This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Former Secretary of State, James Baker III, Tells Iran to Fold Its Nuclear Program, Or Else
“We have 3,500 nuclear weapons left over from the cold war we don’t need, they take 20 seconds to re-aim, we’re not afraid to use them, and by the way, they’re already aimed at you.” That is the approach James Baker III thinks America should take with Iran, Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury and George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State.
At the same time, we should be talking to the regime in Tehran, while doing everything we can to support the reformers, tighten sanctions, and enlist Europe’s help. Baker does not see a military solution in Iran, even though their potential to create instability in the region is enormous.
This was one of dozens of amazing insights I gained spending an evening chatting with the wily Texas lawyer during an evening in San Francisco. Baker is happy to take on the “America Bashers,” pointing out that the US still plays a dominant role in the UN, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. It still accounts for 25% of GDP, and its military is unmatched. The US spread globalization, and the spectacular growth of China and India is largely the result of open American trade policies, raising standards of living around the world.
But the US can’t take its leadership role for granted. The biggest threats to American dominance are the runaway borrowing and entitlements. US debt to GDP will soar from 93% to 100% in three years, the highest level since WWII. This is unsustainable, is certain to bring a return of inflation, and unless dealt with, will lead to a long term American decline on the world stage. Massive trade and capital flow imbalances also have to be addressed.
The 80 year old ex-Marine, who confesses to being the only Treasury Secretary in history who never took an economics class, believes that the advantageous rates that the government now borrows at are not set in stone. Baker is the man who engineered an end to the cold war with a whimper, and not a bang. He thinks that “even our power has its limits,” and that “there is a risk of strategic overreach.”
Baker feels that while conditions in Iraq still look dicey, there is a good chance that we can pull out combat troops by August, all troops by 2011, and still leave a stable country. With the US politically evenly divided, Congress has degenerated from debating teams into execution squads, and consensus is impossible. The media are partly to blame, especially bloggers who propagate wild conspiracy theories, as confrontation sells better than accommodation. Regarding the financial crisis, we need to end “too big to fail” and embark on re-regulation, not strangulation.
All in all, it was a fascinating few hours spent with a piece of living history who still maintains his excellent contacts in the diplomatic and intelligence communities.
To see the data, charts, and graphs that support this research piece, as well as more iconoclastic and out of consensus analysis, please visit me at www.madhedgefundtrader.com . There you will find the conventional wisdom mercilessly flailed and tortured daily, and my last two years of research reports available for free. You can also listen to me on Hedge Fund Radio by clicking on the “Today’s Radio Show” menu tab on the left on my home page.
- advertisements -
Taking the policy of preemption to first strike with nuclear arms as a means of preventing proliferation would, in itself, be an noteworthy escalation.
“We have 3,500 nuclear weapons left over from the cold war we don’t need, they take 20 seconds to re-aim, we’re not afraid to use them, and by the way, they’re already aimed at you.” That is the approach James Baker III thinks America should take with Iran, Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury and George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State.
At the same time, we should be talking to the regime in Tehran..Baker does not see a military solution in Iran.
OK given the internal contradictions of these "insights" might we not all agree with the imams in Tehran who would consider him a complete blowhard???? I am sure they are listening to him about as much as they do Mrs Clinton, which is to say, not at all. Get serious. Has this guy and Greenspan both gone senile at the same time? LMAO.
chinese elites, european elites, american elites, they all have much more in common with each other, than their nations people
Yeah, that was a real smart move-that globalization thing, Jim. Now that China has America's middle class manufacturing jobs and lots of surplus U.S. dollars to buy and build military hardware, while financing the theft of military and trade secrets, what is the plan ?
That free enterprise, Fascist state thing ought to be patented and sold throughout the world.
Oh, sorry, China has the patent on that....
Baker? Baker?? My god. Yeah. He gets things done alright. He does do that. The smart guys, the guys who get ahead, yeah, they'll be watching Baker. Hanging on every word.
'things" being the problem.
Is it not Baker who was put in control of "Baby" Bush's inheritance from Prescott Bush (when the former was elected Pres), which was directly accumulated by P.S.B.'s work at Brown Brothers, Harriman (as President of said bank) during the time he directly financed the NAZIs with Fritz Thyssen's "Amerika" (name of company, spelling correct) Mining and Shipping Line monies? I will have to go home and grab some books but I am quite sure it is James Baker the Third who was such.
What the shit was this shit?
woohoo another war for israel!
more dead americans!
bring it on!
mission accomplished!
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Whenever some serious shit is about to go down they pull Baker out of the shadows (Florida, Nov 2000!!???) and he assumes an authority role.
Once again evidence that the Repub. vs. Dem. media show is WWE wrestling. Pre-determined outcome. But it sure was entertaining (for half-wits) during the run up to the health care vote now wasn't it?
