Two Friday Links-The Saudis & Energy

Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest notes the noise the Saudis are making in response to the current Iran dealing:

‘President Obama’s push for the nuclear deal with Iran was supposed to prevent just this kind of situation. Many suspect Saudi Arabia’s financing of Pakistan’s nuclear program gives it a turnkey solution to catching up to Iran should it choose to do so. Turkey and Egypt would be likely to follow suit, leading to an unstable multipolar nuclear standoff between relatively weak and poorly institutionalized states—a nightmare scenario’

So, we’ve removed ourselves as the guarantor of much security in the region, given Syria redlines and deadlines, allowing Putin leverage, and standing back as that country has since devolved into a protracted civil war while Assad still clings to power (and chemical weapons).  Syria and the President’s decision to pull troops out of Iraq has direct causal links to the rise of ISIS (so too, did the choice to oust Saddam).  Libya has become a failed state with a huge terrorist and migrant problem.

We’re trying to do business with a thuggish Iranian regime, empowering the folks in charge for questionable gain in a high-risk nuke deal still in process, and which many in our government, the Israelis, the Saudis and other Sunni coalitions are not particularly happy to support under current conditions without seeing their interests represented.

If there’s any place in the world where most people in the world don’t want a nuclear arms race….this is it.

Henry Kissinger & George Schulz Via The WSJ: ‘The Iran Deal And Its Consequences’

George Shultz & Henry Kissinger At The Hoover Institution: ‘What A Final Iran Deal Must Do’ So what are our interests and how do we secure them as the fires in the Middle-East rage? Michael Totten makes a case here in Why We Can’t Leave The Middle-East.’  He gets push-back in the comments


Richard Epstein at The Hoover Institution examines what the EPA’s been up to lately with regard to the coal industry.

How law, authority and process are used really matters, and because activist-driven environmental policy is generally pushed by people who desire rapid, if not radical, change, on the way to what are usually impossible, utopian ideals, they’re more likely to be poorly used:

At this point, the legal survival of the EPA’s CPP is anyone’s guess. Much will depend on the EPA’s own guidance documents about FIPs, which should come down this summer. But it is dangerous business to let the EPA take the coal industry hostage by this set of aggressive maneuvers. The Supreme Court’s initial wrong was Massachusetts v. EPA, which wrongly held that carbon dioxide counted as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.