The Iran Agreement

No automatic alt text available.

First of all, the “billions” that opponents of the Iranian Agreement often cite was not American money; it was the Iranian people’s own money that has been held since the hostage crisis.

Secondly, nuclear technology is a product of cultural diffusion, it can’t be permanently stopped, but what the violated agreement had done was buy both countries time to detente.

Thirdly, no one in the US wakes up worried about UK or French nukes, or really even Chinese or Russian nukes, because we have relationships. The abridged agreement had given both parties time to build a relationship that would make the weaponization of nuclear technology meaningless.

And now it’s on life support, but not gone yet, because someone’s ego was hurt in the 2011 Washington Correspondents Dinner. The master of the Art of the Deal will hopefully repackage the agreement with his name on it after getting his ego soothed by ridding the agreement of Obama’s name, and then we can continue the path of building sustainable peace.

I am also unaware of how/why the same voices denouncing the Iran Agreement are congratulating the apparent diplomatic movement with North Korea. At this point, we have words, not action. Engaging with a rival is either a good strategy or it isn’t. Either Obama and Trump are to be encouraged for engaging Iran and NoKo, or both Administrations ought to be ridiculed. To choose one engagement over another is myopic partisanship.

Economic hegemony

According to the neorealists, hegemony is necessary both in the political/security and is the economic realm? Why does the world economy need a hegemon?

Chris Julian: The world needs a hegemon because the hegemon makes the playing field fair and balanced. The hegemon ensures that everyone is playing fair and playing by the prescribed rules. According to Gilpin, the world is not self-sufficient and in order to maintain order in the international liberal economy a hegemon must act for the world community’s welfare; in essence being a leader and setting a good economic example that other states strive to follow. By the hegemon doing this, it ensures the world liberal economy is stable and survivable for the long term. Although a hegemon might be tempted to cheat, it understands that by >maintaining a fair playing field all players profit in the long run.

Tom Keefe: I think that, that part of Gilpin’s argumetn sounds nice, it was constructed out of too black and white of a world. Gilpin was writing in the late 1980s when the US was the “good guy” and the Soviets were the “evil empire.” His lavishing on the altuism of the hegemon is syptamatic of Cold War theorists who were too fearful of saying anything good about the Soviets and anything bad about the US.I believe that Gilpin argues more effectively why the word needs a hegemon in the economic realm when he draws concrete comparisons between economic megemony and political power: “the two hegemons in the modern world… have radiated their power largelyu through the exercise of economic power” (Kaufman, 480). Were the US and the UK NOT the economic hegemon, their political/military power would be undermine.

Look at the Israelis who, per capita, probably have the most military power, but they do not have the economic hegemony to bring their neighbors along. Israel would probably prefer “free-riders” of Syria, etc than adversaries. The free-riders of Canada and Mexico, while controversial and sometimes controversial with Canadian prescription drugs and Mexican maquiladora factories/labor, are better than having to militarily defend borders from militarily aggressive nation-states.


I find it amusing that the British are upset by Malcolm Glazer’s purchase ofthe “football” team Manchester United.

Maybe we can swap their soccer team for the British ownership of our supermarkets [Shaw’s owned by Sainsbury, UK, Ltd.], our electricity [National GridTransco, UK], and even our coffee and ice cream [Dunkin’ Donuts and BaskinRobbins are owned by Allied Domecq PLC (AED), UK]!

Ordinarily, it seems it’s Americans who are xenophobic, like the American response to the sale of rights to the Grand Canyon and Rockefeller Center to foreign corporations.However, at the same time, it is outrageous for the British to complainabout something that they do themselves -buy up companies in other countries.

Sun, May 22, 2005
Anti-Glazer protest makes little impact
Associated Press
CARDIFF, Wales — The threatened anti-Malcolm Glazer protest by disgruntled Manchester United supporters made little impact at the FA Cup final on Saturday.

Although fans held banners showing their anger at Glazer`s takeover of the famous soccer club, their threat to disrupt the biggest game in the English soccer season never materialized.

One banner depicted a shattered coffin with the words “MUFC Glazer. RIP. No customers, no profits.” There was also “Glazer rot in hell,” “Yankee Go Home” and “MUFC 127 years. Glazer not in a million years.”
More Stories

The anti-Glazer faction among the fans said they wore black as a protest gesture. But with the United players forced to wear black instead of their usual red because of a clash of colors with Arsenal, most of the United followers did the same anyway.

After Saturday`s match, the fans trooped home in the rain after their team lost a penalty shootout to Arsenal 5-4 after a 0-0 draw at Millennium Stadium.

Glazer, owner of the NFL`s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, has bought 75 percent of United for 790 million pounds (US$1.47 billion, €1.16 billion), meaning he can virtually do what he likes with it.

Because most of that figure is borrowed money, fans organizations fear he could sell the club`s Old Trafford stadium or use it as collateral against debts. They also fear he will raise the cost of season tickets.
They have threatened not to renew their season tickets and have refused to buy anything from the club`s highly profitable merchandising stores.