Iran v. United States et al: The Two Level Game

Iran v. United States et al: The Two Level Game

                  The dynamic of the two-level game, as it applies to International Relations, hereinafter referred to as IR, has many varied effects on the nuclear negotiations between the Iran and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as “the U.S. or the United States. The following discussion points are primarily my own observations supplemented by the thoughts of others to illustrate how the two-level game can both restrain and liberate level one agents (negotiators).

                  On, or about, 09 March 2015 47 U.S. Senators engaged in a conspicuous and arguably illegal attempt to influence and constrain (or outright stop) the U.S. negotiators ability to reach an agreement with Iran regarding nuclear capabilities. They had argued that any deal reached between the President’s of Iran and the U.S., by and through their duly appointed representatives, must first be approved by the Congress (Senate) of the U.S. or else it could be amended in part, or in whole, by congress (That would be a very loose interpretation of US Const. Article II, sec. 2, clause 2); a later president could revoke the agreement; or a later president could amend the agreement (Cotton, 2015).  One could argue that this letter had detrimental effect on the relations with Iran regarding the nuclear deal, especially given the speech given by Netanyahu to a Joint Session of Congress (U.S. Congress) that occurred just days before on 03 March 2015; in this author’s own opinion, the letter gave the impression that the Senators were in league with the State of Israel and issued a letter as a directive of Netanyahu. Were this opinion held by Tehran as well, it could have derailed the entire negotiation. Fortunately, both Washington and Tehran censured the Netanyahu and the rogue senators the days following the events, respectively and jointly dismissed them both. (Al Jazeera, 2015)

                  While many would argue that the speech and the letter would have greatly limited Obama’s win-set, even down to a null set, but the truth of the matter is that this might have given Obama more power than he had originally. This letter would have given Obama the ability to argue that Tehran must be profoundly generous in their offers, lest the Senate reject the deal outright (arguably, an up-down vote is the only authority the Senate has, but they will make their opinions known before any provisional agreement is made, thus making de facto line-item vetoes to potential treaty submissions). While the Administration may take the position of devil’s advocate against the hard-liners, precedent has already been set by the Bush administration to sign binding treaties without consent and consul by congress.

                  In 2008, President Bush, by and through a duly appointed representative, signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq (SOFA) during his final weeks as president. This agreement outlined an entire withdrawal and transfer of authority plan, enumerating various events that culminated with the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011. (U.S. Department of State, 2008) As outlined in the letter from Tom Cotton, et al, any such agreement between nations that is signed without the consent and consul of the senate is an executive agreement and is subject to change by later presidents. The problem here is that executive agreements involve agreements that are carried out between the sitting presidents; the SOFA outlined a plan that created obligations that applied almost entirely to a future president and were binding in nature. This was, by all intents and purposes, a de facto treaty with all the pretenses, benefits, and obligations thereof. Because the U.S. government agreed to such terms through agents authorized to make such agreements, the government would be morally, and arguably legally, obligated to honor the terms. This is exceptionally true in an international environment built on multiple future interactions where a nation’s word is their bond and breaking their bond can have dire consequences. As such, this precedent, afforded the president to agree to whatever terms he felt to be valid, thus leaving the U.S. honor bound to uphold their agreement.

                  Now, Tehran, already suffering sanctions from the world that the world had no real interest in strengthening unless forced, was in a situation where they could be generous with their terms, within reason. With the possibility of relief of sanctions and the development of nuclear power, the incentive to reach a deal is great, especially with the increased social and economic liberalization of the Iranian youth affecting domestic politics. While the obvious benefit of an agreement for Iran is increased trade due to relief of sanctions, nuclear power development could free up oil resources for exports. However, the Iranian regime must also appeal, and even capitulate, to the interests of the liberal youth for fear of an “Iranian Spring”. (Hall, 2015)

                  This liberal bloc of Iranians forces the Conservative leadership to balance their own rhetoric against the west with the interests of the growing youth. It is this dual interest of the domestic Iranians that was aided by the open letter to Iran. The letter from the Senators gave the Iranian leaders an out with the conservatives by arguing that the agreement was made in spite of the fierce western and Israeli opposition, which could be marketed as a huge win for Iranian pride, while softening relations with the west and increasing the economic wealth that will benefit the youth of Iran as they grow and form families.

