I’ve just published a foreign policy-related post at Outside the Beltway:
There are a number of stories about Iran in the news today. Some are troubling, some sad, some downright baffling. Together I think they paint a picture of a situation that is very dangerous, becoming more so, and which leaves no room for miscalculations or mistakes.
Netanyahu has been saber-rattling for some time now. However, I think he is taking into consideration not only the progress of Iran’s nuclear bomb building, but also in what direction the election is going, here in the United States.
Although always the diplomat, Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama’s allegiance to Israel. If he calculates that Obama is trending towards being reelected, then it seems more likely he would encourage an Iranian strike before the election. Because, if done after an Obama win, he probably feels Obama’s support of Israel might be substantially thinned, than before, because antagonizing the Jewish vote would no longer be of an consequence in an election tally.
If Romney is ahead, and likely to win, Netanyahu might be more likely to take a calculated risk, waiting until after the election, to observe what kind of muscle a new administration might put forth, which would make it unnecessary for his country to unilaterally take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Although always the diplomat, Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama’s allegiance to Israel.”
Even though Obama has given them everything they want, except the air strike on Iran.
Steve
Steve,
I think the distrust has less to do with financial aid than to his lack of political support, such as how Obama dissed their settlement construction a while back, or how he tends to lean generously towards the Palestinians POV.
Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama’s allegiance to Israel.
He would be stupid to do so. Not because of anything Obama-related, but because nations should never be that trustful of other nations. (The previous ‘.’ has been italicized and emboldened for emphasis.)
This administration has made it pretty clear to Israel that the US isn’t going to do Israel’s dirty work for it by attacking Iran. That’s not just this President, but also the previous President.
Jan,
Obama’s allegiance to Israel? Tell me, who is the tail and who is the dog between Israel and the US?
Andy
I haven’t seen where Israel wanted the US to “do it’s dirty work” for them. However, the US and Israel have, for many years, been considered allies, and as such allies do support each other philosophically as well as strategically.
Israel has also been an oasis exemplifying a democratically run, highly efficient country in a ME which is rampant in being ruled by Theocracies, dictatorships, and more recently the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, IMO, it’s in our best interest, as it is in Israel’s, to keep our alliance cordial and intact.
I’m not sure how the dog and tail comment relates to any of this. If you mean who is the dominant partner, it is the U.S. But, considering all the collaborative efforts, especially in technology, between the two countries each has a reason to maintain a respectful relationship.
Jan,
I’m just wondering what you mean by “Obama’s allegiance to Israel” which is why I asked about the tail and the dog. Why should our President show allegiance to any foreign power?
We are allies with Israel (though not by treaty), yet that doesn’t mean Israel’s interests are automatically our interests.
Jan,
They haven’t come out and publicly said it, but it’s plainly obvious Israel would like us to take care of Iran’s nuclear program for them.
Ally? Somewhat, but not by treaty. And note that we’ve always had to worry about Israeli espionage, and the Israelis have also been unwilling to let us use Israeli territory for military operations or a base. All that despite all the aid we’ve poured into Israel through the decades, not to mention other support.
I think that “client” is a better diction than “ally”.
I think that “client†is a better diction than “allyâ€.
Heh.
I’m going to be serious for a moment here, which is a rare event. (mark your calendars)
I attempted, apparently successfully, to get under Reynolds skin yesterday in Dave’s post/thread about energy production.
This is something you all should be aware of, as it has policy implications and will no doubt be a part of the national debate for the presidency.
The concept is “return on energy invested”. That is, how much energy has to be invested to get x amount of energy back. EROI if you will.
I’ll try to find the link, but an academic study was done. The salient points are: coal and hydro are the slam dunk winners. If that doesn’t make intuitive sense, respond to me. We should be pushing coal energy, not what Obama is doing.
The flat damned losers? Ethanol and solar. There are a bunch of sources in between.
Obama and his idiot Energy Secy are you with me Dr Wu, er, Chu, and their solar masterbation is criminal. And speaking of criminal, both Republicans and Democrats should be taken behind the barn for this ethanol crappola.
Interestingly, wind does fairly well, although not spectacularly. It has a place in the rational mix.
I should have said in Dave’s post about Iran, which I turned into energy production.
My mother-in-law and sister-in-law live in California City, in the Mojave Desert. You can see the wind mill farms on the Tehachapi Mountains on really clear days, and when driving to, well, anywhere, you drive close enough to see them well. I’m not sure if I’m surprised that they have a good EROI or not. That’s mainly because so many of them seem to be sitting idle at any given time.
How did oil and natural gas make out? Did they break those out by where and how they’re extracted? Clearly getting oil out of the North Sea is going to be tougher than getting it out of the ground someplace like Texas. I’m also wondering what impact fracking would have on EROI. It seems like it ought to drive up costs, but it appears it does the opposite.
Interestingly, hydroelectric is actually a pretty poor choice if your concern is carbon production. The standing water behind dams produces an enormous amount of methane. Naturally, the Chinese produce nearly all of their electricity from coal or hydroelectric.
Here in Chicago more than three-quarters of our electricity production is nuclear and has been for decades. We’ve also been paying some of the highest electricity bills in the country for decades. I guess that means that we’ve been paying more to produce less carbon than most of the people in the country. Gratitude would be enough.
Drew,
Most of our domestic electricity comes from domestic fuel sources or Canada. IIRC, electricity prices declined slightly, on average, over the last two decades.
