John Mauldin's Outside the Box : George Friedman

Video Dispatch: Israel and Intrigue at the White House

John Mauldin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:53:00 GMT

The closed-door meeting is a prime indicator of unpredictability. It's one of the most difficult elements for even the most savvy investors to encounter and plan for - or against. Usually we know the preemptive measures we need to take in order to protect our assets, and even make a few dollars in auspicious instances. But what about the information we can't access?

Luckily, we have options. Today I'm including an excellent video from my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. They shed light on a closed-door meeting between the Obama administration and 3 top Israeli officials. When speculation is rampant, there's only one source I trust for reliable insight, and that's STRATFOR. I encourage you to watch this video. Also, sign up to get their two free weekly intelligence reports for more door-opening insights on critical issues.

A Crisis in the Kremlin

John Mauldin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:26:00 GMT

Earlier this week, I sent out a piece that talked about the dangers of ignoring the big picture - even for the "bottom up" investor. Every once in a while, we all have to step away from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, housing prices and other indicators to look at what's going to influence these factors in the long term.

Today I give you a video about Russia and how a plan to fix the economy might throw off the political balance of power. I regard Moscow's situation as a valuable lesson for our country - also in the throes of an economic crisis - and for investors affected by global markets. Click here to watch this great video by my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. You can also sign up to get free weekly intelligence from them, so you don't have to depend on my occasional mail-out.

John Mauldin

The China Files (Special Project): Real Estate

John Mauldin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:46:00 GMT

Today I offer you an insightful look at China's real estate market - a "burgeoning bubble" that deserves a close eye as the possibility for breaking increases. Remember the chaos in Japan after their own housing dreamscape got violently yanked back to earth? As investors, we have to recognize opportunities - and know what to avoid. With a global economic crisis - and now surging housing prices in China - investors in any global market need to keep watch on political and economic developments around the world.

Today's analysis comes courtesy my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. They provide unique and on-the-money analysis and forecasts on all things global, essential for any alternative investment strategy. They've got a free newsletter as well, for which I encourage you to sign up by clicking here - so you're not limited to my caprice.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

The China Files (Special Project): Real Estate

October 13, 2009 | 1149 GMT

Summary

The real estate market in China, particularly the residential side, is a burgeoning bubble that is growing bigger and more breakable by the day. Land and housing prices were already rising steadily when Beijing's stimulus package hit the sector in early 2009. Now prices are surging, with developers, bureaucrats and investors cashing in while urban Chinese - once encouraged to invest in home ownership by the central government - become less and less able to buy.

Editor's Note: This analysis is part of a series that explores China's industry, finance and statistics.

Analysis

Related Special Topic Page

The China Files (Special Project)

PDF Version: Click here to download a PDF of this report

On Sept. 10, China Overseas Land and Investment, a Hong Kong-listed company and a subsidiary of state-owned China State Construction Engineering Corp., purchased a prime piece of real estate in the Putuo district in downtown Shanghai. The company paid 7.006 billion yuan ($1.026 billion) for the undeveloped property, which will amount to an average of 22,409.3 yuan ($3,283.9) per square meter of floor space (just in land costs) once the designed residential building is constructed.

The purchase created China's newest "land king," a term for the real estate developer who pays the highest price for a piece of real estate during a land auction. And 7.006 billion yuan was the highest price ever paid for a piece of Chinese real estate for any purpose - residential or commercial. The milestone is a result of an increasingly intense competition for land in major cities that began early in the year, when Beijing began distributing stimulus money to various industries - including the real estate sector - to sustain the economy. As a result, land prices have soared throughout China. And with increasing speculative investment in residential real estate, the market faces a surging bubble that jeopardizes the country's long-term economic development.

Since 1998, real estate investment in China has accounted for more than 10 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP), compared to only 3 percent to 5 percent in the United States. Such investment is also closely associated with many other industries, such as construction and finance, and it provides an abundance of jobs. Therefore, it is seen as a critical pillar of China's economy and enjoys favorable policies from the government and state-owned banks (more than 70 percent of real estate investment in China comes from bank loans). At the same time, real estate developers, local government officials and investors have escalated housing prices across the country by acquiring massive land holdings, limiting the supply and inflating prices, creating a real estate bubble that is not sustainable in the long run.

The bubble has grown mainly on the residential side of the market, where there is more demand and higher profits to be made. However, while fewer developers and investors have been chasing nonresidential projects, Beijing's 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package in early 2009 has generated more interest and activity in the commercial side. Indeed, there are signs that commercial real estate may also be headed for a bubble, and STRATFOR will be watching the situation closely.

Origins of the Bubble

Since 1978, China's pace of urbanization has increased dramatically, with the number of middle-size and large cities (those having nonagricultural populations of more than 200,000) growing rapidly. Beginning in 1985, economic reforms implemented in urban areas to make China's planned economy more market-oriented added even more momentum to the real estate boom, with real estate investment increasing by 71 percent by 1987. The government's macroeconomic policy of monetary belt-tightening helped cool this overheated market, which was further tempered by the government's continuing to provide housing for state employees (fu li fen fang, or "welfare housing").

However, when the state significantly cut back on its welfare housing program in 1998, the Chinese perception of personal property changed, and this would have an important impact on the real estate sector. The government began this privatization process by making a private dwelling a "commodity" and granting the purchaser the right to own a newly built house for 70 years. (Likewise, the developer who buys the property on which residential or commercial buildings are to be constructed may own that property for 70 years.) Home ownership in China could now be a sound financial investment.

Thus, the residential real estate market would boom in almost every urban area in China - and particularly in the "first-tier" and "second-tier" cities (only Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Shanghai are in the first tier, with more than 20 cities, and mostly provincial capitals or coastal ports are in the second tier). But rising land prices would eventually put housing prices out of reach for the general public. In Dongguan, a coastal second-tier city in Guangdong province, land prices averaged 4,957 yuan ($726.42) per square meter in 2007, a more than 500 percent increase from 2003, while personal disposable income increased 24 percent during the same period (from 20,526 yuan [$3,008] to 27,025 yuan [$3,960] per year).

A 2006 survey conducted by the National Development and Reform Commission showed that the average ratio between housing prices and income was approaching 12:1 in many large and middle-size cities in China (in Beijing it had reached 27:1). Twelve to one is significantly higher than the World Bank's suggested affordability ratio of 5:1 and the United Nations' 3:1. The problem was compounded by the fact that, of the more than 80 percent of Chinese who owned their own homes in urban areas (generally considered cities with populations of more than 20,000), 54.1 percent were making monthly mortgage payments that constituted 20 percent to 50 percent of their monthly incomes.

The Recovery Bubble

Following a temporary drop toward the end of 2007, land prices rose steadily, then began surging again with Beijing's stimulus package and a flood of easy credit in 2009. With much of this money flowing into the real estate sector, major beneficiaries included large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) involved in speculative real estate and housing investment, contributing to the inflating bubble. Among the 10 highest-priced land purchases in major cities in the first half of 2009, 60 percent went to SOEs.

Paradoxically, as the global financial crisis continues, China sees little choice but to loosen its monetary policy even further, fearing the opposite would curtail economic growth and result in massive unemployment, which could lead to social instability. Beijing knows that one of the country's underlying economic problems continues to be an overheated real estate market, but it also knows that the real long-term solution - limiting the flow of cash and credit - could have dire socio-economic ramifications. Meanwhile, real estate developers, government officials and investors continue to speculate on real estate, raising land and housing prices.

As housing prices continue to rise, a parallel trend is manifesting itself - rising vacancy rates in urban areas. A 2009 report by the Shanghai Yiju Real Estate Research Institute revealed that, by the end of 2008, the average vacancy rate for "commodity housing" (as opposed to welfare housing) in Beijing was 16.64 percent, and vacancies reached as high as 30 percent in some districts. Most of these vacant houses, however, are not unsold ones. They have been purchased by investors as speculative investments. While there are fewer and fewer ordinary people who can afford to buy houses, there is still excessive demand for investment housing - pressure that continues to drive up the prices.

This closed loop in the Chinese real estate market is facilitated by the country's political and bureaucratic system. In China, all land is initially owned by the state, and local governments have the sole authority to sell it. And income from property taxes and land sales are a primary source of revenue for local jurisdictions. According to estimates by the State Council's Development and Research Center, tax revenue from the land in some jurisdictions accounts for 40 percent of the local budget. Moreover, net income from land sales accounts for more than 60 percent of the local governments' extra-budgetary revenue. The soft budget and lack of accountability to the people reinforces the local governments' incentive to expand their real estate investments without much concern for cost or impact on public services.

Economic performance also is the prime prerequisite for bureaucratic advancement, which gives local officials the incentive to generate as much revenue as possible through land auctions. And this generally involves a level of collusion - and corruption - among government officials, real estate developers and investors.

One typical strategy is for a developer to buy a big chunk of urban land from the local government but leave the land undeveloped, or build on only a small portion of it, thereby keeping the housing supply limited. Despite various state policies to lower land prices in order to make homes more affordable, local government officials and real estate developers control the land auctions. When a lower sale price is dictated from above, it is easy enough for the local sponsors to officially deem the auction a failure. Even when the developer does build houses on the property, a speculative investor, working hand in hand with the developer and government officials, can bribe both parties to ensure that he can buy all the houses at a low volume price and keep them off the market, thereby maintaining a limited supply and high prices.

Another factor that enters the equation is a cultural one. The Chinese people generally prefer to buy new houses, as opposed to renting homes or buying secondary houses in which people have already lived. Indeed, in urban areas, marriage proposals often include a promise to buy a new commodity house. As a result, the secondary housing market remains very small in comparison (due also to fewer available bank loans for lived-in houses and the complicated process involved in transferring ownership).

All of these factors contribute to the burgeoning real estate bubble - and make it difficult to predict when that bubble will burst. With 70 percent of real estate investment in China coming from bank loans, a dramatic drop in land values could send shock waves throughout the economy. There are already signs of decline. In Shenzhen, one of China's first-tier cities, real estate prices have been dropping for the past two years (30 percent for housing), and many developers and speculators have suffered great losses. The threat looms in other large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai and may be emerging in many second-tier cities as well.

Given the current global economy and the economic balancing act it must maintain domestically, Beijing has few good choices. It must keep enough cash flowing to maintain economic growth and social stability in the short term while tightening credit to avoid a tsunami of bad loans and a market collapse over the long term. Certainly, Beijing does not want to face the kind of collapse in the housing market that Japan experienced in the 1990s, which triggered a financial crisis and more than a decade of economic malaise.