                  In the end, the reckless actions of the American domestic politicians enabled both international leaders from Iran and the U.S. to achieve their objectives, though Iran’s leadership benefitted more domestically. President Obama, being term limited and stuck with an already intransigent U.S. congress, had nothing left to lose and could afford to go for broke as it were.

Works Cited

Cotton, Tom. "Open Letter to Iran." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 21 June 2015.

Hall, John. "The Changing Face of Iran: How Nation's Hardline Islamic Image Is Being Slowly Erased from within as Liberal Youths Now Make up the Majority of the Population." Daily Mail UK. N.p., 10 Apr. 2015. Web. 21 June 2015. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3033357/The-changing-face-Iran-nation-s-hardline-Islamic-image-slowly-erased-liberal-youths-make-majority-population.html>.

"Iran and Obama Dismiss Netanyahu Speech to US Congress." Al Jazeera America. N.p., 04 Mar. 2015. Web. 21 June 2015. <http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/iran-obama-dismiss-netanyahu-speech-congress-150304044156588.html>.

"#IranLetter Sparks 'treason' Charge against US Senators." Al Jazeera America. N.p., 10 Mar. 2015. Web. 21 June 2015. <http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201503101321-0024618>.

"Status Of Forces Agreement." U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 21 June 2015. <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf>.

Why Jews from communist countries support leftist economics.

A friend said to me,"Sam, the one thing I never understood is why ANYONE, Jew or otherwise, who immigrated from the USSR would have an ounce of sympathy with the left. I'd figure any of them would be further to the right than me!" What follows is my response.

A. What the U.S.S.R. did was not communism. Not as communism was intended. A kibbutz is communism is action. What the soviets did was corruption authoritarian oligarchical malevolent despotism. The wealth of the nation was not spread equally, it wasn't even spread according to the doctrine of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." 

Communism, when installed democratically and democratically revocable, is no worse than capitalism. Both are good ideas on paper. The reason why Jews left Russia was not due to economic policy. People forget communism is not a form of government, merely a system of economy. If done right, moderate socialism can work just as well as capitalism when done right. The problem is, while perfect on paper, neither capitalism nor communism account for the flaws in humanity. 

Capitalism and communism are, in their simplest forms, the two ends of the spectrum/continuum for the distribution of wealth between the bourgeois and the proletariat (if you prefer non Marxist terms, we can go with the owners of capital and labor). Absolute communism is where the wealth is divided amongst everyone equally and everyone contributes to the capital cost. Absolute capitalism, if capitalists were permitted to so so, would result in slavery where the only labor costs were those to provide the absolute essentials to keep the labor force productive. The problem with both systems stems from the human desires, and they are closely related. 

The primary problem communism is that A. Despite what the founding fathers stated, all men are not created equal and all jobs are not created equal. So while, with communism, all the needs of labor are met, and, if done properly, there is extra for the workers to spend on niceties. However, the man who is slaving hard either as a miner or as a doctor (or something else), or a laborer, will likely grow resentful of the salesman or teacher whose jobs, while equally important to the whole system, aren't as taxing physically or mentally.  As such that resentfulness broods a sense of entitlement that since they are working harder, the should get paid more, the justification for which is not particularly relevant as the resulting animosity is the same. So either they will become demotivated or they will revolt, peacefully or violently.