It seems to me the real question is what to do about transportation fuels and petroleum. Can’t really replace those with coal, hydro, wind, nuclear, cow farts or whatever without a major electrification effort.
The conclusion I have come to, after pondering it for many years, is that the solution to that problem doesn’t reside in CAFE standards, importing more diesel engines, or moving to EVs or hybrids but in zoning and reducing the subsidies to highway construction.
Dave,
There are other problems with hydro as well. The most obvious is that there is a limit to the number of dams one can build. In the southwest, the area with which I’m familiar, the dams are slowly silting up and so hold less and less water. IIRC, some of the upper basin resevoirs will be completely silted up in the next 40 years – what then? Additionally, millions of acre feet of water are lost from evaporation, which is a big issue in the dry desert southwest where water is increasingly scarce.
Here in Florida I think about 1/3 of electricity comes from nuclear. A quick google says our electricity prices are about 15% less than Chicago.
I think zoning is a huge issue that doesn’t get much discussion except from Matt Yglesias and a few others. Modern zoning pretty much requires that most people have to have cars and prevents the adoption of mass transit options.
It’s interesting that ” coal and hydro are the slam dunk winners” regarding investments in energy. Ironically, eliminating coal seems to be one of Obama’s goals — closing them down. Hydro energy totally surprises me as being in that ‘winner’ category. Where are any new dams being built? Also, I wasn’t aware that standing water produced so much methane, as Dave pointed out.
Carbon-based energy sources have millions of years of energy stored in them. Organic matter is compressed until petroleum or coal are produced, and this takes millions of years. This is a simplified version.
The ratio of Energy Output to Energy Input has been my objection to alternative energy. Using alternative energy to produce alternative fuels results in a lower ratio. Using carbon-based energy to produce alternative energy would result in a higher ratio.
My issue with alternative energy is scientific not economic, but the science impacts the economic factors.
Icepick
You are correct. You have to split out the various sources of oil and gas, which the study does. So for example, foreign oil is deemed cheap. Anyone surprised? The question becomes, how do you price the cost of protecting that resource.
Deep well etc come in more expensive.
Andy
Coal driven electricity was 50% just a few years ago. Don’t have the absolute stats at hand, but it’s something like high 30s today. The gap is nat gas. Nat gas is at all time lows. God forbid a return to mean, but who knows. Generally unreported, Team Obama and their war on America, excuse me, War on Coal, is driving the current coal fired plants out of business through regulation. As energy costs are bid several years out, they are going to skyrocket care of Team Obama. You can look at the bids; this is reality. But after the election. Surprised?
Transportation is a totally different animal. Bottom line: Rail……or if you retrofitted the major transport truckers to compressed nat gas you can move the needle. Otherwise you are just jacking off.
Dave
As you know, I don’t give a rats ass about methane. It’s bizarre.
tasty
Correctomundo. Hydro is just potential energy waiting to be released. Carbon fuels are potential energy waiting to be released. You think like a scientist. If global warming has even a shred of credibility, it’s a fourth order issue. I happen to think its zero. But you don’t shoot your dick off now with these insane concerns, when you economy needs a shot in the arm. Real live people are suffering right now for the inane concerns of elites. This is just cruel.
And Reynolds and his type tell me they “care.”.
Balls.
Oh, and sorry jan.
Tasty makes the point. Water at high altitude has potential energy. Fossil fuels have potential energy.
You just have to release it. Nuclear is the ultimate.
People love the solar concept for this very reason………………..but guess what, converting it is a bitch.
The irony is that fossils fuels are nothing more than stored solar energy.
@Andy
The irony is that fossils fuels are nothing more than stored solar energy.
Fossil fuel (carbon-based energy) is the result of millions years of compression. Organic matter comes from living things, and they do obtain energy from the sun (plants -> animals). But the compression is due to gravity, and that far outweighs the sun’s energy.
Am I missing something?
Tasty,
The source material for fossil fuels are ancient plants and animals. The carbon energy in them was a result of photosynthesis. You compress their remains and you get coal. By contrast, you compress just about anything else and you get rock.
@Drew
High schools should replace environmental science with physics.
The sun emits a lot of energy, but the earth’s magnetic field reflects a lot of it. I am not sure how much of the remaining energy can be captured, but organic (not food stock) means may work.
RE: Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AWG)
I try to stay as far away from it as possible. Anybody who cannot pass an algebra course is never going to be able to discuss AWG. More importantly, they cannot make an informed choice about a credible source. A blind man cannot judge a beauty contest, and he cannot determine which judge is most correct. The science is well beyond most “scientists”.
The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. On the earth’s time scale, a year is a nanosecond. The magnetic field, underwater volcanoes, tectonic plate seems, Gulf Stream, El Nino, La Nina are a few of the interactions, and feedback loops are rarely considered. The Gulf Stream should be eye opening. The oceans are massive heat sinks, and friction in the oceans and upper atmosphere is also substantial. I have seen little discussion that include thermodynamics. @Dave’s mention of the methane off-gassing should cause more thought about CO2 and the oceans.
Additionally, all these factors affect each other, and “computer models” cannot begin to capture the complexity. Also, “computer models” are nothing more than equations, and the computer is doing nothing more than adding really fast.
I always why the elites who look to France for direction never notice them smoking or using Nuclear power.
Jan,
Here’s an example that just came out yesterday.