the labor market, the BLS says. That’s up from just 22% in 1994.

    Seniors

    And the trend looks likely to continue, as the chart above shows.

    Assuming they don’t become crypto millionaires or get discovered yodeling in a Wal-Mart, all the young, hot servers at Season 52 and other restaurants who are hoping for a measure of job security as they inexorably approach their 30s (an age where they will inevitably grow to loathe the fresh-eyed 22-year-olds that management favors) might want to consider a more marketable line of work.

    Might we suggest coding?

  • Mnuchin Reveals Trump's Iran Deal Gamble: "The Objective Is To Enter Into A New Agreement"

    One of the growing concerns resulting from Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Iran deal, is that oil – and gasoline – prices will jump so much, now that anywhere between 200kb/d and 700kb/d in Iran exports is taken out of the market, they will offset most benefits to US consumers from the Trump tax cuts. We covered this topic three weeks ago in “Rising Gas Prices Threaten To Wipe Out Trump’s Tax Cut Benefits.”

    Incidentally, that’s just one of the less severe complications that could emerge over the next 6 months as the full extent of the new Iran sanctions is rolled out.  As we reported earlier, Trump said the U.S. would levy the “highest level” of sanctions against Iran—including the punishment of Western companies and banks if they continue to do business with the country—as Washington pulled out of the Iranian nuclear accord.

    And while new contracts are banned, companies and banks will have 90 days or 180 days to wind down their ties before risking penalties.

    “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States,” Trump said, envisioning a complete paralysis of the Iranian economy. As the WSJ summarizes, financial or business activities outlawed by Aug. 6, Treasury said, include exports of airplanes and parts, dollar transactions, trade in gold and other metals, sovereign debt and auto-industry deals. By Nov. 4, sanctions ban oil purchases, dealings with Iran’s ports and shipping industry, any ties to its insurance sector and dealings with the central bank.

    But is the president really willing to alienate any of the countless European and global states that will continue trading with Iran, especially since the latest sanctions cover every major aspect of Iran’s economy, most importantly banning oil exports from the country, but also hitting the financial sector and the automotive and aviation industries.

    That’s the big question.

    Speaking at a press conference after Trump’s announcement, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that “this administration is resolved to addressing the totality of Iran’s destabilizing activities”

    And here something interesting emerged.

    Ahead of the Trump sanction announcement, many had speculated that the president is playing hard ball only for purely populist/theatrical purposes, and in reality Trump is exiting the deal only so he can re-enter it, but on his own terms.

    Furthermore, the adverse impact to Trump’s approval rating that would accompany a surge in gasoline prices would be fat worse than any number of Russian kompromats the NSA can leak to the WaPo/NYT.

    And the reality is that both Trump and Mnuchin realize this, and are hardly willing to gamble with Trump’s freedom, especially since none other than Trump himself warned that should the Democrats win the midterm elections, that he may be impeached. Yet while Mnuchin said during today’s press conference that he does “not expect oil prices to go higher”, absent Iranian oil returning fully into the market, it seems improbably that oil will slide right back to $50-60.

    So then was today’s historic unraveling of Obama’s biggest foreign policy achievement just another grand performance by Trump?

    One possible sign pointing to “yes” is that Mnuchin said the hiatus before enforcing compliance is to buy time for allies to exit the Iran deals.  But much more importantly, it is also meant to get Iran and European allies to back a potential new accord on nuclear development and other activities deemed hostile by Washington.

    And, as the WSJ adds, “the wind down periods allow for more than enough time that if there’s not a deal that the sanctions will take effect,” Mnuchin said and added what we believe is the punchline: Trump’s objective in re-imposing sanctions on Iran and threatening to penalize allies “is to enter into a new agreement” even though sanctions will remain in place until the nuke program is stopped. Then again, according to Iran and countless independent observes, Iran’s program already is stopped, which means that Trump himself deliberately set up the strawmen so he can then take them down, and upon “revising” the Iran deal, reincarnate the Iran nuclear deal, only this time it will be “Trump’s Iran Deal“, not “Obama’s Iran Deal.”

    And there you have it: according to Mnuchin, Trump’s goal is not to punish and leave Iran out of the global community – while sending the price of oil soaring -but  to theaten and pressure. In fact, as the WSJ adds, “just as the Trump administration announced steel tariffs but later provided temporary exceptions for allies, the U.S. is leaving itself wiggle room should its actions prove to be too disruptive or too tough to enforce.“

    The loophole were also a mile wide: “Mr. Mnuchin said that the U.S. could give exemptions to countries proving they were significantly reducing their purchases from Iran. Treasury didn’t elaborate on what “significant” means.”

    Finally, addressing the underlying futility of the sanctions, the head of MENA research at MUFG Bank, Ehsan Khoman, said that China, India, Russia and Turkey will likely oppose U.S. sanctions and keep current levels of Iranian crude purchases, even as the occasional U.S. allies – including Japan and South Korea – may comply with U.S. sanctions because of concerns they could lose U.S. security umbrella against North Korea.

    Meanwhile, the EU could also escape Trump’s retribution and protect its entities operating in Iran by offering non-USD denominated currencies through institutions including European Investment Bank.

    “It is unclear whether the potential use of non-USD denominated finance lines will offer much protection to European entities, and thus such a move could be largely symbolic in nature.”

    Finally, Khoman notes that in a sign of de-escalation, the EU may not reinstate sanctions on shipping insurance, which were “critical in disrupting Iranian crude exports between 2012 and 2016.”

    In short, Trump’s “draconian” sanctions, which will be delayed for months, have extensive loopholes, and allow most of Iran’s existing oil trade partners to continue buying oil, may be just a big smokescreen that will allow Trump to say he achieved one more campaign promise. Meanwhile, in reality, both Trump and Mnuchin are doing their best behind the scenes to “enter a new agreement”, one which Trump can bring to the masses and say: “here, I took Obama’s unacceptable, defective deal, and made it better…. and i also brought down the price of oil too.”