What will they do when this fucker dies?
baker part of the whole sordid mess... why this infatuation with a player, with a deal maker that has fostered the way things are . look out folks
A world fraught with wars , fraud, a never ending cycle of the parasite of the baker clicke'
he walks like a sheep, but beteeth his fancy clothes lies a seat of todays problems ,
in my very humble opinion..
AH-
Judging by your avatar, I guess you wanted the wall to stay up.
I disagree that the US spread globilization, I think it spread itself because it was allowed to do so.
JB III is the 'smoking man' from the X-Files..........................
Typical bully mentality. We need to stay out of Iran's business. They still remember what we did with the Shah. The U.S. doesn't care if there is a dictator in power as long as he acts as a puppet. It would be different if we really wanted to help the people, but we dont just look at all the countries we helped if you can call it that.
Like a CIA trained Saddam type of puppet dictator?
"What [Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA] did to the Shah."
Sure, Iran remembers what we did with the Shah. So? All nations act in their own self-interest. It would be absurd for us not to continue to do so.
Our self-interest requires that Iran not go nuclear, for at least two broad reasons. First, the Iranian state has a history of sharing weaponry and resources with significant terrorist groups. (See Khobar Towers as one of the primary examples, but Bob Baer has also suggested an Iranian nexus on 9/11.) Second, if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, then that triggers a race among all of the other Middle Eastern powers to obtain them as well, to counterbalance the Iranian threat. Not only do we not especially want foes like Iran and Syria to have nukes, but we also do not want them in states that are vulnerable to popular uprising (the Pakistan problem). Saudi Arabia -- which almost certainly would be the next nation to develop nukes after Iran -- would seem to be one significant example.
"First, the Iranian state has a history of sharing weaponry and resources with significant terrorist groups."
And the United States doesn't? Oh, right, we are the shining light of freedom and democracy so our shit don't stink.
Ops, sorry. I forgot that we are as pure as a new snow fall and anything we do is righteous and just. Silly me, what could I have been thinking? Carry on.
With regard to both this comment and Rick64's... I just don't see why that matters. The only perspective that matters is what's in our national interest. You can play moral relativist in your Sociology 101 seminars, but that's not how the world works.
So basically you are saying the end justifies the means, if its in our interests? Upholding the law while breaking the law.
It matters because its our history which other countries view as hypocritical. I am not for nukes in Iran by any means, but by intelligence reports they are 10 yrs away from that. That would allow us some time to consider our actions. I don't want a war built on false accusations such as Vietnam(Tomkin Bay) and Iraq(WMD). Our interference in other countries is counterproductive to relations. In latin america we have removed elected by the people presidents and replaced them with murdering dictators for corporate interests. CIA has been caught redhanded with drug shipments while we are fighting the war on drugs.
Is this in our national interest? Please don't patronize me with the Soc.101 psychology this is way beyond that. Not to be disrespectful but have you looked at our history and seen what we have done. Don't take my word for it just research it.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8127 but we're the good guys
All nations act in their own self-interest.
While portraying we are doing it in the interest of democracy and freedom. Saudi doesn't need to develope them because they have the U.S. backing them and if need be we will surely sell them some. Put yourself in Iran's place, you have the U.S. in Iran,Iraq,Kuwait, ect.. and Israel backing us. They are becoming surrounded by the very government that abuses their power the U.S.. They will be forced to do whatever the U.S. wants them to do which given our history isn't in their best interests. As far as terroist activities the U.S. is guilty of far more than Iran (study our history).
Problem is no one asked you to do that and many would be happy if you'd just mind your own business.
The standard of living has not improved for most people it has only improved for an elite minority - to which James Ba(n)ker belongs.
You need a strong military if you want to go around the world putting your boot on people's throats. That is a Jimmy specialty.
Baker is an awesome individual with whom I have tremendous respect. If there ever was a "Real Deal American" he is one of them.
But what I did not hear was the need to restructure government, particularly the tax picture.
I am not fond of fancy complicated talk, so I will just give it to you straight.
When one has an economy which imposes added costs to production such that it cannot be competitive in anyway versus its peers , is this wise ?
Is this not the current path that the US is currently following?
What has to change is to revamp the structure itself such that globalization is a smart move.
Another succinct add on is this; "If I have a $2 Trillion income and owe $over $100 Trillion, just what is the reason that I am letting this happen in the first place?
To be sure the $100 Trillion has to be removed.
Start removing it by true solution and effectiveness.
How ?
Note this, and then use your own logic.
What does an IB do ?
It finds a private company that thinks it's worth $100 million, and sells the owners on the idea of going public by giving several times $100 million for the controlling stake, whereas creating better wealth distribution prospects, as well as a $Billion vehicle from which IBs can glean several points a year off of. Noting that new money can provide increases in wealth. It multiplies itself. Just who is it that does not understand the multiplier effect of successful companies ?
And the best idea would be do do it over and over again, such that money is replenished many times over.
The wealth equation should have no greater than a .15 %tax factor, not a 50% + factor that has to be overcome in final product prices.
Story told.
Market Fox:
+100 in a scale normally tops at 10.