But in China's real estate, as in most sectors of this vast and complex land, implementing and enforcing prudent regulation has never been an easy task

Iran Sanctions (Special Series), Part 3

John Mauldin — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Recently I had a discussion with a colleague about university athletes. I was previously unaware that NCAA colleges set up guidance programs that develop the well-roundedness of student athletes. 'Life coaches' ensure that these individuals balance their rigorous athletic commitments with personal and academic accomplishments. I'm not judging your ability to run a mile or catch a football, but well-roundedness is an element to being successful - whatever your area may be.

To be a solid investor, it's important to consider a variety of markets, and you must be well-informed in a myriad of sectors. This is where having the best information comes in, and one of the better places for intelligence is STRATFOR. They offer a straightforward recipe of news about global affairs - causes, outcomes and what to expect next based on a rational, time-tested methodology.

I'm including a STRATFOR report that discusses the possibility of gasoline import sanctions against Iran. It's an absolute must-read for anyone interested in energy, foreign relations, Russia, the Middle East, etc. I'd encourage you to sign up for their free weekly reports here, so you aren't limited to what I send you on occasion. Begin (or continue) your journey to well-roundedness... Now, get to the line and practice your free throws.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

Iran Sanctions (Special Series), Part 3: Preparing for the Worst

September 25, 2009

Summary

Iran has long been preparing itself for U.S.-led sanctions against gasoline imports and is confident in its ability to circumvent them. But even if the sanctions did get Iran's attention, they would not necessarily bring it to the negotiating table. Iran takes resistance very seriously, and while extolling the virtues of self-sacrifice it could close the Strait of Hormuz, which would wreak havoc on the global economy.

Editor's Note: This is part three of a three-part series on what sanctions against Iran could mean for Iran, U.S.-Russian relations, Israel and the global economy.

As the Iranian regime continued apace with its nuclear program, it understood that it was only a matter of time before the West would aim for its gasoline imports, a potential Achilles' heel for Iran. Although Iran may be one of the world's top-five crude-oil producers and exporters, its rogue reputation isn't exactly good for business. The Iranian energy industry has been sagging under the weight of sanctions for decades as the foreign energy majors with the technical skill Iran so badly needs wait for the geopolitical storm clouds to clear before tapping the country's vast energy reserves.

To contain domestic political dissent, the Iranian regime has heavily subsidized the population's energy needs. The drawback to such a policy is that ridiculously cheap gasoline prices (gasoline in Iran costs around 9 cents per liter) tend to fuel rapid consumption and rampant smuggling. As Iran's population continued to grow, so did its appetite for gasoline, and the regime has now reached a point where it simply cannot keep up with domestic demand without importing at least one-third of its fuel.

So, while Iran's Arab rivals, such as energy heavyweight Saudi Arabia, profited immensely from record-high crude prices in 2008, the Iranian regime was still struggling to balance its accounts. Then came the global economic collapse, which sliced the country's oil revenues in half. And given the sponsorship by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of militant and political proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated raids on the country's rainy-day oil funds for his political campaigning, and funding for the Iranian nuclear program, Tehran does not have much cash to spare.

Unreliable Allies

Iran is not oblivious to its gasoline vulnerabilities, but it also isn't left without options should Washington become more aggressive with its sanctions campaign. As discussed in detail in part two of this series, Russia — for its own strategic reasons — has developed a contingency plan, most likely involving Russia's former Soviet surrogate, Turkmenistan, to cover the gasoline gap should Iran start experiencing shortfalls. The Russians are certainly not planning to do this out of the goodness of their hearts and sincere loyalty to their allies in Tehran. On the contrary, sabotaging Washington's sanctions regime against Tehran is yet another way Moscow can turn the screws on the United States if the Obama administration refuses to take seriously the Kremlin's demand that the West respect its influence in the former Soviet sphere. Since the Obama administration backed down recently from its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) plans in Central Europe, there could be more room for Russia and the United States to engage in serious negotiations. That said, there is no guarantee that Washington would be willing to pay the price of Russian hegemony in Eurasia in return for Russia's cooperation on Iran, and Moscow will drive a hard bargain before it even thinks about sacrificing its leverage with Iran.

Iran could certainly use Russia's help in maintaining its gasoline supply, but Tehran is also quite wary of becoming that much more dependent on Moscow's good graces for its energy security. Russia and Iran have quite a tumultuous history (the Soviets briefly occupied Iran during World War II), and the Iranian leadership is fearful of being abandoned by Russia should Moscow reach some sort of compromise with Washington.

Iran's other energy-producing ally hostile to the United States is Venezuela, which recently announced it would come to Iran's aid in the event of sanctions and supply its Persian friends with 20,000 barrels per day (bpd) of gasoline starting in October for an $800 million annual fee. Beneath the revolutionary rhetoric of oppressed regimes sticking it to their imperialist foes, this Venezuelan-Iranian energy deal is filled with holes. For starters, Venezuela — much like Iran — is facing serious refining problems due to mismanagement and a severe drop in foreign investment. Also like Iran, Venezuela's populist regime heavily subsidizes its constituents (gasoline in Venezuela is even cheaper than in Iran at 4 cents per liter), sending consumption soaring over the past four years. While Venezuela is currently refining around 420,000 bpd, it still needs to import gasoline to help meet domestic demand.

Caracas could always go through a third party to supply gasoline to Iran from a source closer to the Persian Gulf, but finding a willing supplier could prove difficult and costly when insurance premiums and political risks are taken into account. Moreover, should push come to shove, Washington has substantial leverage over the Venezuelan regime given the abundance of assets that Citgo, the refining unit of Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, has spread throughout the United States. The United States also is the largest recipient of Venezuela's crude exports and one of the few markets in the world with the technological capabilities to process Venezuela's heavy crude, leaving Venezuela without much of a viable alternative market.

Iran has already turned to China to help backfill its gasoline supply. Latest estimates show that starting in September, China began to directly supply up to one-third of Iran's total gasoline imports. Until now, Chinese involvement in the gasoline trade had mostly been limited to shipping companies. In the run-up to the Oct. 1 talks, China now has the extra incentive to poke the United States and profit from these gasoline shipments to Iran. After having boosted its refining capacity this year, China has surplus gasoline to sell on the international market. In August alone China exported 140,000 barrels of gasoline per day. Like Malaysia's Petronas, which began supplying Iran with gasoline in August, China sees an opportunity to profit off of Iran's gasoline trade at a time when political tensions are rising and major energy firms, such as BP, Reliance and Total, have already stopped or are cutting back their shipments to Iran. But Iran may not be able to rely on Chinese aid over the long term.

China currently is in a heated trade spat with Washington over a recent U.S. tariff on Chinese tire imports and could push back against Washington even further by flouting the threatened sanctions regime. However, this is a decision with major strings attached. Washington still has a great deal of leverage over Beijing in the form of Section 421, a U.S. law that was incorporated into China's accession agreement with the World Trade Organization in 2001 and allows the United States to legally impose tariffs on nearly any Chinese export until 2013. Now that Obama has put Section 421 to use in restricting tire imports, the Chinese have to think twice before making any moves that could compel Washington to go even further in slapping trade restrictions on China. Additionally, China is a massive energy importer itself, so shipping any sort of energy product to the Middle East, where its supply lines are unprotected, is something that works directly against most of China's energy security strategies.

The United States has not yet formalized the gasoline sanctions against Iran in the form of legislation or a U.N. Security Council resolution, and this may be providing Beijing a limited opportunity to hit back at the United States during the trade spat and demonstrate the limits of Beijing's cooperation. However, Beijing will be far more cautious than Russia when it comes to blocking sanctions against Iran and will keep a close eye on Russia's intentions in deciding its next steps. China has long been noncommittal when it comes to sanctions against Iran and will align itself with Russia in forums like the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate its opposition to punitive U.S. economic measures. Of course, if Russia folds and reaches some sort of compromise with Washington, China will comply with the sanctions and avoid being left in the spotlight as the sole sanctions-buster allied with Iran.

In short, Iran has friends that it can turn to if necessary, but the reliability of those friends is by no means guaranteed.

Fending for Itself

In the spirit of self-sufficiency, Iran has long been preparing itself for a U.S.-led offensive against Iranian gasoline imports. Over the past two years, as talk of gasoline sanctions intensified, Iran sought out willing suppliers to help stockpile its gasoline reserves. Iranian gasoline consumption currently stands at around 300,000 to 400,000 bpd, but over the past several months, Iran has been importing well in excess of that amount from mostly Swiss suppliers and now newcomers like Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, which are looking to replace the energy majors that are dropping out of the Iranian gasoline trade while political tensions are high. Iranian and U.S. intelligence sources claim that Iran currently has at least three months worth of gasoline needs (estimates average around 30 million barrels) stockpiled. The director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company claims Iran's gasoline storage capacity is about 15.7 million barrels, which gives Iran about four months of in-storage capacity. Some of the surplus gasoline is sitting on tankers off Kharg Island, but the bulk of the supply is stored on land, where it is less vulnerable to airstrikes.

The Iranian government continues to make bold claims about its ability to massively ramp up its refining capacity and become self-sufficient in gasoline production within four years, but this is mostly hot air. Iran simply doesn't have the capability to meet its gasoline production goals on its own without the necessary foreign investment. And even if Iran had willing partners in places like Central Asia, it would still need to overcome its extreme reluctance to actually foot the bill for such projects.

It may strike some as odd that Iran has acquired a capability to develop nuclear technology but still struggles to build and operate refineries on its own. There are a number of reasons for this, but the simple answer is that the technology for a nuclear program dates back to the 1930s and 1940s and has not changed much since, while refining technology is continually updated and Iran has been out of the global oil-and-gas mainstream for 30 years now. A nuclear weapons program requires a couple dozen or so highly trained scientists and engineers to operate it, and these personnel can be trained in any number of institutions around the world. On the other hand, a permanent staff for a refinery producing around 300,000 bpd would require some 1,200 highly trained technicians and petroleum engineers, and most of Iran's intelligentsia — particularly the group with strong technical skills — left the country following the Iranian Revolution. Iran's stated energy goals are full of delusion as well as ambition.

Confronting the Subsidy Problem

Iran thus has little choice but to figure out a way to reduce gasoline consumption at home. The Iranians started on this initiative in June 2007 when the regime implemented a rationing system. Though the move was extremely unpopular and instigated a spate of riots in Tehran, the backlash was swiftly contained and, according to energy industry sources, Iranian gasoline imports dropped from 40 percent of total domestic consumption to about 25 to 30 percent.

