Let's go to war or not: Iran Edition

[JonA]

The 501(c) loophole. The candidates have no legal responsibility to spend that money on actual campaign expenses. And since the candidate is entirely in control of the corporation, they can treat it like their own personal bank account. At any point in time, they can 'close' the campaign and simply pocket the money.

When a 501(c) closes, it can donate the money to a similar cause, but it is illegal to give the money to any of its shareholders or board members.

[aurelius]

When a 501(c) closes, it can donate the money to a similar cause, but it is illegal to give the money to any of its shareholders or board members.

You are technically correct. And I was stating campaign funds which is too general terminology. Donating to a candidate's campaign and donating to a Super PAC has different rules.

Here is the work around for the Super PAC: On December 13, 2012, Colbert announced that he was not required to say where the entire balance of the Super PAC's funds ($773,704.83) had gone. Immediately following this, however he stated that a group called "The Ham Rove Memorial Foundation" had received an anonymous donation of $773,704.83, which it will use to support various charities.

The 'like' organization is one that they control that does not have the oversight of the Super PAC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC

But I could be behind the times. Maybe they changed some of the laws since I watched the Daily Show.

[JonA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC

But I could be behind the times. Maybe they changed some of the laws since I watched the Daily Show.

Well, remember that he was doing that for entertainment purposes. It's no surprise that he "hammed" it up a bit.

All of the PACs involved had to file reports with the FEC. The money didn't magically disappear and reappear elsewhere. Example: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/ ... 810/sb/ALL

That filing shows the itemized expenditure from "AMERICANS FOR A BETTER TOMORROW, TOMORROW, INC" to "Colbert Super PAC SHH Institute". You can follow the money all the way through. It's tedius work, but these people did it:
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2015/09/ ... -money-go/

It's not exactly transparent, but it's a far cry from a politician being able to just pocketing the money.

[aurelius]

@JonA I understand that. We may just be saying the same thing, just differently.

Stephen Colbert is not shady, the money all went to actual charitable organizations. All that it takes to 'pocket the money' is to put the money into a non-profit organization that is controlled by the candidate. Using non-profits in this manner is not unique to politicians. Wealthy people from hedge fund managers to athletes have figured out that they can start a charitable organization to 'keep' a portion of their taxes. It is technically not legal but there is zero oversight and even when caught it is treated like a tort case. So basically zero risk.

A recent famous example is the Trump Foundation. Trump had used that money as his own personal piggy bank since 1988. It's board members had not met since 1999. He only got caught in 2018 because he has made enemies as President. The penalty? Pay back some money and the foundation was dissolved.

[Bcharles123]

@aurelius @JonA

In all fairness, and it makes sense, many people go into politics, post success, quite a few have spouses and/or inherited wealth, and so on.

The rules and disclosures are somewhat lose, so there’s that. But we may just be overly sensitive to the whole set. Their approval rating is under 10%.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ ... -one-chart

[Allentown]

It's almost certainly happening now, right?

[aurelius]

@Allentown Maybe not. The strike, while headline grabbing, was certainly a tepid response given Iranian military capabilities. Leaving two probable possibilities:

A) The Iranian strikes were seemingly designed to avoid US casualties and be more of an open show of force. This was most likely a political maneuver not full on escalation to war.

B) The other plausible explanation is this was misdirection. An attempt to lull the US into complacency before the real response.

Since neither the US or Iran gains from a prolonged conflict, I'm hoping that it is a A). This of course assumes Trump doesn't decide to escalate. It is probable Iran will step up attacks against 'soft' targets through proxies.

[Allentown]

Yeah, I looked at a second outlet and the source of the first headline I saw and apparently All Is Well. It seems Iran might have given advance warning and used a method which would all but ensure there would be few or no casualties. Because apparently THEY are the adults in the room ATM.

[aurelius]

Yeah, I looked at a second outlet and the source of the first headline I saw and apparently All Is Well. It seems Iran might have given advance warning and used a method which would all but ensure there would be few or no casualties. Because apparently THEY are the adults in the room ATM.

And the smartest people in the room. So much for 3D chess. Yet another US adversary strengthened by Trump.

[Hanley]

It's almost certainly happening now, right?

I can't see Trump/advisors pushing continued escalation.

I can't see Iran crossing a line of antagonism that assures a strong US response (they know our BIG/longterm objectives are stalling nuclear developments and/or regime change...and I can't imagine they'd be so stupid as to give us justification to pursue those objectives).

