Washington Post Idiocy: Calls for War With Iran to Save America's Economy

George Washington's picture

Washington’s Blog

As many writers have documented, the corporate media is usually pro-war. See this.

And so Washington Post hack David Broder's op-ed arguing that war with Iran will save America's economy is not all that surprising.

course, China and Russia might not sit idly by and let their ally,
Iran, be attacked. So there's the wee complication that bombing Iran
could start WWIII.

And, of course, attacking Iran would increase the level of terrorism.

But forget politics and national security.

Broder is also plain wrong on the economics.

In a blog entry entitled "Has David Broder Lost His Mind?," Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell writes that Broder's proposal is "crazy for a number of reasons."

is that markets don't like tensions, and certainly not the kind that
jack up oil prices. Second, World War II brought the United States out
of the Great Depression because it was a massive economic stimulus
program that mobilized entire sectors of society. Today's American
military has all the tools it needs to fight Iran, and there isn't
going to be any sort of buildup. Hasn't Broder been reading his own
newspaper? The Pentagon is looking to find billions in cuts as it
confronts the coming world of budget austerity.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, "military Keynesianism" - that is, launching wars to stimulate the economy, doesn't work.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, "military Keynesianism" - that is, launching wars to stimulate the economy, doesn't work.

For example, as I wrote in August:

Nobel-prize winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz has said that war can be very bad for the economy.
For example, in 2003, Stiglitz wrote:

is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second
world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and
war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth.
Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them,
recession would always lurk on the horizon.

Today, we know that
this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far
better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can
actually be bad for an economy.

Stiglitz has said that this decade's Iraq war has been very bad for the economy. See this, this and this.

And as the New Republic noted last year:

Conservative Harvard economist Robert Barro has argued that increased military spending during WWII actually depressed other parts of the economy.


Also from the right, Robert Higgs has done good work showing that military spending wasn't the primary source of the recovery and that GDP growth during WWII has been "greatly exaggerated."


And from the left, Larry Summers and Brad Delong argued
back in 1988 that "five-sixths of the decline in output relative to
the trend that occurred during the Depression had been made up before

As I noted in January:

All of the spending on unnecessary wars adds up.

The U.S. is adding trillions to its debt burden to finance its multiple wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.


top American economists - Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff - show
that the more indebted a country is, with a government debt/GDP ratio of
0.9, and external debt/GDP of 0.6 being critical thresholds, the more
GDP growth drops materially.

Specifically, Reinhart and Rogoff write:

relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak for
debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90 percent of GDP. Above 90
percent, median growth rates fall by one percent, and average growth
falls considerably more. We find that the threshold for public debt is
similar in advanced and emerging economies...

Indeed, it should be obvious to anyone who looks at the issue that deficits do matter.

A PhD economist told me:

War always
causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may
stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick
victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into
a recession and hurt its economy.

You know about America's unemployment problem. You may have even heard that the U.S. may very well have suffered a permanent destruction of jobs.

But did you know that the defense employment sector is booming?

As I pointed out
in August, public sector spending - and mainly defense spending - has
accounted for virtually all of the new job creation in the past 10

The U.S. has largely been financing job creation for
ten years. Specifically, as the chief economist for BusinessWeek,
Michael Mandel, points out, public spending has accounted for virtually
all new job creation in the past 10 years:

Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying chart:




May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only
rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression


It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically
speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled
over the past ten years. Take a look at this chart:




the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1
million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector
created about 2.4 million jobs.


But even that gives the private
sector too much credit. Remember that the private sector includes
health care, social assistance, and education, all areas which receive a
lot of government support.



of the industries which had positive job growth over the past ten
years were in the HealthEdGov sector. In fact, financial job growth was
nearly nonexistent once we take out the health insurers.


Let me finish with a final chart.




a decade of growing government support from rising health and
education spending and soaring budget deficits, the labor market would
have been flat on its back.

Indeed, Robert Reich lamented this month:

America’s biggest — and only major — jobs program is the U.S. military.