  • "After 14 Years, I’ve Had It. I’m Leaving Seattle"

    In a scathing op-ed published in the Seattle Times, Alex Berezow, a biomedical science fellow at the American Council on Science and Health, blasted Seattle’s City Council for prioritizing virtue signaling over the plight of the city’s most vulnerable residents and its increasingly strapped middle class.

    When Berezow first moved to Seattle 14 years ago, homelessness didn’t exist in the neighborhood of Northgate, where he continues to live.

    But as home prices have skyrocketed – to the point where the median home value has reached nearly $900,000, placing homeownership in the city far beyond the reach of most American millennials – Berezow said homeless camps have begun appearing in the neighborhood. Many of these camps have no access to social services and are subjected to disease and abuse and as a result, crime has risen.

    Seattle

    In short, Seattle has become a city that is hostile to the middle class.

    But it wasn’t until a meeting with city council woman Debora Juarez that Berezow was inspired to pen an editorial for the Seattle Times. After the council woman blew off his concerns about the homeless and about housing (the city has been accused of artificially restricting supply through overly strict zoning laws), Berezow decided to appeal directly to the city’s residents.

    Seattle’s politicians are so focused on being anti-Trump, they spend more time talking about issues they have no control over – like foreign policy – than ensuring that Seattle’s streets are clean and safe, that potholes have been repaired, and that younger residents can at least entertain the hope of home ownership some day.

    * * *

    Read the full editorial below:

    I KNEW Seattle was no longer a place for me when I met with Debora Juarez — the District 5 City Council member I had voted for.

    Last September, at what I thought was going to be a friendly one-on-one meeting between an elected official and her constituent, I expressed some concerns that were on my mind. I fretted over the deterioration of a city with which I had fallen in love — a city that, despite my 21 trips to Europe, I still believe to be the most beautiful in the world.

    I told my council member that Northgate, my home, had seen a noticeable increase in litter and graffiti. To my dismay, she seemed to suggest these issues were someone else’s job, not hers. So, I moved on to a bigger issue: homelessness.

    When I first moved to Seattle 14 years ago, to attend the University of Washington, homelessness essentially didn’t exist at Northgate. Though I have never been a victim of or witness to a crime, some of my neighbors have been, and they believe homeless camps are the reason. Additionally, the conditions in such camps are often atrocious — not only are the homeless more likely to be victims of violent crime, they are susceptible to infectious disease, such as the hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego that sickened nearly 500 people and has killed 20.

    I believe strongly that it is not compassionate to leave people who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves to suffer and die on the street. Because many (but certainly not all) homeless people struggle with mental illness or drug addiction, I suggested that Seattle find a way to make it easier to provide treatment to these troubled souls — involuntarily, if need be. It could literally save their lives.

    Juarez exclaimed, “What is this? Nazi Germany?”

    Appalled — in part because my grandparents survived Nazi Germany — I got up and walked out.

    As a professional science writer, I’ve certainly grown accustomed to the crass insults that have become routine in our toxic political environment. I just didn’t expect it from a person for whom I voted. But perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised.

    Slowly but surely, Seattle has become an angry place. Councilmember Kshama Sawant called a police shooting a “brutal murder.” She also tweeted that it was “terrible” for a feminist organization to wish that Barbara Bush, on her death, rest in peace. As a congressional candidate, Pramila Jayapal supporters implied that her respectable opponent, Brady Walkinshaw, was a misogynist and racist. And former Mayor Ed Murray, whose pattern of alleged sexual behavior finally caught up with him, remained defiant until the bitter end.

    For a city that prides itself on being “anti-Trump,” it is difficult to see how exactly we’re supposed to possess the moral high ground over “The Other Washington.”

    The toxic politics are bad enough, but the city also has become unaffordable for the middle class. Partly, that is due to high demand (which is a good problem for a city to have), but it’s also due to self-inflicted wounds, such as a restrictive housing policy that artificially caps supply. Seattle is well on its way to becoming the next Vancouver, British Columbia, with the median housing price having spiked to an eye-watering $820,000, far outside the reach of the middle class. Unless they are able to save for about 14 years to afford a down payment, millennials can forget about homeownership entirely.

    The $15 minimum wage has added gasoline to the fire. Though it hasn’t even been fully implemented yet, the most recent study last summer revealed that when the minimum moved from $11 to $13 an hour, low-wage workers lost about $125 per month. That means that the law raises costs for businesses and customers while actually harming employees it was meant to help.

    But stubborn facts and a hurting middle class don’t seem to faze the City Council, which seems far more concerned about issues over which it has zero control — such as climate change and foreign policy — than it does about issues over which it has at least a modicum of control, such as the cost of living, homelessness, crime, traffic and potholes. For our City Council, virtue signaling is more important than governing.

    So, my wife and I are heading to the Eastside. We really would prefer to stay in Seattle. But if safe streets, clean sidewalks, an affordable place to live and polite discourse is asking too much, we’ll gladly seek refuge in a city where quality of life and civility still matter.

    * * *

    Seattle’s city council recently announced it would pursue an employment tax on the city’s largest companies to create a fund to provide emergency services to the homeless, as well as permanent relocation services.

    The only problem? The city’s largest taxpayer, Amazon, is threatening to halt construction projects and cut down on employment in the city if the measure goes through.

    Opponents of the law say it would penalize employment and ultimately hurt the city’s economy, while doing nothing to alleviate the housing crisis.

    But at least progressive lawmakers could finally say they’re doing something.

Digest powered by RSS Digest