The next step is for the regime to start cutting untenable subsidy rates by raising the price of gasoline. This is a plan that has long been in the works but has been put off time and time again due to the regime's deep-rooted fear of sparking major social unrest. This especially became a concern following the June presidential election debacle, which gave scores of Iranian citizens the courage to pour into the streets to voice their dissent against Ahmadinejad. Though the protests have dramatically dwindled in size, they continue sporadically and are a persistent irritant to the regime. Iranian sources claim that the coming gasoline price hike will not be that dramatic in the beginning. The government would likely continue to subsidize domestically produced gasoline while allowing the cost of imported gasoline to rise so it can pass along a portion of the costs to the consumer and further dampen demand.

Besides the potential political fallout, there is another significant issue with this gasoline price-hike plan. Since gasoline prices are heavily subsidized in Iran and are, therefore, much cheaper than the gasoline sold in neighboring countries, Iran has a major problem with gasoline smuggling to these countries. Iranian sources claim that more than 750,000 barrels are smuggled every month from Iran to Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq, and this puts a considerable drain on Iran's energy revenues. The smuggling rings are run by a variety of actors, from Iranian organized crime entities linked to the IRGC to Balochi tribesmen to Kurdish smugglers, and they are extremely difficult for the regime to dismantle. Moreover, Iranian officials tend to turn a blind eye to these smuggling practices in order to buy political patronage from non-Persian minorities (Kurds, Balochis and Azeris) in the borderlands who could otherwise cause serious trouble for the regime. With the political situation at home particularly dicey right now, the Iranian government will have to proceed cautiously with any future price hikes, which are sure to be applied unevenly across the country.

Natural Gas Relief?

Iran also has an alternative-fuel plan under way that capitalizes on the country's natural gas resources and reduces its reliance on refined crude, but the results have so far been limited. The plan involves encouraging the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) for Iranian motorists. Cars that can run on CNG, which are prevalent in South Asia and Latin America, can be more economical and environmentally friendly. In fact, the price of CNG retails at around 4 cents per cubic meter (roughly equivalent to one liter of gasoline). Moreover, the technology used to compress natural gas is far less complex than that needed to refine crude. Considering that Iran is the world's fourth-largest producer of natural gas, the switch to CNG makes sense, but there is one big drawback. Vehicles must be modified to run on CNG, and CNG stations would have to be built across the country. None of this would be quick or cheap for Iran.

Nevertheless, Iran has made notable progress since kicking off its CNG plan in 2007, when Iran Khodro Industrial Group — Iran's leading automaker — invested $50 million in low-consumption, flexible-fuel engine production lines. Former Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said in July that there are currently 880 CNG stations in Iran, with plans to build an additional 400 within the next several months. Since Iran Khodro started ramping up production of CNG-capable vehicles, Iran has become the world's fourth-largest CNG-vehicle producer following Argentina, Pakistan and Brazil, according to the International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles. As of May 2009, Iranian government officials claim the official count of CNG-capable vehicles on the road totaled 1.4 million. The total number of cars in Iran was estimated to be 11.7 million in 2008, according to the Global Market Information Database. All in all, estimated fuel replacement by CNG is currently around 7 percent of Iran's total automobile fuel consumption, up from zero five years ago. While Iran seems to be making steady progress in the CNG arena, it still has a way to go before the switch to CNG would make a significant dent in the country's gasoline imports.

Responding to Pressure

When STRATFOR speaks to Iranian sources, we get the sense that the regime is feeling fairly confident in its ability to slip the sanctions noose while continuing to work on its nuclear program, using the same rhetoric it has used for the past seven years to drag negotiations into a stalemate. This continued confidence may be due to the fact that the Iranians have yet to feel the pinch of Washington's quiet campaign against Iran's gasoline suppliers. Though the energy majors appear to be dropping out of the Iranian gasoline trade, the numbers we have seen indicate that Tehran is importing surplus amounts of gasoline in preparation for tougher days to come. However, should Iran fail to outmaneuver the P-5+1 come Oct. 1, those tougher days could arrive sooner than it thinks.

In the weeks and months ahead, Israel will likely determine whether Iran and the United States are headed for a collision course in the Persian Gulf. The Israelis were promised "crippling" sanctions against Iran by the Obama administration. If that promise goes unfulfilled, and the Iranians (as they are expected to do) refuse to freeze their enrichment activities, the Israelis are likely to turn to the military option and demand Washington's cooperation. Israel understands Russia's leverage over Iran — particularly its ability to arm the Iranians with critical defense systems and sabotage a gasoline sanctions regime — and would rather deal decisively with the Iranian nuclear issue while the program is still several steps away from a critical phase.

Israel, unlike the United States, never had much faith in the sanctions to begin with. The U.S. administration appears to be operating under the assumption that severe sanctions against Iran will create a dire economic situation in the country, galvanize the masses against the clerical elite and thus coerce the regime into making significant concessions on its nuclear program. More imaginative policymakers believe that such economic sanctions could build on the dissent that followed the election and produce a third front to challenge and topple the regime. But Tehran's actual actions are unlikely to mesh nicely with Washington's preferred perception of the regime's mindset. Iran — at least for now — has no intention of meeting the West's demands to curb its nuclear program and takes the idea of resistance very seriously.

A Doomsday Scenario

Israel is willing to see how the sanctions regime plays out, but it also knows that it has a limited menu of options. If the sanctions are blown apart with Russia's help, the Iranians will obviously feel little pressure to negotiate seriously and the Israelis will have to turn to alternative options. If the sanctions prove effective because of Russian cooperation, a U.S. willingness to risk trade spats to enforce the sanctions or a combination of the two, the Iranians will be left feeling extremely vulnerable. However, that vulnerability would not necessarily bring Iran to the negotiating table. On the contrary, the Iranians are more likely to turn increasingly insular and aggressive with their nuclear ambitions. While extolling the virtues of self-sacrifice for national solidarity, the Iranian regime would begin to seriously threaten to use its "real" nuclear option — closing the Strait of Hormuz with mines and its arsenal of anti-ship missiles.

This is an option of last resort for the Iranians, but if Tehran feels sufficiently threatened, either by sanctions or potential military strikes, it could wreak havoc on the global economy within a matter of hours.

Setting ablaze the Strait of Hormuz would undoubtedly inflict intense pain on the Iranian economy, but this may be a pain that the regime is willing to bear while it watches energy prices soar and the world's industrial powers plunge deeper into recession. At such a level of brinksmanship, the United States would have to seriously consider a military campaign to preempt an Iranian move to close the strait, providing Israel with an opportunity to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. If the United States failed to act in time and Iran succeeded in mining this critical energy chokepoint, then the U.S. military would have to clear the strait. Either way, the Persian Gulf would become a war zone and the global ramifications would be immense.

This may be a doomsday scenario, but it is one of increasing credibility given that the main players — Iran, the United States, Russia and Israel — continue to raise the stakes in pursuing their respective national imperatives. A number of questions remain: Will the United States put its trade relations on the line and aggressively enforce sanctions? Will Russia go the extra mile for Tehran and bust the sanctions regime? Can the United States and Russia reach a strategic compromise that will leave Iran out in the cold? Has Israel's patience regarding Iranian diplomatic maneuvers run out? Will Iran resort to its real nuclear option and threaten the Strait of Hormuz?

STRATFOR does not know the answers, and neither do the main stakeholders in this saga. However, come Oct. 1 these stakeholders must begin making some critical decisions that could dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape.

A German Pre-Election Win and Lingering U.S. Tensions

John Mauldin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:04:00 GMT

You may not think that what happens in Kabul affects the sale of GM's Opel division -- but it's recognizing the connection between seemingly unrelated global events that puts you ahead of the game in investing. This week I'm sending you a video by my friends at STRATFOR. It links cars, jobs, German elections, and the situation in Afghanistan in a way that's truly insightful and informative.

Click here to watch this enlightening video. I've probably never mentioned it, but STRATFOR's founder George Friedman also has a free weekly intelligence report. I strongly suggest you sign up to receive it -- It's just the kind of unique global insight every 'outside the box' investor needs. Click here to get a mind-blowing Friedman analysis each week in your inbox. You'll enjoy it as much as I do.

CAPTION: GM has approved the sale of its Opel division in Germany to a suitor favored by Chancellor Angela Merkel's government, saving thousands of German jobs just ahead of general elections. But the Opel sale has become a symbol of cooling relations between Washington and Berlin -- and the chilling effect has only grown worse as debate over Afghanistan heats up. In the latest STRATFOR Insights video, analyst Matt Gertken provides his analysis of the situation.

Brazil: Reactions to a Proposed Energy Law

John Mauldin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:43:00 GMT

With the current financial crisis, we have to be even more astute in locating worthy investment opportunities. I've written lately about choices we're facing as a country – but we have choices as individuals as well: choices that demand solid insight to make well-informed decisions and recognize opportunities at a time when they're not as plentiful as they used to be. It's not enough to know what's happening on Capitol Hill or Wall Street, we must expand our investigations to a global perspective.

I'm including an article by my friends STRATFOR, a global intelligence company, about a proposed law in Brazil to regulate the country's massive deep-sea oil reserves, which could make it a major oil exporter. It's just one example of the kind of event you need to be aware of if you're at all interested in global energy and investment. I recommend that you browse through the rest of STRATFOR's material, and check out their special offer for my readers. They provide just the kind of exclusive global insight you need.

Brazil: Reactions to a Proposed Energy Law

September 1, 2009 | 1938 GMT

Summary

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva submitted a proposal for a new oil law to the country's legislature. The proposal favors state-run energy company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) and shows that Brazil intends to protect its national interests when it comes to deepwater oil exploration and development.

Analysis

After a government review that began in 2007, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Aug. 31 unveiled a much-anticipated proposal for a new oil law that will govern the exploration and development of the country's massive deep-sea pre-salt oil reserves. The new regulatory framework was highly anticipated as Brazil's pre-salt reserves — oil deposits located in the sea bed under thick layers of salt — are estimated to contain anywhere from 14 to 100 billion barrels of oil and could turn Brazil into a major oil exporter in coming years.

Stock prices in Brazil's state-run energy company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) plummeted on the release of the proposal, with the company losing 3.6 percent of its market value (about $7 billion) on Aug. 31 alone (though that was mitigated by a 1.4 percent rebound on Sept. 1). Although Brasilia might not actually pass the new energy law until next year, it is clear that Brazil sees its pre-salt oil reserves as a strategic national asset that needs to be protected by the state, even at the risk of slowing the influx of foreign capital and technology that the country is trying to attract to boost the reserves' development.