Back to my January essay:

Raw Story argues that the U.S. is building a largely military economy:

use of the military-industrial complex as a quick, if dubious, way of
jump-starting the economy is nothing new, but what is amazing is the
divergence between the military economy and the civilian economy, as
shown by this New York Times chart.


the past nine years, non-industrial production in the US has declined
by some 19 percent. It took about four years for manufacturing to
return to levels seen before the 2001 recession -- and all those gains
were wiped out in the current recession.


By contrast, military
manufacturing is now 123 percent greater than it was in 2000 -- it has
more than doubled while the rest of the manufacturing sector has been

It's important to note the trajectory -- the military
economy is nearly three times as large, proportionally to the rest of
the economy, as it was at the beginning of the Bush administration. And
it is the only manufacturing sector showing any growth. Extrapolate
that trend, and what do you get?

The change in leadership in Washington does not appear to be abating that trend...[121]

most of the job creation has been by the public sector. But because
the job creation has been financed with loans from China and private
banks, trillions in unnecessary interest charges have been incurred by
the U.S.And this shows military versus non-military durable goods

[Click here to view full image.]

we're running up our debt (which will eventually decrease economic
growth), but the only jobs we're creating are military and other public
sector jobs.

PhD economist Dean Baker points out that America's massive military spending on unnecessary and unpopular wars lowers economic growth and increases unemployment:

spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the
uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and
supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In
standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the
economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.

few years ago, the Center for Economic and Policy Research
commissioned Global Insight, one of the leading economic modeling
firms, to project the impact of a sustained increase in defense
spending equal to 1.0 percentage point of GDP. This was roughly equal
to the cost of the Iraq War.

Global Insight’s model projected
that after 20 years the economy would be about 0.6 percentage points
smaller as a result of the additional defense spending. Slower growth
would imply a loss of almost 700,000 jobs compared to a situation in
which defense spending had not been increased. Construction and
manufacturing were especially big job losers in the projections, losing
210,000 and 90,000 jobs, respectively.

The scenario we asked Global Insight [recognized as the most consistently accurate
forecasting company in the world] to model turned out to have vastly
underestimated the increase in defense spending associated with current
policy. In the most recent quarter, defense spending was equal to 5.6
percent of GDP. By comparison, before the September 11th attacks, the
Congressional Budget Office projected that defense spending in 2009
would be equal to just 2.4 percent of GDP. Our post-September 11th
build-up was equal to 3.2 percentage points of GDP compared to the
pre-attack baseline. This means that the Global Insight projections of
job loss are far too low...

The projected job loss from this increase in defense spending would be close to 2 million.
In other words, the standard economic models that project job loss
from efforts to stem global warming also project that the increase in
defense spending since 2000 will cost the economy close to 2 million
jobs in the long run.

The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst has also shown that non-military spending creates more jobs than military spending.

we're running up our debt - which will eventually decrease economic
growth - and creating many fewer jobs than if we spent the money on
non-military purposes.

As I wrote last month:


is ironic that America's huge military spending is what made us an
empire ... but our huge military is what is bankrupting us ... thus
destroying our status as an empire.

Even Admiral Mullen seems to agree:


The Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.

“We’re going to have to do that if it’s going to survive at all,” Mullen said, “and do it in a way that is predictable.”

Indeed, Mullen said:

For industry and adequate defense funding to survive ... the two must work together. Otherwise, he added, “this
wave of debt” will carry over from year to year, and eventually, the
defense budget will be cut just to facilitate the debt.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agrees as well. As David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post in May:


a decade of war and financial crisis, America has run up debts that
pose a national security problem, not just an economic one.




of the strongest voices arguing for fiscal responsibility as a
national security issue has been Defense Secretary Bob Gates. He gave a landmark speech in Kansas on May 8, invoking President Dwight Eisenhower's warnings about the dangers of an imbalanced military-industrial state.


"Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a
muscle-bound, garrison state -- militarily strong, but economically
stagnant and strategically insolvent," Gates said. He warned that
America was in a "parlous fiscal condition" and that the "gusher" of
military spending that followed Sept. 11, 2001, must be capped. "We
can't have a strong military if we have a weak economy," Gates told
reporters who covered the Kansas speech.


