Who said this ..? Weekend reading

Two quotations for you, long and short.  Who said these things?

1.  ... a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.  We don’t want that.... The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives - developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way ... the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves ... it’s something only you could do.   

2.  Despite employing some of the best and brightest analysts in the world, the advice given by the US State Department over the last fifty years could comfortably have been outperformed by a parrot that had been trained to repeat the phrase 'Don't start a war'. 

The first, of course, is Trump.  One could give many more quotations from that speech:  "my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don’t like war  /  my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and a unifier  /  far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins" etc etc, and feel like applauding it.

Ho hum.  Trump talks a lot, and even the scripted speeches like the one above incorporate the usual mendacious, vainglorious narcissism which makes one glad one isn't a US military cadet, forced to listen to him and realise he's the Commander in Chief.  Here are a couple, if you have the time: the first, from May last year, is actually the source of 1. above but this other, from November, is truly embarrassing and has virtually no redeeming features whatever.  The judgmental decline had really set in by then, and it's only linked to here by way of illustration of how bad things are.

Yes, the prescient parrot of quote #2 has been well and truly stuffed.  (It's from a writer called Dan Davies in The Unaccountability Machine.)

ND 

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers?  Or "talks"?  Or even "talks about talks"?  Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company.  Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them.  But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved.  There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out.  We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions.  We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on.  Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes.  Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price.  The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode.  With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones:  you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties.  But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since.  I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.)  For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on.  Heaven help us all.

ND

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock.  Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time.  But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom.  Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings).  They'll back you up against it every time. 

TACO Trump signals he's had enough

Such has been the volatility of events in the Gulf, commentators have had very little of substance to offer beyond the macro comments that Trump has been dancing to Netanyahu's tune, that the mullahs' regime has a lot of intrinsic resilience & indeed strength in many dimension, and that the Gulf states need to come up with a new business plan.  OK, we can all conjure up lurid worst-case scenarios.  But what does it mean for mortgages and prices at the pump?  Etc etc.  

This uncertainty manifests itself in endless commentariat hedging (e.g. HMG, BBC) but also in outright hysteria.  The very dubious Fatih Birol of the IEA has delivered himself of the view that the current situation is like the first two oil crises (1973-4 & 1979) plus 2022, all rolled up into one.  Well, no, it isn't - yet.  Like, not even remotely.  I worry when people like him have influence on world affairs (if indeed he does).

Back, then, to Trumpety-Trump.  His demeaning and very public flailing and railing over the past week clearly signals he doesn't like how things have turned out, one little bit.  (Why wasn't I told Iran wasn't like Venezuela?)  So now we know that a combination of negative market sentiment and negative MAGA sentiment marks the limits of his manic confidence.  That's a comfortably low threshold for him recognising a need to sober up.  One might have feared his personal pride, running up against the brick wall of Iranian intransigence, would result in a ratchet effect all the way up to a small nuke.  We need our leaders to have some kind of restraints.

On the downside (and speaking of small nukes), we're left with the enduring problem of Netanyahu, who might very well find himself owning the broken vase in a short while from now.  Now there's a man who doesn't sober up just because the Dow Jones slips a few points and the neighbours are banging on the walls.

On the plus, we have a lot more realistic input on the thorny issue of what air defence needs to look like in the late 2020's, coupled with a pressing need for the west's armaments industry to gear up for several years of serious production.  We might also escape the nightmare of Iran becoming a failed state, which would make the Syrian and Afghan exodus of the last decade look like a picnic outing.

What it all means for NATO / Cuba / the mid-terms / Taiwan / Russia-Ukraine / Starmer etc etc etc ... time will tell. 

Finally, it seems Trump won't be going on the planned trip to Beijing in the immediate future.  Given that in all probability he'd have been induced to give away more of the family silver to the Chinese, that's a good thing.  Let's hope he never goes there again.

ND 

Assisted dying

A really difficult issue this, touching on the deepest aspects of what it is to be human.  I certainly don't want to go out screaming or panicking, but I'm not at all sure that's where we are right now in most cases.  Let me explain.

I have been present at the deaths of all four of mine and Mrs D's parents.  One of them (at 88) was completely out of it already.  Of the others, all in their 90s, two positively wanted to go and the third was taciturn on the subject, but didn't seem overly fretful.  All were quite ill.

Here's the thing.  At the end, they all went "peacefully" with a legful of morphine (in case you don't know, UK "palliative care" includes having a morphine-cocktail[1] pump strapped to your thigh) - administered by a senior nursing Sister and, (since the pump is authorised by a doctor) evidently approved a few days earlier by a doctor. 

These four were in three different establishments: two hospitals and a nursing home (private, but which is qualified to administer end-of-life treatment in house[2]).  It was, quite obviously, the standard procedure, or "pathway" as everything in the NHS is termed these days.  I don't know if it's universal across the whole service.

This seems to me to be humane, and pretty satisfactory for very many circumstances.  I might even say: that's how I want to go.  It almost seems like the old system of legend, where at some point a doctor would "take a view" and quietly do whatever he did.

What would happen, though, if it all becomes formalised - two doctors, a panel, lawyers or whatever?  You might argue that formality is necessary for cases where people are not already on their deathbeds, but are Definitely Doomed under whatever are the definitions of an assisted dying law (MND and other ghastly cases); and declare that Now is the Time.  But what about the poor old person who at present can be eased out humanely at the end by Sister, as in my family's experiences, and for whom a big loop through paperwork and multiple sign-offs is not going to be remotely possible?  Will the duty doctor be obliged to refuse the morphine because it's just not allowed any more?   

I haven't listened to the Parliamentary proceedings: but does anyone in debate dare to mention the rather satisfactory (IMHO) status quo?  None of us fancy MND - but which of us wants to be deprived of the morphine at the end?

All very difficult.  What do we realistic grown-ups think?

ND 

UPDATE  I forgot to add: the morphine pump is an 'and/or' with that other traditional expedient - allowing pneumonia to set in ("the old man's friend"), which is well-nigh inevitable when the antibiotics are withheld from a very sick / old person.  I am never clear whether this badly distorts reported health statistics, if some vast proportion of deaths are attributed to pneumonia.  Do they in practice just always read past the first line of the list of 'causes' on the certificate, and focus the top one of the co-morbidities listed below?

________________

[1] There's more than just morphine involved: there is tranquiliser, plus choking and vomiting suppressants.

[2] Which is why one of my Aged Ps chose that particular home, having had their fill of NHS corridors.

Borthwick in ... France, this time

There's only one way for England to play in Paris this weekend - like the Barbarians.  A few beers the night before, and lots afterwards.

ND