The most obvious aspect of the proposed law is its (fully expected) favoritism toward Petrobras, one of the world's up-and-coming energy companies and a majority state-owned enterprise. Petrobras would operate all of Brazil's pre-salt oil development projects. The government, through the National Petroleum Agency, would have the option of awarding a contract solely to Petrobras or asking for public bids to bring in other companies to share in projects. In public bids, companies would join in production-sharing agreements with the government rather than only acquiring concessions and paying royalties on revenues, as they did previously. This is meant to ensure that Petrobras gains knowledge and experience from outsiders who may bring better technology and expertise to the table when they sign on to a production agreement. Petrobras would be guaranteed a minimum 30 percent stake in any consortium (though this does not apply to pre-existing contracts). Contracts will be awarded to foreign companies that promise to preserve the greatest share of "profit oil" — a field's production minus the equivalent of costs — for the Brazilian government. The proposal is surprisingly candid about the role of what is, in effect, bribery in companies' bids for contracts, stating that the National Energy Policy Council will assess "subscription bonuses" (which are not required but are no doubt encouraged by the law) on an ad hoc basis.

The Brazilian government will also have the option of handing over to Petrobras certain areas that have not yet been opened to concession to other bidders. Petrobras and the government will work out the specifics of which geographical areas will be eligible and determine their value and the price that Petrobras will pay to have rights to the area transferred to it.

Since Petrobras will be doing a lot of costly and technologically demanding oil production in these deep pre-salt layers, it will need to raise a lot of capital. The government has claimed it will inject around $50 billion into Petrobras upon passage of the new energy law. Moreover, the proposed law allows for Petrobras to issue new shares to get funding, while not calling for the restructuring or reorganization of the company. This preserves shareholders' right to maintain or up their stakes and the government's right to increase its stake, while ensuring that stock increases will not be used to squeeze out foreign investors for arbitrary or political purposes.

The proposal contains a nationalist streak that grants the government great scope for intervention in the development of these strategic reserves. In particular, the law would give birth to a new state-operated company — called Petrosal — that would have a representative, with full rights to vote and veto, on the board of any energy consortium doing business in Brazil's pre-salt deposits. Because this company will not be allowed to invest in projects or take part in upstream development, it will not bring capital or technology or expertise to energy development projects. It will simply be an arbitrary government actor with the ability to put roadblocks along the way for energy producers as it sees fit.

Da Silva submitted the proposal to Congress with much fanfare, calling for it to be put on a "fast track" toward approval. But the proposal, published on the Petrobras Web site, must still go through the legislative process, and it must do so amid the politically charged atmosphere ahead of general elections in October 2010. Nevertheless, it reflects a years-long review by a commission consisting of several government ministries, and thus gives a good indication of what direction Brazil's government wants to take in making energy sector regulations that are in line with its strategic interests.

Iraq Endgame

John Mauldin — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:09:00 GMT

As many of have heard, I had the pleasure of partaking in a weekend of fishing and intellectual jousting with some of today's most brilliant minds. We spoke of war, politics, and of course, the economy. Their interconnection seems somehow much clearer sitting on a Maine lake fishing for bass. This week I offer you an article that's key to understanding the U.S. role in Iraq. Futurologist and fellow aspiring fisherman George Friedman at STRATFOR lays out piece by piece U.S. options in the region. If your interests have anything to do with global energy markets -- and whose don't? -- it's enormously important that you grasp the relationships between various sectors in and around Iraq, and the possibilities moving forward.

Staying aware of geopolitical imperatives around the globe is crucial to any comprehensive investment portfolio. I encourage you to check out STRATFOR's Web site for whatever informs your investment area. Plus, my readers get a special membership rate.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Iraq Endgame

August 18, 2009
By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Pages

Iraq, Turkey and the Kurdish Position

Iraq, Iran and the Shia

Turkey's Re-Emergence

U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq

Iraq's Oil

Though the Iraq war is certainly not over, it has reached a crossroads. During the course of the war, about 40 countries sent troops to fight in what was called "Multi-National Force-Iraq." As of this summer, only one foreign country's fighting forces remain in Iraq — those of the United States. A name change in January 2010 will reflect the new reality, when the term "Multi-National Force-Iraq" will be changed to "United States Forces-Iraq." If there is an endgame in Iraq, we are now in it.

The plan that U.S. President Barack Obama inherited from former President George W. Bush called for coalition forces to help create a viable Iraqi national military and security force that would maintain the Baghdad government's authority and Iraq's territorial cohesion and integrity. In the meantime, the major factions in Iraq would devise a regime in which all factions would participate and be satisfied that their factional interests were protected. While this was going on, the United States would systematically reduce its presence in Iraq until around the summer of 2010, when the last U.S. forces would leave.

Two provisos qualified this plan. The first was that the plan depended on the reality on the ground for its timeline. The second was the possibility that some residual force would remain in Iraq to guarantee the agreements made between factions, until they matured and solidified into a self-sustaining regime. Aside from minor tinkering with the timeline, the Obama administration — guided by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whom Bush appointed and Obama retained — has followed the Bush plan faithfully.

The moment of truth for the U.S. plan is now approaching. The United States still has substantial forces in Iraq. There is a coalition government in Baghdad dominated by Shia (a reasonable situation, since the Shia comprise the largest segment of the population of Iraq). Iraqi security forces are far from world-class, and will continue to struggle in asserting themselves in Iraq. As we move into the endgame, internal and external forces are re-examining power-sharing deals, with some trying to disrupt the entire process.

There are two foci for this disruption. The first concerns the Arab-Kurdish struggle over Kirkuk. The second concerns threats to Iran's national security.

The Kurdish Question

Fighting continues in the Kirkuk region, where the Arabs and Kurds have a major issue to battle over: oil. The Kirkuk region is one of two major oil-producing regions in Iraq (the other is in the Shiite-dominated south). Whoever controls Kirkuk is in a position to extract a substantial amount of wealth from the surrounding region's oil development. There are historical ethnic issues in play here, but the real issue is money. Iraqi central government laws on energy development remain unclear, precisely because there is no practical agreement on the degree to which the central government will control — and benefit — from oil development as opposed to the Kurdish Regional Government. Both Kurdish and Arab factions thus continue to jockey for control of the key city of Kirkuk.

Arab, particularly Sunni Arab, retention of control over Kirkuk opens the door for an expansion of Sunni Arab power into Iraqi Kurdistan. By contrast, Kurdish control of Kirkuk shuts down the Sunni threat to Iraqi Kurdish autonomy and cuts Sunni access to oil revenues from any route other than the Shiite-controlled central government. If the Sunnis get shut out of Kirkuk, they are on the road to marginalization by their bitter enemies — the Kurds and the Shia. Thus, from the Sunni point of view, the battle for Kirkuk is the battle for the Sunni place at the Iraqi table.

Turkey further complicates the situation in Iraq. Currently embedded in constitutional and political thinking in Iraq is the idea that the Kurds would not be independent, but could enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Couple autonomy with the financial benefits of heavy oil development and the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq becomes a powerful entity. Add to that the peshmerga, the Kurdish independent military forces that have had U.S. patronage since the 1990s, and an autonomous Kurdistan becomes a substantial regional force. And this is not something Turkey wants to see.

The broader Kurdish region is divided among four countries, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The Kurds have a substantial presence in southeastern Turkey, where Ankara is engaged in a low-intensity war with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), members of which have taken refuge in northern Iraq. Turkey's current government has adopted a much more nuanced approach in dealing with the Kurdish question. This has involved coupling the traditional military threats with guarantees of political and economic security to the Iraqi Kurds as long as the Iraqi Kurdish leadership abides by Turkish demands not to press the Kirkuk issue.

Still, whatever the constitutional and political arrangements between Iraqi Kurds and Iraq's central government, or between Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish government, the Iraqi Kurds have a nationalist imperative. The Turkish expectation is that over the long haul, a wealthy and powerful Iraqi Kurdish autonomous region could slip out of Baghdad's control and become a center of Kurdish nationalism. Put another way, no matter what the Iraqi Kurds say now about cooperating with Turkey regarding the PKK, over the long run, they still have an interest in underwriting a broader Kurdish nationalism that will strike directly at Turkish national interests.

The degree to which Sunni activity in northern Iraq is coordinated with Turkish intelligence is unknown to us. The Sunnis are quite capable of waging this battle on their own. But the Turks are not disinterested bystanders, and already support local Turkmen in the Kirkuk region to counter the Iraqi Kurds. The Turks want to see Kurdish economic power and military power limited, and as such they are inherently in favor of the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government. The stronger Baghdad is, the weaker the Kurds will be.

Baghdad understands something critical: While the Kurds may be a significant fighting force in Iraq, they can't possibly stand up to the Turkish army. More broadly, Iraq as a whole can't stand up to the Turkish army. We are entering a period in which a significant strategic threat to Turkey from Iraq could potentially mean Turkish countermeasures. Iraqi memories of Turkish domination during the Ottoman Empire are not pleasant. Therefore, Iraq will be very careful not to cross any redline with the Turks.

This places the United States in a difficult position. Washington has supported the Kurds in Iraq ever since Operation Desert Storm. Through the last decade of the Saddam regime, U.S. special operations forces helped create a de facto autonomous region in Kurdistan. Washington and the Kurds have a long and bumpy history, now complicated by substantial private U.S. investment in Iraqi Kurdistan for the development of oil resources. Iraqi Kurdish and U.S. interests are strongly intertwined, and Washington would rather not see Iraqi Kurdistan swallowed up by arrangements in Baghdad that undermine current U.S. interests and past U.S. promises.

On the other hand, the U.S. relationship with Turkey is one of Washington's most important. Whether the question at hand is Iran, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Afghanistan, Russia or Iraq, the Turks have a role. Given the status of U.S. power in the region, alienating Turkey is not an option. And the United States must remember that for Turkey, Kurdish power in Iraq and Turkey's desired role in developing Iraqi oil are issues of fundamental national importance.

Now left alone to play out this endgame, the United States must figure out a way to finesse the Kurdish issue. In one sense, it doesn't matter. Turkey has the power ultimately to redefine whatever institutional relationships the United States leaves behind in Iraq. But for Turkey, the sooner Washington hands over this responsibility, the better. The longer the Turks wait, the stronger the Kurds might become and the more destabilizing their actions could be to Turkey. Best of all, if Turkey can assert its influence now, which it has already begun to do, it doesn't have to be branded as the villain.