On Thursday the
defense secretary reiterated his pitch that Congress must stop
shoveling money at the military, telling Pentagon reporters: "The
defense budget process should no longer be characterized by 'business
as usual' within this building -- or outside of it."

While morons like David Broder might want to start another war,
America's top military leaders and economists say that would be a very
bad idea.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
george22's picture

this is another pathological example america's elite being blood thirsty murderers and the washington post in general being a source of terrorism....it led the way in the cover-up of the cia murder of john kennedy and in the political assassination of richard nixon - another victim of the cia....this latest outburst from broder is no surprise. what kind of fucking asshole wants a war to save an economy???? watches|jewelry

bugs_'s picture

hey whats Yemen gotta do?  they are the Rodney Dangerfield of the middle east

anony's picture

Broder is just another Zionist-Israeli symp just like Krauthammer.  He is either paid by AIPAC and the ADL or is genuinely in sympathy for making Israel OFFICIALLY the 51st state.

View him thru this faultless prism and his Cry for war with Iran or any other enema of Isreal and then you can dispense with all the other faux reasoning and criticism and write him off as just another who gets his muffins buttered by the jews.

This economic take is a diversion.

3ringmike's picture

oh so fighting in vietnam actually help the economy. don't remember it that way exactly, but i'm sure i will sleep better tonight. broders a fucking moron trying to be controversial.  

Weaseldog's picture

Fighting in Afghanistan and IRaq have done wonders, have they not?


Obviuously Broder wants more of what we're getting.


blindman's picture


stealing in broad daylight,  just do it in an orderly fashion;

in small doses, billions or hundreds of billions, and routinely.

oh well.  the first and only mandate of the fed ...( they need more

authority in difficult ponzi end times. )    

what we need is an armed branch of the fed,  it should really have it's

own shadow militia and stop billing the american taxpayer for using



the question is who is the rightful authority of the money system. 

either you believe there is a place for government or you don't. 

if you believe there should be a government at all then that authority

must control the money system or become a slave.  the people then must control the

government or live as slaves.  anything else is tyranny. 


ps.  i hear bernanke is being advised by bernie madoff as we speak.  i say

let the man out and let him earn his redemption working at the fed where

he belongs. 

pps.  it is all just stealing and counterfeiting in broad daylight.

just wait until the authorities figure it out,  there will be hell to pay!


ppss.  "no one speaks english and everything is broken." t.w.

merehuman's picture

Send Broder to the frontline. probably never had a fight in his life.

tony bonn's picture

this is another pathological example america's elite being blood thirsty murderers and the washington post in general being a source of terrorism....it led the way in the cover-up of the cia murder of john kennedy and in the political assassination of richard nixon - another victim of the cia....this latest outburst from broder is no surprise.

what kind of fucking asshole wants a war to save an economy????

Silbertibor's picture

I will have to be more obvious in the future. Of course anyone reading, and understanding, zero hedge knows that destruction does not create wealth. Only some nut job with a PHD from an elite university, like Benny, could believe otherwise. And I also agree that we have to call the nut jobs who, are encouraging wars in the name of economics, out on their absurdity, all over the world, in a million articles. But, we don't need to overcomplicate the concept with a three thousand word article when we can do it in thirty. The eyes glaze over and we lose the intellectual battle. As in physics, the simplest formula is the correct formula, so in economics, the simplest argument is the best argument.

JimboJammer's picture

Taking  on  Iran  is  much  harder  to  do  than   I-Rock ..

Iran  has  the  >>  " Sunburn Missle "   the  game  changer ..

Google  it...

Eric L. Prentis's picture

David Broder and the Washington Post saying, "war with Iran will save America's economy," proves they have jumped the shark. 

Paul Bogdanich's picture

In high American fashion.  We are so media socialized we don't even know it anymore.  For example in this whole thread comments and all did anyone ever mention the victims of our attrocities?  Anywhere?  Anyone?  I hear about cost, and economy and this and that and the other thing but never a word about our victims.  You know those millions of brown people we slaughter.  Remember them?  Good little Americans.  Your brainwashing has taken very well indeed.  Murderous bastards the whole lot of you.