He primary problem from capitalism is that the bourgeois have a disproportionate amount of power because, without capital, there can be no work. Now, in agrarian societies and apprentice master businesses, people generally worked for themselves and produced what they could and their success and wealth was largely based on their own efforts. However egalitarian that might be, it's horribly inefficient. With the creation of the east India trading company, corporations came to power and capitalism, as we know it today, was born. Now, both communism and capitalism are significantly more efficient than egalitarian age methods, and I already outlined the major  issues with communism. With capitalism, the capitalists are almost universally sociopaths to one degree or another, psychologists have confirmed that gait repeatedly. Now, don't get me wrong, efficiency and productivity demands a little bit of sociopathy for reasons I won't get into, especially since I think the gunny can figure it out. There is even benevolent sociopathy, good parents would be the best example. However, if left unchecked, the malevolent sociopaths will use their capital resources and their control of the labor market in abusive ways to get what they want for their own personal gain and they do so at the expense of the worker. In this instance, it causes entitlement on behalf of the capitalist who says, "this is my capital, I'm the one taking the risk. If not for me, they wouldn't have food on their plate because they wouldn't have a job." While there is a sliver of truth to that argument, the fact of the matter is that:

 A. Labor is a form of capital.

 B. no man has ever gotten profoundly wealthy from the fruits of their own labor. Unless you go fabricate your own tools from the fruits if the earth, you're benefiting from someone's labor, and you have to pay for that labor but you do so because it allows you to be more productive and increases your wealth. But that's getting deeper I to economics than I care to venture at this time. 

 C. All capital when leveraged for productivity can be lost. So when the worker leverages his labor, they too are taking risk. The difference between the capitalist and the laborer is that the laborer risks more. If the capitalist risks his capital and loses, he can always start over. (Donald Trump is the archetypal example) if the laborer risks his capital and loses, he cant start over as easily, if at all. Now, sure, people can risk their labor capital and lose because they are crappy workers and it will limit their job opportunity through their own fault, and that's on them. But if the laborer leverages his capital and gets injured, he's SOL unless the injury is only acute. Sadly, the majority of workplace injuries are due to the failure of the capitalist to control safety risks. 

Because of that sociopathy that is nearly universal of capitalists, they grossly exaggerate the risk they take and grossly underestimate or under-appreciate the risk laborers take by working and their dependence upon the laborers.  For this reason, the capitalist will invariably abuse the worker if given the opportunity. (Rare exceptions exist, and this tends to be a non-absolute among small-businesses because A. More empathetic people tend  run small businesses, they are more connected to their workers economically and personally. When you see your workers suffering every day as you work beside them, it's harder to ignore their plight.) With this abuse, resentment grows into animosity until the workers revolt. The European revolutions of 1848, the Battle of Blair Mountain (the largest insurrection on U.S. soil, second only to the civil war.), the Ludlow Massacre (violence was used against the workers), etc are examples where that resentment turned into violence because the workers were so oppressed they couldn't revolt peacefully. A prime example of where JFK got his inspiration for the line,"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." 

From these violent worker rebellions, came the unionization. The labor finally got the ability fight back and work together to secure rights and fair pay. They lobbied to pass laws to protect the worker and to prevent the abject poverty that resulted from the rise of capitalism. Now, it also helped that people like Henry Ford came along. As anti-Semitic as he might have been, his idea that the workers need to be paid enough to buy his product was spot on and it, along with unionization, changed the standard of living and disparity between classes for about a decade or so, until corporations wen back to their old ways and led to the Great Depression, which was preceded by low worker pay, severe cuts to the top tier of the income tax brackets (the lowest since the creation of the income tax, 25%), and a massive inequality/consolidation of wealth. After the war the taxes remained high, their were more brackets and taxed the massive incomes of the wealthiest Americans with the money's earned in each bracket more. Topping out at like 95% in 1945, dropping to about 80% until 1950ish, climbed back to 90% with Ike, stayed there till it dropped to 70% in 1964, went back up to about 78 in 69, went back down with Nixon, stayed at 70% till Reagan who dropped to 50% then 28%, rose a bit in the bush era (his lips lied), rose with Clinton, and back don with Bush. Also, during the 50s and 60s executive incomes were "low", only around 50 times higher than their average employee, social security was defended by a republican, food stamps were barely regulated. (My father collected food stamps in college and gave the food to the hungry since abject poverty and employment weren't a requirement yet and food stamps were simply a beneficial byproduct of the subsidization of the agriculture industry whose failure due to people being too poor to buy food.) It's ironic that the era of the red scare was a socialists wet dream and the economy was strong. 