All Turkey needs to do is make sure that the United States doesn't intervene decisively against the Iraqi Sunnis in the battle over Kirkuk in honor of Washington's commitment to the Kurds.

In any case, the United States doesn't want to intervene against Iraq's Sunnis again. In protecting Sunni Arab interests, the Americans have already been sidestepping any measures to organize a census and follow through with a constitutional mandate to hold a referendum in Kirkuk. For the United States, a strong Sunni community is the necessary counterweight to the Iraqi Shia since, over the long haul, it is not clear how a Shiite-dominated government will relate to Iran.

The Shiite Question

The Shiite-dominated government led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is no puppet of Iran, but at the same time, it is not Iran's enemy. As matters develop in Iraq, Iran remains the ultimate guarantor of Shiite interests. And Iranian support might not flow directly to the current Iraqi government, but to al-Maliki's opponents within the Shiite community who have closer ties to Tehran. It is not clear whether Iranian militant networks in Iraq have been broken, or are simply lying low. But it is clear that Iran still has levers in place with which it could destabilize the Shiite community or rivals of the Iraqi Shia if it so desired.

Therefore, the United States has a vested interest in building up the Iraqi Sunni community before it leaves. And from an economic point of view, that means giving the Sunnis access to oil revenue as well as a guarantee of control over that revenue after the United States leaves.

With the tempo of attacks picking up as U.S. forces draw down, Iraq's Sunni community is evidently not satisfied with the current security and political arrangements in Iraq. Attacks are on the upswing in the northern areas — where remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq continue to operate in Mosul — as well as in central Iraq in and around Baghdad. The foreign jihadists in Iraq hope such attacks will trigger a massive response from the Shiite community, thus plunging Iraq back into civil war. But the foreign jihadists would not be able to operate without some level of support from the local Sunni community. This broader community wants to make sure that the Shia and Americans don't forget what the Sunnis are capable of should their political, economic and security interests fall by the wayside as the Americans withdraw.

Neither the Iraqi Sunnis nor the Kurds really want the Americans to leave. Neither trust that the intentions or guarantees of the Shiite-dominated government. Iraq lacks a tradition of respect for government institutions and agreements; a piece of paper is just that. Instead, the Sunnis and Kurds see the United States as the only force that can guarantee their interests. Ironically, the United States is now seen as the only real honest broker in Iraq.

But the United States is an honest broker with severe conflicts of interest. Satisfying both Sunni and Kurdish interests is possible only under three conditions. The first is that Washington exercise a substantial degree of control over the Shiite administration of the country — and particularly over energy laws — for a long period of time. The second is that the United States give significant guarantees to Turkey that the Kurds will not extend their nationalist campaign to Turkey, even if they are permitted to extend it to Iran in a bid to destabilize the Iranian regime. The third is that success in the first two conditions not force Iran into a position where it sees its own national security at risk, and so responds by destabilizing Baghdad — and with it, the entire foundation of the national settlement in Iraq negotiated by the United States.

The American strategy in this matter has been primarily tactical. Wanting to leave, it has promised everyone everything. That is not a bad strategy in the short run, but at a certain point, everyone adds up the promises and realizes that they can't all be kept, either because they are contradictory or because there is no force to guarantee them. Boiled down, this leaves the United States with two strategic options.

First, the United States can leave a residual force of about 20,000 troops in Iraq to guarantee Sunni and Kurdish interests, to protect Turkish interests, etc. The price of pursuing this option is that it leaves Iran facing a nightmare scenario: e.g., the potential re-emergence of a powerful Iraq and the recurrence down the road of the age-old conflict between Persia and Mesopotamia — with the added possibility of a division of American troops supporting their foes. This would pose an existential threat to Iran, forcing Tehran to use covert means to destabilize Iraq that would take advantage of a minimal, widely dispersed U.S. force vulnerable to local violence.

Second, the United States could withdraw and allow Iraq to become a cockpit for competition among neighboring countries: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria — and ultimately major regional powers like Russia. While chaos in Iraq is not inherently inconsistent with U.S. interests, it is highly unpredictable, meaning the United States could be pulled back into Iraq at the least opportune time and place.

The first option is attractive, but its major weakness is the uncertainty created by Iran. With Iran in the picture, a residual force is as much a hostage as a guarantor of Sunni and Kurdish interests. With Iran out of the picture, the residual U.S. force could be smaller and would be more secure. Eliminate the Iran problem completely, and the picture for all players becomes safer and more secure. But eliminating Iran from the equation is not an option — Iran most assuredly gets a vote in this endgame.

The Recession in Central Europe, Part 2: Country by Country

John Mauldin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:25:00 GMT

This week I'd like to address the topic of currency. Flip through any business journal and speculation runs deep, though the ups and downs are far from predictable. A year ago everyone who thought they had half a brain and a pile of money comparable to Uncle Scrooge was threatening to transform all of their wealth into the seemingly unstoppable Yuan. Travel agents were pushing dirt-cheap excursions taking advantage of the near-worthless Icelandic krona to suburbanites with inquiries about sunny beaches and palm trees. And this year, if you're looking for a destination that won't hurt your pocket book, one might suggest Central Europe for that romantic second honeymoon.

In the long run though, currency speculation is a serious business that takes patience and an overall understanding of a nation, country or union. IMF reports and debt calculators are a good indicator, but they can be flawed and don't take into account the grand scheme of things. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bigger picture is the one you want, and nothing prepares you for this kind of commitment than the intelligence you get from my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR. I'm sending you a piece that considers the recession in Central Europe, country by country. I encourage you to read and consider it in your portfolios. Click here to check out STRATFOR as well, as my readers get a special offer.

The Recession in Central Europe, Part 2: Country by Country

August 5, 2009 | 1146 GMT

Summary

No region has been affected by the global financial crisis quite like Central Europe, where a heavy burden of foreign debt, accumulated during the boom years of the 2000s, must be repaid in 2009. Not all Central European states are burdened by the same external debt load, but most face cutting social welfare expenditures as they sign on for relief from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Administrations old and new will have a tough time protecting their currencies and stimulating growth at the same time.

Editor's Note: This is part of an ongoing series on the global recession and signs indicating how and when the economic recovery will begin.

Analysis

Related Special Topic Pages

Special Series: The Recession Revisited

Related Links

The Recession in Europe

The Recession in Central Europe, Part 1: Armageddon Averted?

Central Europe is at the epicenter of the global financial crisis. The region became the top destination for foreign capital in 2002, overtaking East Asia; but since September 2008, it has experienced a massive outflow of foreign capital that threatens to crash the region's currencies. The region founded its growth largely on the influx of foreign loans that are now in danger of appreciating in real value as domestic currencies depreciate.

Part 1 of this two-part analysis looked at the problems and policy options faced by Central Europe as a whole; Part 2 examines the economic and political situations unique to each country. For the purposes of this analysis, Central Europe is defined as Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Serbia. We exclude Austria, Slovakia and Greece because those countries are in the eurozone.

Bosnia

Bosnia's gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to contract by 3 percent in 2009, after nearly 6 percent growth in 2008, with the unemployment rate above 40 percent. A 1.2 billion euro ($1.7 billion) loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will help stabilize the budget, but the austerity measures required by the IMF are sure to increase social tensions. The IMF requires 10 percent cuts in social welfare programs and governmental salaries, and considering that government expenditures in Bosnia total 44 percent of GDP, the IMF cuts will be substantial and have significant social impact. Indeed, the financial crisis already has threatened to reignite old ethnic and political tensions in the country, which has never truly recovered from its brutal 1992-1995 civil war.

Bulgaria

Bulgarian GDP is set to contract by around 6 percent in 2009. This, combined with an expected budget deficit of 2.5 percent of GDP, contributes to some worrisome numbers, although not as dramatic as figures elsewhere in the region.

However, Bulgaria does not have sufficient foreign currency reserves to cover its extremely high external debt coming to maturity in 2009. The problem for Bulgaria is not necessarily foreign currency-denominated lending (household-sector foreign currency-denominated lending is actually quite low), but rather years of high current-account deficits that required trade financing and corporate lending. According to Fitch Ratings, Bulgaria has $26.2 billion of debt coming due in 2009, equal to 64 percent of GDP. Therefore, despite recent assertions by newly elected Prime Minister Boyko Borisov that no IMF loan will be necessary, Sofia may be forced to consider outside funding as the second half of 2009 gets under way. This will put political pressure on the new administration very early on.

Croatia

Croatian GDP is set to plunge by about 5 percent of GDP in 2009, with unemployment expected to reach double digits (10.5 percent) following a rate of 8.4 percent in 2008. This will present new Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor with the unenviable task of picking up the pieces left by her predecessor, Ivo Sanader, who resigned unexpectedly in July.

Most pressing is the need to cut social welfare expenditures, which actually increased more than 10 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2009 due to an absolute increase in unemployment benefits. Croatia is also facing considerable private foreign-debt pressures, with the total external debt coming due in 2009 almost twice that of Zagreb's available currency reserves. Also worrisome for Croatia is the high percent of foreign currency-denominated lending, which at 62 percent of total lending is one of the highest percentages in the region.

While Zagreb has not asked the IMF for a loan yet — and the government for the most part is vociferously denying that it needs one — Croatia is on STRATFOR's short list of Central European countries likely to seek one in the second half of 2009. With Sanader's resignation offering a release valve for social angst in the short term, Kosor may have some political room to maneuver in order to implement the IMF's stringent austerity measures.

Czech Republic

Throughout the 2000s, the Czech Republic has been prudent enough to contain external debt, keep inflation low and maintain low interest rates. This has meant that foreign currency lending has not been as popular in the Czech Republic as it has been in other countries in Europe. In fact, lending to Czech households in foreign currency is nonexistent, with consumers perfectly content to borrow cheap koruna instead of euros.

Nonetheless, the Czech Republic will be hit by the economic crisis just as the rest of Central Europe will be hit, with an expected 3.2 percent decline in GDP in 2009. The key issue for the Czech Republic is the return of external demand for its manufactured products, particularly automobiles, which account for 18.96 percent of total Czech industrial output. With 76 percent of its GDP dependent on exports, the Czech Republic is at the mercy of its export markets in Western Europe (particularly Germany, to which it exports more than 30 percent of its goods).