ATG's picture

For example in this whole thread comments and all did anyone ever mention the victims of our attrocities?  Anywhere?  Anyone?

Perhaps this will make more immediate heart-throbbing sense of the mention of DU above affecting all peoples:


blindman's picture

that line of thinking has no traction to an american

audience.  it has been used before and is ignored.

so you have to speak in terms of something americans

care about.  like their parents eating cat food to survive,

or having the beer removed, or no more cable vision and

football.   or no more funny t.v. commercials.

it's a kafka thing. 

Paul Bogdanich's picture

"that line of thinking has no traction to an american audience.  it has been used before and is ignored."


I understand what you are saying but what I was saying is not a tag line or an arguement.  The delination between murder and self defense or other legitimate use of force is slightly elevated above a "line of thinking" in my estimation.  But like you say the concept has "no traction" and like I say any fair reading of the evidence will adjudge these people to be murderous.  Guilty of murder.  Funny that they routinely say they believe in a God.  At least the Romans weren't so damn hypocritical.

blindman's picture

i think you are correct.   maybe soon ... we will see.

blindman's picture

the fed is destroying the usa as fast as humanly possible, using all

available methods, without blatantly coming out and declaring it.

yes, get the rent free military to lose in three or four foreign

occupations at once.  saddle the taxpayer with the global debt

upon withdrawal.  totally f'd.  and they will say we just didn't commit

enough.  to what?  we weren't wholehearted fascist enough to carry

their water, or flag or whatever they need to be carried.  their weight.

poor us.

Dr_Dazed's picture

Wait - now I'm supposed to believe those pointy headed academic economists?  I thought they were the ones ruining the country with their neo-Keynesian claptrap?  How am I going to ever keep this straight?

Tsukato's picture


ATG's picture

The PRC and their merchant marine, already ahead of the US Army and Marines in personnel, is fast catching up to US Navy and Air Force hardware thanks to deliberate technology transfer, with Davey Crocketts, killer satellites, melamine bioterrorism, stuxnet cyberwarfare, Shanghai mutual aid pacts with Iran and pandemic flu shots already here.


Re the academic left shibboleth that breaking things and killing people is good for the economy, look no further than Bastiat's brilliant essay on the parable of The Broken Window fallacy putting glaziers back to work.


Or look at the chart of the 1929 Dow that did not recover to new highs until late 1954, in real terms 1966, with many bankrupt industrial components replaced by new companies proving the warfare whole was less than the sum of the consumer parts for at least three decades. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même.


Or consider HW who removed himself from office by Les petites guerres in Panama and the Persian Gulf with consequent recessions.

Only presidents who believe stupid neocon economists or Fed Chairs do not get reelected.

This president fired some of his after they blew economic recovery with QEs and more warfare plus shovel ready central infrasturcture planning aimed at the elections. Too clever by half.

Nobel Laureate Samuelson, Summers' uncle and Romer's fairy godfather, held in his Economics textbook that the Soviet Central Command Economy would surpass ours by 1990 because it was more efficient and rational.

What do these people smoke in their ivory towers anyway?


When a leading corporate mouthpiece in the WaBagPost advocates warfare to cure our economy, we are not that far from Hitler and Mussolini neoKeynesian fascism to be sure.

Since when has killing billions of people with depleted uranium or plutonium and bad vaccines cured the economy?

Wake up Amerika. We have one day to vote the bums out, even if Tea Party libertarians were coopted by coprporate control freaks.

Then maybe we can hold our Big Sister government and its Animal Farm corporate bank owners accountable.