I will stipulate that leftist economics and unions can be dangerous if they are taken too far. However, the reason why Jews tend toward leftist economics, is because, if not taken too far, they work. The reason why the industrial revolution worked is because the creation of industry was a bubble and individual wealth was not really monetized as much, there was an influx of immigrant labor, and the massive expansion of production, however it was unsustainable. Especially since the wealth was removed from land. Industry caused wealth/income per square mile to skyrocket, so people needed less land for production which would either drive farmers out of business, or the governmental revenue would suffer from decreased tax revenue. Also, income tax had the added benefit of being a de facto limit on executive pay, which left more money for capital investments, including worker salary. Also, we support social programs because we refuse to accept abject poverty, and expecting them to be supported by charity from the people who either don't have the money to spare and the people who refused to pay their workers sufficient wages in the first place is absurd to the point of insanity. Besides, the average person doesn't want charity. Receiving charity for reasons other than extreme catastrophe, is demeaning and demoralizing. For a man who works 60-80 hrs a week to try and support his family to be forced to rely on charity or social programs because employers want to add an extra 0 or 00 is beyond insulting to the point that its almost criminal. And for environmental issues, it is criminal. 

In short, it works like this, when the the capitalists fails, the laborer suffers; when the laborer fails the capitalist suffers. When the capitalist succeeds, the laborer should benefit; when the laborer succeeds the capitalist should benefit. That is the law of symbiosis and it is sustainable. However, if the capitalist benefits while the laborer suffers, the capitalist will benefit exponentially in a positive feedback loop, until it hits criticality. At which point one of two things will occur: A. The laborer revolts and overthrows the capitalist and they fade away. B. The capitalist tears down the laborers/consumers so far that they can no longer support the growth and burden of the capitalist and fade way; without the laborer to support the capitalist, they too will fade away. There is a name for this alternative to symbiosis, it's called  the pathogenesis of parasitism. (While I only described pathogenic parasitism from the perspective that the capitalist is the parasitic life form, however, it is possible for labor to take on that role, however due to the advantages that capitalism has, it's less common.) 

Real world examples of this parasitism are, respectively: A. Polio. It ravaged humanity to the point where we fought back and are on the verge of wiping it out entirely, like we did with smallpox. B. Ebola, a virus so lethal and so virulent that, while nothing can be done to stop it, except hope the immune system kills it; with a 60-90% death rate, and it's degree of pre-lethal devastation, it cannot spread fast enough to overcome the speed and rate of death and ensures its own destruction. And the reason why I chose viruses for this analogy and not simply go with smallpox and ebola is that viruses serve only one purpose, replicate and grow until it gets killed by its host, or it kills its host and subsequently dies. That mechanism of action, or modus operandi, identical to that of an unchecked corporation. 

If corporations could be trusted to act in the best interests of their employees and the nation, the evil social programs and taxes wouldn't be necessary because if you pay your workers enough to not only survive, but thrive on (within reason), they no longer need social programs and will also be able to buy consumer level goods and services which drive every other industry on earth. It's referred to demand side/demand driven economics. It doesn't turn the greatest profit margins per quarter, but it has the distinct advantage of being sustainable in perpetuity. Every economic problem in history, save the exceedingly rare example, has been due to myopic greed. 

The wealthy cannot obtain an increasing % of the wealth and income without taking it from the workers. Who also happen to be the people whose money is used to keep these companies afloat. People ask, "what need do you have for firearms," when they don't cause violence. Poverty, however, does cause violence and yet no one asks the top 1% or the top 0.1% what need do they have for 8 and 9 figure annual salaries? What need does the average corporate executive (excluding small business) have to justify cutting wages, laying off workers and outsourcing jobs, at the expense of the American economy, so they can increase their wages to a ratio of 380:1 on average for CEOs. (Income inequality is at it's highest in recorded american history, with 1929 coming in second) Why are we giving these people tax breaks both individually and to the corporations when they do nothing but take from the economy? The American production worker's productivity growth rate increased 11 fold in comparison to the increase in their wages from 1979 to 2011. The American worker is producing more and getting paid less for it. And yes, if it continues to happen, one of two things will happen; the economy will collapse as it did in 1929 or there will be armed revolt against the corporations due to repeated and persistent abuses against the workers by the management as was the case in the battle of Blair mountain. You should have to work 80hrs/week just to gape to escape abject poverty because the management would rather pay themselves more money at your expense.