Click image to enlarge

Meanwhile, the imbroglio that is Czech politics continues following the March 24 resignation of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, with elections called for October. The Czech Republic has a tendency to produce extremely weak governments that depend on minor parties for a majority in the parliament. Such an arrangement during a recession would severely impair the government from making the difficult decisions that are needed to get the economy back on its feet.

The Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)

Of the three Baltic states, Latvia has thus far suffered the most from the financial crisis. However, in terms of macroeconomic indicators, Estonia is not much different than Latvia. Estonia's gross external debt, most of which is privately held, is 116 percent of GDP, compared to Latvia's 124.6 percent. Furthermore, Estonia and Latvia both have a very high percentage of foreign currency-denominated loans in their loan portfolios (86 percent and 90 percent, respectively). Were Latvia to abandon its currency peg to the euro, Estonia's kroon would likely devalue as well because of investor pressures on the region as a whole.

Meanwhile, unemployment in Latvia is soaring, reaching 17.2 percent in June, compared to 7.5 percent in 2008. With one prime minister ousted in February, the current four-party coalition is looking shaky, especially as it attempts to implement the rigid austerity measures of the IMF.

Lithuania is not doing any better, with a 22.4 percent-of-GDP decline in the second quarter. Lithuania does have less of a reliance on foreign currency lending — 66 percent of total lending is in foreign currency — but it still has enough that a serious currency depreciation caused by a devaluation in Latvia would hurt many consumers and businesses.

The Baltics remain the most volatile region in Central Europe and the most likely flash point for social angst over austerity measures and the effects of the recession. One should not discount the possibility that Lithuania and Estonia could ask for an IMF loan or that further political changes are in store.

Hungary

Hungary is the only country in the region, aside from Poland, with a considerable amount of external public debt (53.2 percent of GDP) — the result of years of overspending in a politically contentious atmosphere between the main right and left wing parties. This is in addition to a considerable level of private debt (39.5 percent), most of which was fueled by foreign currency lending. The IMF and EU 20 billion euro ($28.8 billion) loan has forced Budapest to start cutting into the chronically high budget deficit, but at the cost of reducing social spending that the populace grew used to in the free-spending 2000s.

The ruling Socialists are attempting to hold on to power following the resignation of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, with the center-right party Fidesz looking to capitalize on the crisis and come to power in the 2010 parliamentary elections (or earlier if elections could be forced sooner). Much as other countries in the region, Hungary is struggling to protect its currency from depreciation (so as not to appreciate the value of foreign currency loans) and stimulate growth at the same time.

Poland

Despite its high public and private indebtedness, Poland has thus far been remarkably resilient during the crisis. In 2009, Poland has actually experienced positive GDP growth (0.8 percent year-on-year), surpassed only by Cyprus in the European Union, and is expected to have grown (albeit at a slower pace) in the second quarter. The reason for Poland's resilience is the fact that, unlike the other Central European economies, it has a robust internal market with exports accounting for just 40 percent of its GDP (compared to 76 percent of GDP in the neighboring Czech Republic, 80 percent in Hungary, 55 percent in Lithuania and 86 percent in Slovakia). Poland can therefore depend on consumption to spur growth and is not so much at the mercy of demand from neighboring Western Europe for its recovery.

Click image to enlarge

With consumption holding steady, Poland has been able to weather the recession on the back of its $400 billion economy. While high levels of foreign debt are definitely a cause of concern, Poland serves as an instructive example of a Central European country that has not had to depend on Western Europe for both capital and export markets. Two quarters of minimal growth in 2009 at a time when most countries in the region are far worse will also provide Poland relative political stability.

Romania

Romania is another Central European economy that is far too indebted abroad, has relied on foreign currency lending for too much of its domestic credit and is looking at a serious budget deficit. It secured a 20 billion euro ($28.8 billion) IMF standby loan in March, part of which was used to keep the leu stable so as not to allow the real value of foreign loans to appreciate.

Unlike Poland, which is an example of a Central European economy with a robust local market, Romania is the exact opposite. Its trade deficit in 2008 stood at 14 percent of GDP, indicating that not only did it borrow foreign money but also that it used the money mainly to buy foreign products.

Serbia

The Serbian economy is forecast to contract by nearly 5 percent in 2009, with unemployment crossing 20 percent (from around 18 percent in both 2007 and 2008). Because of the crisis, Serbia has been forced to take a 3 billion euro ($4.3 billion) IMF loan and sell a vital part of its infrastructure — state-owned energy company NIS — to Russian energy giant Gazprom at below market value.

The fundamental problem with Serbia is that, because of political instability and tenuous governments that have plagued the post-Slobodan Milosevic era, the country has never been able to cut its expenditures, particularly in public-sector employment. Numerous multiparty coalitions have had to cater to parties looking to advance their interests, while the government essentially raises money through the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Furthermore, the fundamental Central European problem of borrowing abroad to finance expensive Western imports is true of Serbia as well. Foreign currency-denominated loans have made up 68 percent of total loans in 2009, mainly due to the traditional instability (and high inflation) of the dinar.

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

John Mauldin — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:13:00 GMT

I've mentioned a couple of schools of thought before: those who look at the big picture and those who pore over the details. Often, the major product is the result of its minor pieces. If you use good meat, good buns, and good vegetables- you're going to turn out a pretty good hamburger. The same goes for cars, businesses and portfolios.

One industry in which this methodology really doesn't seem to work is information. Mainstream sources of information almost always fail to connect the world's events. They do a great job telling you that former Iranian president Rafsanjani addressed his supporters, that anti-Ahmadinejad protestors outside chanted "Death to Russia", and that Israel sent a submarine through the Suez Canal. But they don't show how the incidents fit together in the geopolitical landscape, nor what they mean for the relationships between global powers. They give you the meat, the buns and the vegetables, but there's no hamburger.

This week I'm sending you an article AND a video on the Iran situation, from my friend George Friedman and his team of intelligence analysts at STRATFOR. Click here to watch "Rethinking Iran" and read the article below (They complement each other nicely). George connects the pieces and draws conclusions – so you can make better-informed decisions regarding investments, assets and travels around the world.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

July 20, 2009

By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Page

Iranian Elections 2009

At Friday prayers July 17 at Tehran University, the influential cleric and former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani gave his first sermon since Iran's disputed presidential election and the subsequent demonstrations. The crowd listening to Rafsanjani inside the mosque was filled with Ahmadinejad supporters who chanted, among other things, "Death to America" and "Death to China." Outside the university common grounds, anti-Ahmadinejad elements — many of whom were blocked by Basij militiamen and police from entering the mosque — persistently chanted "Death to Russia."

Death to America is an old staple in Iran. Death to China had to do with the demonstrations in Xinjiang and the death of Uighurs at the hands of the Chinese. Death to Russia, however, stood out. Clearly, its use was planned before the protesters took to the streets. The meaning of this must be uncovered. To begin to do that, we must consider the political configuration in Iran at the moment.

The Iranian Political Configuration

There are two factions claiming to speak for the people. Rafsanjani represents the first faction. During his sermon, he spoke for the tradition of the founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who took power during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Rafjsanjani argued that Khomeini wanted an Islamic republic faithful to the will of the people, albeit within the confines of Islamic law. Rafsanjani argued that he was the true heir to the Islamic revolution. He added that Khomeini's successor — the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — had violated the principles of the revolution when he accepted that Rafsanjani's archenemy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had won Iran's recent presidential election. (There is enormous irony in foreigners describing Rafsanjani as a moderate reformer who supports greater liberalization. Though he has long cultivated this image in the West, in 30 years of public political life it is hard to see a time when he has supported Western-style liberal democracy.)

The other faction is led by Ahmadinejad, who takes the position that Rafsanjani in particular — along with the generation of leaders who ascended to power during the first phase of the Islamic republic — has betrayed the Iranian people. Rather than serving the people, Ahmadinejad claims they have used their positions to become so wealthy that they dominate the Iranian economy and have made the reforms needed to revitalize the Iranian economy impossible. According to Ahmadinejad's charges, these elements now blame Ahmadinejad for Iran's economic failings when the root of these failings is their own corruption. Ahmadinejad claims that the recent presidential election represents a national rejection of the status quo. He adds that claims of fraud represent attempts by Rafsanjani — who he portrays as defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's sponsor — and his ilk to protect their positions from Ahmadinejad.

Iran is therefore experiencing a generational dispute, with each side claiming to speak both for the people and for the Khomeini tradition. There is the older generation — symbolized by Rafsanjani — that has prospered during the last 30 years. Having worked with Khomeini, this generation sees itself as his true heir. Then, there is the younger generation. Known as "students" during the revolution, this group did the demonstrating and bore the brunt of the shah's security force counterattacks. It argues that Khomeini would be appalled at what Rafsanjani and his generation have done to Iran.

This debate is, of course, more complex than this. Khamenei, a key associate of Khomeini, appears to support Ahmadinejad's position. And Ahmadinejad hardly speaks for all of the poor as he would like to claim. The lines of political disputes are never drawn as neatly as we would like. Ultimately, Rafsanjani's opposition to the recent election did not have as much to do with concerns (valid or not) over voter fraud. It had everything to do with the fact that the outcome threatened his personal position. Which brings us back to the question of why Rafsanjani's followers were chanting Death to Russia.

Examining the Anomalous Chant

For months prior to the election, Ahmadinejad's allies warned that the United States was planning a "color" revolution. Color revolutions, like the one in Ukraine, occurred widely in the former Soviet Union after its collapse, and these revolutions followed certain steps. An opposition political party was organized to mount an electoral challenge to the establishment. Then, an election occurred that was either fraudulent or claimed by the opposition as having been fraudulent. Next, widespread peaceful protests against the regime (all using a national color as the symbol of the revolution) took place, followed by the collapse of the government through a variety of paths. Ultimately, the opposition — which was invariably pro-Western and particularly pro-American — took power.

Moscow openly claimed that Western intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, organized and funded the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. These agencies allegedly used nongovernmental organizations (human rights groups, pro-democracy groups, etc.) to delegitimize the existing regime, repudiate the outcome of the election regardless of its validity and impose what the Russians regarded as a pro-American puppet regime. The Russians saw Ukraine's Orange Revolution as the break point in their relationship with the West, with the creation of a pro-American, pro-NATO regime in Ukraine representing a direct attack on Russian national security. The Americans argued that to the contrary, they had done nothing but facilitate a democratic movement that opposed the existing regime for its own reasons, demanding that rigged elections be repudiated.