ATG's picture

Good luck with your junk maggot

Show your avatar

Face the truth and deal with it

Tsukato's picture

YAAAAHHHOOOOOO! Let em rip boys! After the dust settles, I'm gonna go in there and be the pimp daddy! I'm gonna set up a tattoo parlor, massage parlor, and a gentlemens club, and set them towlheads straight on gettin jiggy with the american dream thang! Gonna take my camaro too, and go down the streets at night doing brodies, and troll for some fine assed Iranian poontang! I'm gunna be king of Tehran, and everyone's gunna convert cuz I'll show em that my fine assed life was given to me by my lord and saviour- Jeezus Krighst.

Mercury's picture

Economic crisis resolution?...give me a break. What's our ROI so far on Iraq again?

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the Obama Administration is such a disaster that the liberal MSM is actually advocating what could become WW III to pull the president's ass out of the fire, let's examine the wisdom of taking on Iran:

Surely at this point it should be obvious that instigating a military conflict anywhere east of say, Vienna is ultimetely going to generate much more downside that upside for the USA.  If you're looking to start a war just to start a war I'd push for N. Korea.  There's a decent amount of moral justification to stand on (really, how could things end up being any worse for the vast majority of N. Koreans?) and let's face it, we have a much better track record rebuilding a postwar society/economy in that part of the world.  If N. Korea ended up being anything like S. Korea (in the long run) it would be a huge win-win.

Obviously the elephant in this room here is again China, much more so than in the case of Iran, and that would have to be ironed out pre-game or it's a no go. Not an impossibility but it would likely involve agreeing to something very unpleasant. I'm also aware that N. Korea is capable of shelling Seoul into rubble in about a day and a half but I wonder if that threat couldn't be neutralized to a large extent in this advanced military technology era.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to start a war at all and certainly not to cover up Obama's economic clotheslessness.  But Broder's big idea is stupid for several reasons and even assuming that the general premise is solid, the details are stupid too. 

If Obama ever attempted to pull a rabbit out of a hat in Iran like that he really would be The Second Coming.

...of Jimmy Carter.

BigJim's picture

What's our ROI so far on Iraq again?

That all depends on who the 'we' in 'our' pertains to 

trav7777's picture

this is just...astonishing.  In a frightening sort of way.

But, let's look at the map, we're in two adjacent countries to Iran.  If you were playing Risk, this would be your next move

Mercury's picture

I think the more appropriate analogy is cards and taking on Iran would look a lot like doubling down on two loosing hands at once!

DaveyJones's picture

yeah but Trav knows (1) we are totally screwed on that oil thing and (2) this seems to be the only card were playing. Doesn't matter whether it's a good bet, this gambler revealed his strategy a while ago.

AchtungAffen's picture

"And from the left, Larry Summers [...]"


Huh what?

Dick Buttkiss's picture

On the contrary, Silber, virtually everyone on this site does know a thing or two about economics, including the Broken Window Fallacy.  Most of the commentary is about the politics of war, as this is the overriding factor.

Think FDR and the Great Depression -- http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299


The state can kiss my ass.

israhole's picture

You know what I think.

Hidetora's picture

Wow.  Celente was right.  And now the drum beat begins...

pyite's picture

With any luck, this will be a career-ender for David Broder.

BigJim's picture

Why? It's like all Keynesianisms... when it fails, they just claim we didn't do enough of it.

So, when we attack Iran, and the economy tanks, they'll say, "should've attacked Syria, too!"; whereas, if they'd attacked Iran and Syria, they'd say, "should've attacked Sudan, too!"; etc, etc.

weinerdog43's picture

I'm afraid not.  Broder is the 'dean' of traditional media morons who control the discourse in this country.  Those of us out here in the real world can complain all we want, but never right idiots like Broder and Craphammer still have their columns. 

Another good reason why traditional media is dying. 

MarketTruth's picture

Iran would be a mistake, yet attacking a small fry country like, hmmm Yemen, would be easy enough. Oh, wait, didn't Yemen just get accused of sending many printer cartridges (to Bernanke so the Fed's treasonous terror threat of QE2 could continue)?

A Nanny Moose's picture

Worry not. The State Dept is on top of it. We've been Hellfiring weddings there for about a year now. Since just before the X-Mas bomber. In return, they send us back exploding "packages"

Silbertibor's picture

Clearly, on this site, I am the only one who knows anything about economics. The sole purpose of an economy is to create wealth. We don't need three thousand words to explain why war, which is the destruction of wealth, is not good for the economy.