I doubt many people have read the Wealth of Nations. The book that defined modern economics. But let me share a piece of the book. 

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" — Adam Smith.

Violence in America: Treating the problem, not the symptoms. Pt. 3: Education, parenting, and American values.

(Yes, this is long, as many of my commentaries are. Deal with it.)

My last update was about how proper security could have prevented things like Sandy Hook, My sister has brought up a good point that I will elaborate on. I believe one of my other updates addressed the issue, but maybe just indirectly. What american children lack far more than security in school is proper education. If schools were properly funded, children educated and had the values of life and the ideals that this nation once held high, and claims to still hold dear, instilled in them, values such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, honor, respect, service, tolerance, equality and many others, then maybe elevated levels of security and weapon bans will be irrelevant once again. 

The sad truth is that people would rather satiate their cognitive dissonance and stay in their comfort zones instead of addressing the real issues of society. The problem isn't godlessness, it's ignorance and it's laziness. Parents have stopped being parents. (Although not all. I'm glad to know that my nephew values life and knows the difference between reality and video games.) It's sad when people want to ban video games because their too lazy to be parents. Sure we can blame it on the schools for not teaching things like fine arts, but that's ultimately on us also because we don't want to pay for it. Certain people would cut funding for PBS. When I was a child, we frequently watched things from PBS as lessons. One of the best lessons I've seen, though I already knew it, was from PBS in a COLLEGE Psych class. Not elementary, not jr. high or high school, but college. (I will include a link to it at the end, I suggest everyone watch it.) If PBS' material is good enough for college, it's good enough for kids, but no, we must cut that while we spend 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars on defense spending. 
We live in a day and age when popular music is about sex, drugs and violence or is so devoid of artistic content, it's a wonder how it passes for music. Before we had artists like Simon and Garfunkle who had songs like "The Boxer", John Lennon with "Imagine", yet today we have an androgynous singer who's popularity is based on songs like "Baby" which is of absolutely no lyrical value. People wonder where our morals, ethics and ideals go...they left with our Music and artists. Fascists didn't ban creative artistic expression for the fun of it. A society's soul lies within it's artists.

When did we stop teaching our children to value life. Not just life as in human/animal life, But to value living — You know, the aspects of life that make us smile. To value the warmth of the sun, the singing of the birds, the smell of a fresh rainfall, the crispness of a cold winter morning or even the sparkle in a strangers eye as they walk past? Never have I know anyone who values both life and living to ever needlessly take the life of another living creature; human or not. 

The link I mentioned previously. Watch it, if you aren't cold hearted and racist it will move you; if you are, I hope it changes you. (granted if you fall into the latter group, we aren't friends on here and you won't see it. Eh well)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Violence in America: Treating the problem, not the symptoms. Pt. 2: Security

You know what would have prevented Sandy Hook from ever occurring? Security. And I don't mean armed guards, although those are located at courthouses and government buildings, but not school. Not sure why that is. But had they designed the school with security in mind, there would have been only one way to enter the building. Controlled ingress, screening for weapons to actively exclude them from the building. Restrict entrance to the building until potential entrants are deemed not a threat instead of granting entrance until a threat is presented. Strangely we value our court houses and banks more than our children and then when shit hits the fan as it did at this school we seek to ban guns when this could have easily been prevented without the issue of gun control ever being addressed. But no one wants to talk about the other problems we have because attacking guns and the right to bear arms is the easy thing to do. We can point at guns and say, there...that's the demon we must exorcise when in reality guns are nothing but a tool and gun violence is nothing but a symptom. If you break a bone, do you just take some pain killers and say fuck it, this will work? Absolutely not. You go to a doctor to have them fix the problem. Yes, there will be pain in the process, but once you face reality and treat the real problem, the pain will go away on its own, organically. However, if you just take pain killers and ignore the problem, A. the problem is still there. B. The pain killers over time cause their own set of problems that are just as bad, if not worse, than the original problem. There is a reason why science and medicine work on the premise of treat the cause, not the symptoms.