In warning that the United States was planning a color revolution in Iran, Ahmadinejad took the Russian position. Namely, he was arguing that behind the cover of national self-determination, human rights and commitment to democratic institutions, the United States was funding an Iranian opposition movement on the order of those active in the former Soviet Union. Regardless of whether the opposition actually had more votes, this opposition movement would immediately regard an Ahmadinejad win as the result of fraud. Large demonstrations would ensue, and if they were left unopposed the Islamic republic would come under threat.

In doing this, Ahmadinejad's faction positioned itself against the actuality that such a rising would occur. If it did, Ahmadinejad could claim that the demonstrators were — wittingly or not — operating on behalf of the United States, thus delegitimizing the demonstrators. In so doing, he could discredit supporters of the demonstrators as not tough enough on the United States, a useful charge against Rafsanjani, whom the West long has held up as an Iranian moderate.

Interestingly, while demonstrations were at their height, Ahmadinejad chose to attend — albeit a day late — a multinational Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference in Moscow on the Tuesday after the election. It was very odd that he would leave Iran during the greatest postelection unrest; we assumed he had decided to demonstrate to Iranians that he didn't take the demonstrations seriously.

The charge that seems to be emerging on the Rafsanjani side is that Ahmadinejad's fears of a color revolution were not simply political, but were encouraged by the Russians. It was the Russians who had been talking to Ahmadinejad and his lieutenants on a host of issues, who warned him about the possibility of a color revolution. More important, the Russians helped prepare Ahmadinejad for the unrest that would come — and given the Russian experience, how to manage it. Though we speculate here, if this theory is correct, it could explain some of the efficiency with which Ahmadinejad shut down cell phone and other communications during the postelection unrest, as he may have had Russian advisers.

Rafsanjani's followers were not shouting Death to Russia without a reason, at least in their own minds. They are certainly charging that Ahmadinejad took advice from the Russians, and went to Russia in the midst of political unrest for consultations. Rafsanjani's charge may or may not be true. Either way, there is no question that Ahmadinejad did claim that the United States was planning a color revolution in Iran. If he believed that charge, it would have been irrational not to reach out to the Russians. But whether or not the CIA was involved, the Russians might well have provided Ahmadinejad with intelligence of such a plot and helped shape his response, and thereby may have created a closer relationship with him.

How Iran's internal struggle will work itself out remains unclear. But one dimension is shaping up: Ahmadinejad is trying to position Rafsanjani as leading a pro-American faction intent on a color revolution, while Rafsanjani is trying to position Ahmadinejad as part of a pro-Russian faction. In this argument, the claim that Ahmadinejad had some degree of advice or collaboration with the Russians is credible, just as the claim that Rafsanjani maintained some channels with the Americans is credible. And this makes an internal dispute geopolitically significant.

The Iranian Struggle in a Geopolitical Context

At the moment, Ahmadinejad appears to have the upper hand. Khamenei has certified his re-election. The crowds have dissipated; nothing even close to the numbers of the first few days has since materialized. For Ahmadinejad to lose, Rafsanjani would have to mobilize much of the clergy — many of whom are seemingly content to let Rafsanjani be the brunt of Ahmadinejad's attacks — in return for leaving their own interests and fortunes intact. There are things that could bring Ahmadinejad down and put Rafsanjani in control, but all of them would require Khamenei to endorse social and political instability, which he will not do.

If the Russians have in fact intervened in Iran to the extent of providing intelligence to Ahmadinejad and advice to him during his visit on how to handle the postelection unrest (as the chants suggest), then Russian influence in Iran is not surging — it has surged. In some measure, Ahmadinejad would owe his position to Russian warnings and advice. There is little gratitude in the world of international affairs, but Ahmadinejad has enemies, and the Russians would have proved their utility in helping contain those enemies.

From the Russian point of view, Ahmadinejad would be a superb asset — even if not truly under their control. His very existence focuses American attention on Iran, not on Russia. It follows, then, that Russia would have made a strategic decision to involve itself in the postelection unrest, and that for the purposes of its own negotiations with Washington, Moscow will follow through to protect the Iranian state to the extent possible. The Russians have already denied U.S. requests for assistance on Iran. But if Moscow has intervened in Iran to help safeguard Ahmadinejad's position, then the potential increases for Russia to provide Iran with the S-300 strategic air defense systems that it has been dangling in front of Tehran for more than a decade.

If the United States perceives an entente between Moscow and Tehran emerging, then the entire dynamic of the region shifts and the United States must change its game. The threat to Washington's interests becomes more intense as the potential of a Russian S-300 sale to Iran increases, and the need to disrupt the Russian-Iranian entente would become all the more important. U.S. influence in Iran already has declined substantially, and Ahmadinejad is more distrustful and hostile than ever of the United States after having to deal with the postelection unrest. If a Russian-Iranian entente emerges out of all this — which at the moment is merely a possibility, not an imminent reality — then the United States would have some serious strategic problems on its hands.

Revisiting Assumptions on Iran

For the past few years, STRATFOR has assumed that a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran was unlikely. Iran was not as advanced in its nuclear program as some claimed, and the complexities of any attack were greater than assumed. The threat of an attack was thus a U.S. bargaining chip, much as Iran's nuclear program itself was an Iranian bargaining chip for use in achieving Tehran's objectives in Iraq and the wider region. To this point, our net assessment has been accurate.

At this point, however, we need to stop and reconsider. If Iran and Russia begin serious cooperation, Washington's existing dilemma with Iran's nuclear ambitions and its ongoing standoff with the Russians would fuse to become a single, integrated problem. This is something the United States would find difficult to manage. Washington's primary goal would become preventing this from happening.

Ahmadinejad has long argued that the United States was never about to attack Iran, and that charges by Rafsanjani and others that he has pursued a reckless foreign policy were groundless. But with the Death to Russia chants and signaling of increased Russian support for Iran, the United States may begin to reconsider its approach to the region.

Iran's clerical elite does not want to go to war. They therefore can only view with alarm the recent ostentatious transiting of the Suez Canal into the Red Sea by Israeli submarines and corvettes. This transiting did not happen without U.S. approval. Moreover, in spite of U.S. opposition to expanded Israeli settlements and Israeli refusals to comply with this opposition, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be visiting Israel in two weeks. The Israelis have said that there must be a deadline on negotiations with Iran over the nuclear program when the next G-8 meeting takes place in September; a deadline that the G-8 has already approved. The consequences if Iran ignores the deadline were left open-ended.

All of this can fit into our old model of psychological warfare, as representing a bid to manipulate Iranian politics by making Ahmadinejad's leadership look too risky. It could also be the United States signaling to the Russians that stakes in the region are rising. It is not clear that the United States has reconsidered its strategy on Iran in the wake of the postelection demonstrations. But if Rafsanjani's claim of Russian support for Ahmadinejad is true, a massive re-evaluation of U.S. policy could ensue, assuming one hasn't already started — prompting a reconsideration of the military option.

All of this assumes that there is substance behind a mob chanting "Death to Russia." There appears to be, but of course, Ahmadinejad's enemies would want to magnify that substance to its limits and beyond. This is why we are not ready to simply abandon our previous net assessment of Iran, even though it is definitely time to rethink it.

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

John Mauldin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:46:44 GMT

This week saw a 2-day summit between the United States and Russia that looks to be the first in a trend of subtle push and pull that will shape economic agendas for both states. Just as at the height of the Cold War, these two superpowers are jockeying for global attention and prospective untapped markets. But while the communication between the two is at the same volume and frequency as it was back in the days of Kennedy and Khrushchev, the tone has taken on a different level - as Obama flexes his newly appointed muscle and plants a possible seed of discontent between Medvedev and Putin concerning the future of the former USSR.

Hands-down the most important thing in Russia is energy. It's not the headline on CNN these days, but come less than 6 months from now the cold European winters will make natural gas supply lines and shipping an unavoidable talking point. Today's U.S./Russia relationship lays the groundwork for the future of global energy markets.

I'm sending you an article by my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR, a global intelligence firm, discussing what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia - at the summit and in the coming months. If energy markets matter to you - and they do, regardless of how you're invested - then you need to understand this pivotal global relationship. Also, STRATFOR is offering special rates to Outside the Box readers. Click here to read more and be sure to take advantage of these low rates for priceless intelligence to help you in your future financial planning.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

July 7, 2009

By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Page

Special Summit Coverage

The Moscow summit between U.S. President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has ended. As is almost always the case, the atmospherics were good, with the proper things said on all sides and statements and gestures of deep sincerity made. And as with all summits, those atmospherics are like the air: insubstantial and ultimately invisible. While there were indications of substantial movement, you would have needed a microscope to see them.

An agreement was reached on what an agreement on nuclear arms reduction might look like, but we do not regard this as a strategic matter. The number of strategic warheads and delivery vehicles is a Cold War issue that concerned the security of each side's nuclear deterrent. We do not mean to argue that removing a thousand or so nuclear weapons is unimportant, but instead that no one is deterring anyone these days, and the risk of accidental launch is as large or as small whether there are 500 or 5,000 launchers or warheads. Either way, nuclear arms' strategic significance remains unchanged. The summit perhaps has created a process that could lead to some degree of confidence. It is not lack of confidence dividing the two countries, however, but rather divisions on fundamental geopolitical issues that don't intersect with the missile question.

The Fundamental Issues

There are dozens of contentious issues between the United States and Russia, but in our mind three issues are fundamental.

First, there is the question of whether Poland will become a base from which the United States can contain Russian power, or from the Russian point of view, threaten the former Soviet Union. The ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that the United States has slated for Poland does not directly affect that issue, though it symbolizes it. It represents the U.S. use of Polish territory for strategic purposes, and it is something the Russians oppose not so much for the system's direct or specific threat — which is minimal — but for what it symbolizes about the Americans' status in Poland. The Russians hoped to get Obama to follow the policy at the summit that he alluded to during his campaign for the U.S. presidency: namely, removing the BMD program from Poland to reduce tensions with Russia.

Second, there is the question of Iran. This is a strategic matter for the United States, perhaps even more pressing since the recent Iranian election. The United States badly needs to isolate Iran effectively, something impossible without Russian cooperation. Moscow has refused to join Washington on this issue, in part because it is so important to the United States. Given its importance to the Americans, the Russians see Iran as a lever with which they can try to control U.S. actions elsewhere. The Americans do not want to see Russian support, and particularly arms sales, to Iran. Given that, the Russians don't want to close off the possibility of supporting Iran. The United States wanted to see some Russian commitments on Iran at the summit.