^ this assumes there's not some crazy Intel on nuclear weapons advancements, in which case all this shit has been theater to justify a US effort to dismantle their program

[mbasic]

US: "hey iran, we want to kill the Solemi guy, he's a dick and in iraq right now"

IR: "yah, that's fine. he was getting a too bit popular and what not. things aren't going well here anyways. could use a morale boost"

US: "alrighty then"

*drone strike boom*

IR: "hey, can we launch some missiles at your abandoned bases in iraq?"

US: "sure, hit these tues" *sends over coordinates*

[Allentown]

I can't see Trump/advisors pushing continued escalation.

Probably depends on what Fox & Friends says about him, but yeah, probably not. The first headline said "80 US soldiers killed" but I didn't click or read closer or anything else. Had I looked at the next headline ("No deaths at all") I probably wouldn't have said anything.

[aurelius]

I can't see Trump/advisors pushing continued escalation.

Agreed. Especially as this could not have worked out like they thought it would. But really, what did they think would happen? I'd really like to know!

I can't see Iran crossing a line of antagonism that assures a strong US response (they know our BIG/longterm objectives are stalling nuclear developments and/or regime change...and I can't imagine they'd be so stupid as to give us justification to pursue those objectives).

IF Trump pushes forward and hits them at home, I see Iran hitting the US on US soil. They publicly stated they would. IMO, that is not idle. From the perspective of Iran, they cannot allow the US to threaten their sovereignty. The Iranian story is literally them fighting against the US to be free. That is their national identity.

^ this assumes there's not some crazy Intel on nuclear weapons advancements, in which case all this shit has been theater to justify a US effort to dismantle their program

IMO this is unlikely for two reasons:
1) The few nations (10 nations have 96% of the world supply) that do have uranium deposits that can produce weapons grade material would not want to get caught giving it to Iran. The radioactive signature is a finger print and they would get caught.
2) If there was intel about nuclear weapons, I believe Trump would be screaming it at every news outlet he could.

@Allentown Iran through its propaganda network is claiming high casualties for PR reasons.

[omaniphil]

I thought that there were several scenarios that would arise from the killing of Soleimani.

1) Pause - Iran pauses its escalations against US and allies, at least for a time.
2) Revenge - Iran appears to stand down, but then commences an attack on a soft target. This has happened before (see assassination of Iranian chemist - month afterwards, Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand are targeted with car bombs.
3) Attacks on Allies - Iran launches attacks on allies - Israel, UAE, Saudi, etc., rather than strike back at US directly.
4) Direct confrontation - significant attacks on US positions. Unlikely.

It appears that perhaps the best case scenario of 1) is what is happening here. Iran launched this attack to save face, which is important in that part of the world. But it appears that it was calculated to not cause that much harm. In fact, it appears that Iran warned Iraq about the attacks, who in turn, naturally warned the US, letting the US know, implicitly that this is a proforma retaliation, probably largely for internal political reasons.

We still may yet see 2), but I doubt it. Iran has lost a lot of credibility, even amongst its allies, and is playing with a much weaker hand here than it had a week ago.

[DoctorWho]

Phil, I'm inferring from your name that you know something about Oman. I've heard it said that bc of fracking the US doesn't have to have the firepower to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but now only enough to close it.

In other words, for most petroleum products, North America has the supply and refining capacity to make the middle east supply almost irrelevant to the US (except for the huge price shocks that might happen).
Yes? And are Oman and UAE friendly, both diplomatically and on the ground?

[aurelius]

We still may yet see 2), but I doubt it. Iran has lost a lot of credibility, even amongst its allies, and is playing with a much weaker hand here than it had a week ago.

Iran lost a lot of credibility?

What is your reasoning for Iran being weaker after this? I see Iran coming out of this in a much better position of strength both regionally and globally. While the US looks erratic and painted into a corner.

North America has the supply and refining capacity to make the middle east supply almost irrelevant to the US (except for the huge price shocks that might happen).

I made a similar statement previously in this thread based on aggregate crude oil production. @Griff informed me it isn't that simple. Page 2 is his explanation.

I agree that long term disentangling ours critical supply chains from non-friendly foreign entities like China and the Middle East should be the preferred solution. The Iraq war cost $2 trillion. Since 2000 it is a safe bet to state the US spent at least $3 trillion in the Middle East. Imagine if we had spent that modernizing our power grid, converting our gas and oil industry to be self reliant, built nuclear power plants? Probably still have a $1 trillion left over.

