United States ignorant “experts” in geopolitics

One may wonder how decisions on foreign policy are made in the United States and what is the real understanding on what is really happening in foreign countries that have relationship or conflict with U.S.  An essay, precisely on this topic, has been written by political anthropologist Negar Razavi referring to the professonal expertise on Iran of  “experts” on this geopolitical field.

This essay ought to be a wake-up call for the US foreign policy field. Yet the same problem also affects Washington’s analysis of Russia, China and many other places.

Imagine a field of study in which less than a third of the experts had related doctorates, half of them could not read, speak or write the language required, and just as many have never set foot inside the relevant country. Preposterous, you might say – yet scientific observation has shown that this is precisely what the US expertise on Iran looks like, according to an essay by political anthropologist Negar Razavi, recently published in the journal Jadaliyya.

Razavi describes the think-tank culture of DC as “a wider system of knowledge production in Washington – one which has consistently rewarded ungrounded, ideologically driven assessments of the Islamic Republic at the expense of qualified, in-depth, and evidence-based analysis.”

This is her conclusion after two years of “ethnographic fieldwork” in the US capital, attending hundreds of events, following the writings and presentations of think-tank experts, and interviewing over 180 people between 2014 and 2016. In other words, this was a serious academic study.

This culture of “expert impunity” when it comes to Iran has combined with historical and contemporary US grievances against Tehran to produce the current policy of confrontation, in which allegations are treated as unquestioned facts while any nuanced assessments are dismissed as the work of “regime apologists,” according to Razavi.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because the problem is not limited to Iran. Though Razavi focused exclusively on the state of Iran expertise, her assessment applies in equal measure to the self-styled experts on Venezuela, or Russia, or China, or the Balkans... 

The examples are legion. Razavi herself mentions (though not by name) “Heshmat Alavi,” a supposed expert on Iran who recently turned out to be a construct – an online persona operated by the Iranian exile group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). This is an outfit that seeks regime change in Tehran, and has been endorsed by former National Security Advisor John Bolton and President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Gordon Chang, who predicted the “coming collapse of China” in a 2001 book, has been embraced by CNN and Fox News alike as an expert on Beijing – despite the obvious failure of his prediction to actually materialize. Likewise, Swedish economic Anders Aslund has heralded the demise of Russia since 2000 – and cashed in his “expertise” with the Atlantic Council and the governments of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and the Baltic states.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because the problem is not limited to Iran. Though Razavi focused exclusively on the state of Iran expertise, her assessment applies in equal measure to the self-styled experts on Venezuela, or Russia, or China, or the Balkans... 

The examples are legion. Razavi herself mentions (though not by name) “Heshmat Alavi,” a supposed expert on Iran who recently turned out to be a construct – an online persona operated by the Iranian exile group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). This is an outfit that seeks regime change in Tehran, and has been endorsed by former National Security Advisor John Bolton and President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Gordon Chang, who predicted the “coming collapse of China” in a 2001 book, has been embraced by CNN and Fox News alike as an expert on Beijing – despite the obvious failure of his prediction to actually materialize. Likewise, Swedish economic Anders Aslund has heralded the demise of Russia since 2000 – and cashed in his “expertise” with the Atlantic Council and the governments of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and the Baltic states.

Reference:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/468959-iran-experts-incompetent-washington/

Oil and gas are virtually inexhaustible,

the prices are political and speculative

D. Anton

One of the most important and permanent news in the journalistic media the irregular variations in oil prices. When the trend is ascending a widespread alarm grows that the increase is due to the reduction of existing stocks and that oil is going to end very soon. What will we do?.

Suddenly, unexpectedly, the price of a barrel that exceeded the $120 mark began to fall scratching $20 and then began to rise again. How is it explained?

The predictions of scarcity of hydrocarbons, which as fossil (hypothetically) were limited only to the upper layers of the Earth's crust and therefore were in the process of depletion, have been denied by the stubborn reality.

In the light of many data (which are becoming obvious) the belief of the fossil origin of petroleum has become a dogma whose veracity is at least doubtful. Today, there is enough information to think that the origin of the oil is much deeper, and that there is upwelling or deposits in many parts of the world, and will continue to exist for many thousands or millions of years. Data from other planets seem to confirm that hydrocarbons are abundant in all the planetary bodies and probably are also on Earth. There is probably enough oil and gas for many centuries, perhaps millennia.

Petroleum prices, are in fact very little related to abundance or scarcity, and are instead the result of political decisions and financial speculation.

When prices rise the profits of the oil companies increase, political measures are taken to make this happen, usually by triggering (artificial) wars in the oil-producing countries (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya).

Then,, due to the ups and downs of international geopolitics, and to the renewal of the cold war, it turns out that is convenient to lower prices as an instrument to weaken the US enemies in the ternational scene: Russia and its allies, Iran and to a lesser degree, Venezuela.

This decline in prices, also artificial, produced only in part the consequences expected by the major powers (above all the economic groups that control the United States and Western Europe) because it ended also affecting Saudi Arabia, which oddly enough is having financial problems.

As a result, supposedly irreconcilable enemies are having "friendly" conversations.

Russia and Iran, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other, by discussing a possible freezing of production were able to raise the price of the barrel to 50 dollars.

International politics is not so much based on ideas, but is rather a matter of political and economic interest.

More info at daniloanton.blogspot.com and in the books "oil and gas: do Inagotables?" and "Land of few rains and much blood" from Piriguazu editions are available through dantonster@gmail.com.