And third, there is the question of U.S. relations with former Soviet countries other than Russia, and the expressed U.S. desire to see NATO expand to include Ukraine and Georgia. The Russians insist that any such expansion threatens Russian national security and understandings with previous U.S. administrations. The United States insists that no such understandings exist, that NATO expansion doesn't threaten Russia, and that the expansion will continue. The Russians were hoping the Americans would back off on this issue at the summit.

Of some importance, but not as fundamental as the previous issues, was the question of whether Russia will allow U.S. arms shipments to Afghanistan through Russian territory. This issue became important last winter when Taliban attacks on U.S. supply routes through Pakistan intensified, putting the viability of those routes in question. In recent months the Russians have accepted the transit of nonlethal materiel through Russia, but not arms.

Even before the summit, the Russians made a concession on this point, giving the United States the right to transit military equipment via Russian airspace. This was a significant policy change designed to demonstrate Russia's flexibility. At the same time, the step is not as significant as it appeared. The move cost the Russians little under the circumstances, and is easily revoked. And while the United States might use the route, the route is always subject to Russian pressure, meaning the United States is not going to allow a strategic dependence to develop. Moreover, the U.S. need is not as apparent now as it was a few months ago. And finally, a Talibanized Afghanistan is not in the Russian interest. That Russia did not grant the U.S. request last February merely reveals how bad U.S.-Russian relations were at the time. Conversely, the Russian concession on the issue signals that U.S.-Russian relations have improved. The concession was all the more significant in that it came after Obama praised Medvedev for his openness and criticized Putin as having one foot in the Cold War, clearly an attempt to play the two Russian leaders off each other.

What the Summit Produced

Much more significantly, the United States did not agree to withdraw the BMD system from Poland at the summit. Washington did not say that removal is impossible, but instead delayed that discussion until at least September, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Moscow. A joint review of all of the world's missile capabilities was established at the summit, and this joint review will consider Iranian — and North Korean — missiles. The Polish BMD system will be addressed in that context. In other words, Washington did not concede on the point, but it did not close off discussions. The Russians accordingly did not get what they wanted on the missiles at the summit; they got even less of what they wanted in the broader strategic sense of a neutralized Poland.

The Russians in turn made no visible concessions on Iran. Apart from studying the Iranians' missile systems, the Russians made no pledge to join in sanctions on Iran, nor did they join in any criticism of the current crackdown in Iran. The United States had once offered to trade Polish BMDs for Russian cooperation on Iran, an idea rejected by the Russians since the BMD system in Poland wasn't worth the leverage Moscow has with Iran. Certainly without the Polish BMD withdrawal, there was going to be no movement on Iran.

NATO expansion is where some U.S. concession might have emerged. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama said, "State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is why this principle must apply to all nations – including Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For either country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."

On the surface, this reiterated the old U.S. position, which was that NATO expansion was between NATO and individual nations of the former Soviet Union, and did not — and should not — concern Moscow. The terms of expanding, reforming and contributing to NATO remained the same. But immediately after the Obama-Putin meeting, Russian sources began claiming that an understanding on NATO expansion was reached, and that the Americans conceded the point. We see some evidence for this in the speech — the U.S. public position almost never has included mention of public support or reforms.

In many ways, however, this is splitting hairs. The French and Germans have long insisted that any NATO expansion should be limited to countries with strong public support for expansion, and which meet certain military thresholds that Georgia and Ukraine clearly do not meet (and could not meet even with a decade of hard work). Since NATO expansion requires unanimous support from all members, Russia was more interested in having the United States freeze its relations with other former Soviet states at their current level. Russian sources indicate that they did indeed get reassurances of such a freeze, but it takes an eager imagination to glean that from Obama's public statement.

Therefore, we come away with the sense that the summit changed little, but that it certainly didn't cause any deterioration, which could have happened. Having a summit that causes no damage is an achievement in itself.

The Kennedy Trap

Perhaps the most important part of the summit was that Obama does not seem to have fallen into the Kennedy trap. Part of the lack of serious resolutions at the summit undoubtedly resulted from Obama's unwillingness to be excessively accommodating to the Russians. With all of the comparisons to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit being bruited about, Obama clearly had at least one overriding goal in Moscow: to not be weak. Obama tried to show his skills even before the summit, playing Medvedev and Putin against each other. No matter how obvious and clumsy that might have been, it served a public purpose by making it clear that Obama was not in awe of either of them. Creating processes rather than solutions also was part of that strategy.

It appears, however, that the Russians did fall into the Kennedy trap a bit. The eagerness of Putin's advisers to tout U.S. concession on Ukraine and Georgia after their meeting in spite of scant public evidence of such concessions gives us the sense that Putin wanted to show that he achieved something Medvedev couldn't. There may well be a growing rivalry between Medvedev and Putin, and Obama might well have played off it.

But that is for the gossip columns. The important news from the summit was as follows: First, no one screwed up, and second, U.S.-Russian relations did not get worse — and might actually have improved.

No far-reaching strategic agreements were attained, but strategic improvements in the future were not excluded. Obama played his role without faltering, and there may be some smidgen of tension between the two personalities running Russia. As far as summits go, we have seen far worse and much better. But given the vitriol of past U.S.-Soviet/Russian relations, routine is hardly a negative outcome.

In the meantime, BMD remains under development in Poland, there is no U.S.-Russian agreement on Iran and, as far as we can confirm at present, no major shift in U.S. policy on Ukraine and Georgia has occurred. This summit will not be long remembered, but then Obama did not want the word "disastrous" attached to this summit as it had been to Kennedy's first Soviet summit.

We wish there were more exciting things to report about the summit, but sometimes there simply aren't. And sometimes the routine might turn out significant, but we doubt that in this case. The geopolitical divide between the United States and Russia is as deep as ever, even if some of the sharper edges have been rounded. Ultimately, little progress was made in finding ways to bridge the two countries' divergent interests. And the burning issues — particularly Poland and Iran — continue to burn.

Iranian Elections, Israel and the United States

John Mauldin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:13:19 GMT

Dear Friends,

In the midst of an economic crisis, we are inundated with data - information that often, a few years down the line, turns out to be wrong. Forecasts are made based on a single month's set of data or previous trends, and the public often doesn't know how to read the fine print about margins of error.

The problem is faulty methodology. Most media and even government intelligence agencies assume the information they get from leadership figures is 100% correct, no questions asked - leading to defective analyses. Instead, underlying assumptions should be constantly vetted in the face of new facts. I'd encourage you to consider the intelligence produced by my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR - a trusted source in forecasting future geopolitical trends.

Click here to watch this video by George and his intelligence team. It looks beyond the current protests in Iran and delves into what policy changes could be on the horizon in this pivotal Middle Eastern state. George extrapolates what these recent events mean for President Obama's and Israel's options in terms of Iran and the peace process.

Anyone looking to gain a leg up in the world of finance needs to understand geopolitics and foreign investments. Take a look at STRATFOR, which offers a special deal for my readers. Barron's referred to them in a cover-story profile as the "Shadow CIA," but I would say that their methodology gives them much greater accuracy than their government counterpart.

To Intelligence,
John Mauldin

An Israeli Prime Minister Comes to Washington Again

John Mauldin — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:37:00 GMT

Dear Friends –

Occasionally I need a fast answer. So I'll run a Google search, and 2.54 MILLION responses later I've learned how to handle a Thanksgiving turkey-roasting crisis but nothing useful about Turkey's financial crisis.

There's certainly no shortage of data these days. But what's in all-too-short supply is understanding. As investors, what creates opportunities isn't access to data but to ways of thinking about the world. I created Outside the Box precisely for this reason, to share with you some of the best thinkers in the world and some of the best ways to think about investments.

To understand how geopolitical events impact your investments, there's simply no one better than my friend George Friedman and his team at STRATFOR. They couple objective facts with unbiased context and analysis so you know what it all means for you. This understanding is a critical piece of my investment formula, and I strongly encourage you to click here to take advantage of a special offer that George is offering my readers.

In the meantime, take a look at this article about Israel, the U.S., and the chance for peace in the Middle East. If you've ever wondered why this conflict doesn't have a simple, Hollywood resolution, you'll be blown away by the clarity George provides.

To Understanding,
John Mauldin

An Israeli Prime Minister Comes to Washington Again

By George Friedman

Related Special Topic Page

Israeli-Palestinian Geopolitics and the Peace Process

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting Washington for his first official visit with U.S. President Barack Obama. A range of issues — including the future of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Israeli-Syrian talks and Iran policy — are on the table. This is one of an endless series of meetings between U.S. presidents and Israeli prime ministers over the years, many of which concerned these same issues. Yet little has changed.

That Israel has a new prime minister and the United States a new president might appear to make this meeting significant. But this is Netanyahu's second time as prime minister, and his government is as diverse and fractious as most recent Israeli governments. Israeli politics are in gridlock, with deep divisions along multiple fault lines and an electoral system designed to magnify disagreements.

Obama is much stronger politically, but he has consistently acted with caution, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Much of his foreign policy follows from the Bush administration. He has made no major breaks in foreign policy beyond rhetoric; his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Europe are essentially extensions of pre-existing policy. Obama faces major economic problems in the United States and clearly is not looking for major changes in foreign policy. He understands how quickly public sentiment can change, and he does not plan to take risks he does not have to take right now.

This, then, is the problem: Netanyahu is coming to Washington hoping to get Obama to agree to fundamental redefinitions of the regional dynamic. For example, he wants Obama to re-examine the commitment to a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. (Netanyahu's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said Israel is no longer bound by prior commitments to that concept.) Netanyahu also wants the United States to commit itself to a finite time frame for talks with Iran, after which unspecified but ominous-sounding actions are to be taken.

Facing a major test in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has more than enough to deal with at the moment. Moreover, U.S. presidents who get involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations frequently get sucked into a morass from which they do not return. For Netanyahu to even request that the White House devote attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem at present is asking a lot. Asking for a complete review of the peace process is even less realistic.

Obstacles to the Two-State Solution

The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons. First, at present there are two Palestinian entities, Gaza and the West Bank, which are hostile to each other. Second, the geography and economy of any Palestinian state would be so reliant on Israel that independence would be meaningless; geography simply makes the two-state proposal almost impossible to implement. Third, no Palestinian government would have the power to guarantee that rogue elements would not launch rockets at Israel, potentially striking at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, Israel's heartland. And fourth, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have the domestic political coherence to allow any negotiator to operate from a position of confidence. