Tag Archives: Dick Morris

OBAMA: WRONG ON IRAN

 

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FOXNews.com on May 16, 2008.

Printer-Friendly Version

President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.

The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.

The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.

Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.

Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.

If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.

But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.

Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.

Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.

Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.

We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.

Advertisements

MCCAIN BEGINS TO GET IT RIGHT

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on TheHill.com on April 15, 2008.

Printer-Friendly Version

John McCain built up massive popularity among American voters with his populist opposition to swindlers, liars and thieves, whether in business, Congress, labor or the defense community. His take-no-prisoners attitude toward corruption and his willingness to battle it wherever it crops up has made him an icon among our political leaders.

But in 2008, that John McCain has been under wraps as he catered to the Republican electorate.

Only the Arizona senator’s opposition to terrorism — to be sure, a real part of his agenda — was on display. His populism was anesthetized under a blanket of conformity and positive boosterism.

After he won the nomination, it seemed that he would continue fighting the Republican primaries forever. Bowing to the dictate to make peace with the fiscal conservatives who opposed him, he kept his sword sheathed and his mouth shut.

But this week, the old John McCain began to re-emerge. Articulating what tens of millions of Americans feel, he blamed the “greedy” of Wall Street for causing the current economic problems. He noted that it was their insatiable desire to get rich quick that led to the sub-prime frenzy that undermined sound economic growth and created a speculative bubble that had to burst. And he said that, as always, it is the little guy who will pay the price when a recession hits, while the greedy who caused it make out, well, like bandits.

This is precisely the kind of populist rhetoric that John McCain needs to embrace to have a chance to win the general election. He has got to draw a sharp distinction between himself and the stewards of Wall Street and side with Main Street in their battle against easy wealth and special privilege. By flanking the Democrats on the front of economic and social populism, McCain can be himself and can win.

Obama is making the social populist case against himself stronger with each passing day. His condemnation of small-town America and his elitist dismissal of religion, anti-immigration concerns and hunting as evidence of bitterness and the need for easy solutions was awful. Obama is, of course, right that trade protectionism and racial discrimination do, indeed, have their roots in bitterness and the need to scapegoat others for one’s own problems and shortcomings. But religion, concerns about immigration, and the sports of hunting and fishing hardly belong in the same category.

Through his own words, and those of his good reverend, Obama is painting himself into an Ivy League ghetto reminiscent of that which kept Mike Dukakis imprisoned for the campaign.

But it is up to McCain to carry the torch of economic populism. He should castigate those who are pocketing their winnings earned by inducing the poor to risk all on mortgages they couldn’t afford even as their unscrupulous practices have led the country to the brink of recession. He needs to take aim at credit card companies and student loan providers who are burdening our young families with debts that make it impossible for them to realize their dreams or to be the consumers we need them to be. He should go after the loose ethics of Congress, earmarking, and the plethora of abuses in our nation’s capital. He needs to resume his role as the leading opponent of Big Tobacco in Congress, warning about its tactics in luring millions of kids into lifetime addictions. He must demand that hedge fund entrepreneurs and other partnerships pay the same taxes as working people and end their special tax benefits.

Populism is neither left nor right. As a populist, McCain will bond with the average American opposing the elites that dominate the Democratic Party.

The real fissure in the Republican Party is not between centrists and conservatives. It is between the rich and the rest. The country-club Republicans, perpetually defending privilege, are out of sync with the American people. But McCain has always been in step with our priorities and it is refreshing to see him emerge anew onto the field of political battle. This John McCain, the populist defender of people against privilege, can win in 2008. The ever-so-cautious, watch-out-who-you-alienate Republican who won the primaries can’t.