[omaniphil]

Phil, I'm inferring from your name that you know something about Oman.

Yeah - I lived there for 16 years. Dad was in the oil business.

I've heard it said that bc of fracking the US doesn't have to have the firepower to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but now only enough to close it.
In other words, for most petroleum products, North America has the supply and refining capacity to make the middle east supply almost irrelevant to the US (except for the huge price shocks that might happen).
Yes?

I think the above is probably overstating it. But... remember the lines for gas and the price shock when Iran blew up 50% of Saudi's production capacity? I can't.

And are Oman and UAE friendly, both diplomatically and on the ground?

Oman tries to be friendly with everybody. They pride themselves in being the Switzerland of the ME. Oman acted as a go-between and neutral site for negotiations between Iran and US. Partially this stems from Oman historically being a sailing/trading/merchant power, and partially that most Omanis are not Sunni, but instead Ibadi (which is neither Sunni nor Shia).

I was in Iran on vacation a few years ago, and was surprised to find that in Shiraz, most of the tourists visiting there were actually from Oman.

[DoctorWho]

Phil, I'm inferring from your name that you know something about Oman.

Yeah - I lived there for 16 years. Dad was in the oil business.

I've heard it said that bc of fracking the US doesn't have to have the firepower to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but now only enough to close it.
In other words, for most petroleum products, North America has the supply and refining capacity to make the middle east supply almost irrelevant to the US (except for the huge price shocks that might happen).
Yes?

I think the above is probably overstating it. But... remember the lines for gas and the price shock when Iran blew up 50% of Saudi's production capacity? I can't.

And are Oman and UAE friendly, both diplomatically and on the ground?

Oman tries to be friendly with everybody. They pride themselves in being the Switzerland of the ME. Oman acted as a go-between and neutral site for negotiations between Iran and US. Partially this stems from Oman historically being a sailing/trading/merchant power, and partially that most Omanis are not Sunni, but instead Ibadi (which is neither Sunni nor Shia).

I was in Iran on vacation a few years ago, and was surprised to find that in Shiraz, most of the tourists visiting there were actually from Oman.

I didn't know there was a such a thing as Ibadi. They must not be very good at chopping off heads and blowing themselves up.

(not a criticism!)

[mbasic]

I agree that long term disentangling ours critical supply chains from non-friendly foreign entities like China and the Middle East should be the preferred solution. The Iraq war cost $2 trillion. Since 2000 it is a safe bet to state the US spent at least $3 trillion in the Middle East. Imagine if we had spent that modernizing our power grid, converting our gas and oil industry to be self reliant, built nuclear power plants? Probably still have a $1 trillion left over.

I agree with the whole self reliance vibe ... but us completely getting out of middle east oil isn't going solve all the ME problems.
Almost weakens our hand in a way.
Money can and does drive a lot of shit in the right direction SOMETIMES.
That whole US-China debt thing? welp, that's a two edged sword for sure.

We are still going to have to 'meddle' there:
- Humanitarian presence.
- 'those people' have a preponderance for killing each other even when left alone. 'It is the Way'
- Israel, etc
- China
- North Korea

[omaniphil]

We still may yet see 2), but I doubt it. Iran has lost a lot of credibility, even amongst its allies, and is playing with a much weaker hand here than it had a week ago.

Iran lost a lot of credibility?

What is your reasoning for Iran being weaker after this? I see Iran coming out of this in a much better position of strength both regionally and globally. While the US looks erratic and painted into a corner.
over.

Arab governments have long been skeptical of Iran's imperial tendencies. Arab street was more blasé. There has been a growing appreciation however that Iran, and Soleimani in particular have been responsible for a huge number of deaths in the Arab world - Aleppo in particular, but also the PMF militias have killed scores of Iraqi protesters in the last few months.

Iraqis are not happy that Iran attacks last night only seemed to kill other Iraqis. Iraqis are starting to come around to the idea that Iran might care less about civilian casualties than the US does.

Its really early, and probably will take months or years before we know how it will play out. I can't point you towards any conclusive evidence, but I know Iraq a little (worked there for a year with a non-profit back in 2006-2007 and still talk with local friends there), grew up in the ME, have family in Syria, and have been reading the twitter feeds of Arab journalists who are a little closer to the ground than most western news agencies:
https://twitter.com/RashaAlAqeedi
https://twitter.com/hxhassan