Violence in America: Treating the problem, not the symptoms. Pt. 1: A Look at gun bans and other American problems.

Anti-Gun people is your issue guns, or is it violence? Well let me ask, if you have gun violence and remove the guns, what are you left with? Now if you have gun violence and you remove the violence, what are you left with? I happen to know how to mix Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil to create a really nasty explosive. It's one of the side effects of taking a variety of chemistry classes. I choose not to for a variety of reasons. Notice the lack of desire is the overriding factor. But clearly you wish to disregard logic and stick to your ineffective talking points. The same points that were used by....you guessed it...Conservatives to ban drugs and alcohol. Ignore history to appease your cognitive dissonance all you wish, the fact of the matter is simple; YOU CANNOT STOP ACTION BY BANNING OBJECTS, IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. Why do you think Supply side economics doesn't work (while not banning something, attempting to control the supply has little effect on the outcome when compared to demand.), why banning drugs didn't work, why banning homosexuality doesn't work, why banning alcohol didn't work, why banning abortions does not work, why banning pornography does not work and why banning guns has not and will not work. 

I'm not saying we don't have a problem, I'm simply saying that restrictions of firearms access does not and will not work. Hell, I don't even think Arming teachers is the best idea (although I don't think preventing properly trained and vetted personnel from owning and possessing them on schools is the best idea either). Honestly, I think if you want to protect schools, increase security. restrict the means of ingress to one location, screen people for weapons and laminate the windows so as to prevent breaching. Restrict access until it is shown that the entering person is safe instead of granting access until they are proven a threat. This is done, for the most part, in courts and airports.

If you want to limit the violence, address the violence. I can own 1,000 firearms and if I don't have the desire to use them on innocent people, it will never happens. Now if I had 0 firearms and I was intent on causing massive loss of life, I could do so with less trouble than it would for me to get a firearm. The argument for banning firearms is born out of a severe lack of familiarity and fear over firearms as well as laziness. People don't want to talk about the poverty, urban blight, decline in morality and ethics (I'm not talking about God or religion), obsessive media coverage, poor parenting, and other such issues because they are abstract and they require us to look at ourselves and find fault with ourselves as a nation and as individuals. Guns are easy to target because they are tangible. You can post up pictures and say, this is the enemy. These are the things responsible for our problems. It is easy to blame objects that can't speak for themselves or blame others for our problems. But unless we take responsibility for our actions things will only get worse. It is not the drug but the addiction that plagues the drug addict, remove the drugs and the problems they have are still there and will display themselves in other, often more violent, ways. Bottom line, if I shoot you, I am responsible, not the fire arm. Not the type of firearm. If I beat you with a club, It is me who is as fault. You want to tell us to focus on guns, well sorry, I prefer to focus on the problem, not the symptom. If you have bad breath, do you take a breath mint or do you treat the underlying infection resulting in the problem? I sure hope not.

Lastly, reduce the need for violence and you won't have to worry about guns. Sure you will have domestic violence issues, but those will happen regardless of tools available. Portugal for example decriminalized all drugs, replaced prison with treatment and their drug rates went down 50% and HIV rates went down. To take a reference out of economics, If you reduce the demand, the supply becomes irrelevant. Limit people's desire to kill people and it won't matter how many guns there are. Conversely, limit the supply of firearms and leave the demand there, guess what will happen...human ingenuity will prevail. When people want to do something bad enough, they will find a way. Which, incidentally is why the worse mass murder at a school was done by explosives, not firearms. (funny side note, the rate and magnitude of school shooting increased after the gun free school zone acts and with the increased level of media coverage of events. But hey, let's ban guns instead of addressing the real issues. Seems like a legit idea)