A Proposed Peace Agreement

Everybody knows the war is over,
Everybody knows the good guys lost.
            — Leonard Cohen and Sharon Robinson

One may quibble about who has won or lost the Trump-Netanyahu war against Iran. (Were there any “good guys”?) What is clear is that the world is worse off because of the war.

It seems likely, though by no means certain, that the war, as it involves Iran directly, is largely at an end. Although President Trump seeks to impose his own set of demands on Iran, Iran has other ideas. Unless Trump actually bombs Iran back “to the Stone Ages”—a move that would affirm the United States’s role as despised international pariah—a resolution of the war will require give-and-take among all parties. For each side to get something it wants, it must give up something it would rather not. Such is the nature of negotiations generally and of peace negotiations specifically.

Below, I propose an outline of peace terms that seem reasonable. (An actual agreement would require additional details.) Explanatory comments appear below.

1. Ships of all nations shall be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz unimpeded and without payment of any toll. Neither the United States of America nor the Islamic Republic of Iran nor the State of Israel shall interfere with the passage of vessels transiting the strait.
2. To facilitate the return of the Strait of Hormuz to its status quo ante, the United States and Iran shall coöperate to remove any mines that may be present in the vicinity of the strait.
3. The United States will immediately lift the blockade of all Iranian ports and will not reimpose such blockades in the future.
4. Iran shall cease and refrain from military action against other sovereign states unless it is itself attacked. 
5. Iran shall disclose all enriched uranium in its possession. It shall not retain uranium enriched to more than 60%. It shall not increase its current quantity of enriched uranium. Iran shall submit to international inspection to verify compliance with these provisions.
6. All international sanctions against Iran shall be removed.
7. Iran shall not engage in any activity aimed at destroying or interfering with the software assets of other nations or of physical assets that rely on such software assets.
8. Iran shall not attempt to kill any citizen of another nation on foreign soil, either directly or through the agency of third parties.
9. Neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran as long as it abides by this agreement.

Readers, particularly Republican ones, may find these provisions insufficiently draconian. More severe terms are likely to be rejected by Iran, leading to a stalemate or to renewed hostilities. Most important to the world at large is the resumption of normal transportation by sea and the limitation on Iran’s enrichment of uranium. (In fact, Iran might agree to even stronger restrictions, but maybe not.) Iran, of course, would like to demand reparations. (Good luck with that!) It will, however, welcome provisions that allow it to earn money from commercial operations. The devastation visited upon Iran will limit that country’s ability (and, one hopes, inclination) to export weapons in support of client organizations such as Hamas. Iran’s manufacture of drones and missiles will likely be the subject of much negotiation. It will be difficult to prohibit and police. More subtle activities are explicitly prohibited. Admittedly, the agreement is unbalanced in that the United States and Israel have recourse if Iran does not live up to the agreement; Iran is allowed no similar recourse.

Alas, neither the United States nor Israel has sufficient leverage to impose a more democratic government on Iran or, barring that, to protect its citizens from the depredations of its current regime.

Terms such as those I have proposed are not ideal, but, given the hostilities foolishly embarked upon by the United States and Israel, they may represent the best the aggressors can expect.

Fortuitous Listening

While performing domestic chores this afternoon, I had been listening to the CD “The Best of Tom Paxton.” In fact, I played the disc more than once.

I looked up at the clock and saw that it was nearly 9 o’clock (EDT). It was time for “Folkstage” on WFMT. I seldom hear all of “Folkstage,” though I often hear the end of it when I tune in to hear “The Midnight Special,” which airs at 10.

As fate would have it this night, the “Folkstage” program was a rebroadcast of a 2015 concert with Tom Paxton and Janis Ian performed at Chicago’s Old Time School of Folk Music. Obviously, I like Tom Paxton. And Janis Ian is one of my favorite singers. I knew and loved many of the songs sung on the program.

What an unexpected treat!

The War on Iran

I often post comments to my Facebook account without posting or taking note of them here. I posted an earlier version of the above graphic on Facebook earlier today. The more I think about it, though, the angrier I am that our ignorant, narcissistic president has taken this country to war, endangering the world economy and perhaps world peace as well. I wrote an essay about this on my Web site a few days ago. I may have been less angry then. Anyway, I invite you to read it.

UFE

When Donald Trump, as soon as he regained the presidency, attacked DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), I assumed that he deplored the DEI offices found in corporations, universities, nonprofits, governmental entities, and elsewhere. I was wrong, which quickly became obvious as the administration began not only threatening such offices but also expunging the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” wherever they could be found. The administration’s manic excisions even extended to those words on the World Wide Web appearing in contexts having nothing to do with DEI.

Dictionary.com offers a definition of DEI as good as can be found anywhere: “a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”

I suspect that many people—I would hope most people, including even Trump supporters—would endorse the objectives of DEI when presented with such an explicit definition. It is a fair assumption that Mr. Trump is not among that population. 

Mr. Trump knows exactly what his anti-DEI campaign is all about. He hates diversity. He favors American-born white, preferably male, people to those of other races or with conspicuous heritage from anywhere outside the U.S. (He makes an exception for white South Africans.)

Mr. Trump has no interest in treating all citizens, much less all people, equally. Only those people who can be useful to him are worthy of consideration. If you can make him money or kiss his ass in a politically useful manner, you become Mr. Trump’s friend, at least for the moment.

It follows, of course, that Mr. Trump has no interest in showing anyone special favors as compensation for historical injury, not only because he sees no personal gain in doing so, but also because he possesses the historical understanding of a slug.

I suggest that the president’s anti-DEI attitude can be properly characterized with another acronym, namely UFE. That stands for

• Uniformity: America for right-thinking MAGA white people
• Favoritism: Partiality is shown to the president’s friends
• Exclusion: People who are not useful to the president are of no account

Donald Trump, I submit, is the first UFE president.