Rick64's picture


  War would bring billions of dollars in contracts to U.S. companies. Everything from food to weapons. This would create jobs. Unfortunately the money for the war would have to be borrowed and added to the deficit, thus leaving the taxpayer on the hook which doesn't bother our government at all. After the war ends is the problem when those manufactures are no longer needed and the layoffs start, soldiers return looking for jobs. The big corporations with government connections will be needed for rebuilding and infrastructure building(water, electricity, oil) in the conquered country and they will be paid by IMF and World bank loans at the occupied countries expense. Of course the U.S. would like to bully them into submission without an all out war by occupying countries around them, treaties with others, UN embargo, UN inspection teams (sounds like Iraq).

 Who benefits the most? Big corporations and banks. Your not destroying their wealth with a war, only the common mans wealth will be destroyed.

Weaseldog's picture

There's no reason why those contracts wouldn't go to Kuwait as most do now.


So sure, a war with Iran would create jobs in Kuwait and help their economy, but let's not pretend that there will be any benefit to the USA.

Rick64's picture

 I am not talking about the small players, and please provide some proof of what you are saying.

Bechtel Corp.






What followed was a U.S. corporate invasion of Iraq.

While some 150 U.S. companies received contracts for work in Iraq following the invasion, the big reconstruction winners (after Halliburton) were: Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, Louisiana ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, Calif. ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion).

A Nanny Moose's picture

You've got it all wrong. Any truly arrogant prick knows it's, "We can do it my way, or we can do it wrong."

BigJim's picture

No, you're right, if major news organs are printing Broder's idiocies without clearly marking them as satire, we don't need three thousand words to explain why they're nonsense, we need hundreds of thousands - distributed across an array of news outlets, so that our 'leaders' know we know it's horseshit.

RockyRacoon's picture

And your illustrious PhD in economics is from which prestigious school?

Sean7k's picture

Let him lead us to the mammon RR. Thank goodness we finally have someone who can illuminate us all. All bow to the great Silberbutt.

JimboJammer's picture

Right  now  we  have  a  large  Navy  Fleet  off  the  coast  of  Iran .

If  Iran  does  not  fire  the  first  shot,  it  won't  matter ,

one  of  our  own  war  ships  could  do  a  " false flag "  operation.

Sink  a  US  warship ,  and  tell  CNN  >   "  Look  at  what  Iran  did   "

Dick  Cheney  would  clap  his  hands.....

Tsukato's picture

I'll be clappin my hands too, once I ship my badass camaro over there and start my own form of american diplomacy with all them fine assed Iranian girls. You know they cant wait for a little sexual liberation... Tsukato Style ;)  Just ask all our lovely, well adjusted, american laydeez! YOW!

MarketFox's picture

War only negates the REAL economy.

A REAL economy is one that honors ENTREPRENEURSHIP and INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM...



TAX STRUCTURE CHANGE....This means that all prices of all goods and services have a 30% add on with the current GOVT tax structure............that needs to be no more than a 10% add on....


Even with a 10% add on....the dollar will have to devalue in order to compete with BRIC....


At the moment....the US Govt. is a 30%/100% partner. DEFENSE "MILITARY" has to be dramatically downsized....

The GOVT. in general has to be dramatically downsized....




JimboJammer's picture

This  makes  me  Mad ..   Hillary  Clinton  and  the  President  should  be

setting  up  trade  with  Iran ... building  a  positive  relationship....

but  Nooooooooo ...   Backing  up  the  Jews /  Israel  is  a  bad  idea..

Stopping   Hitler  was  a  differnt  situation ...  His  army  took  Poland,

France , Italy ,   England  was  in  big  trouble...

If  we  do  an  air  strike  on  Iran ,  China  will  jump  in ...

China  has  Oil  deals  set - up  with  Iran ... this  is  not  Gods  way..


We  could  trade  our  Corn , Wheat , Lumber   for  their  Oil ...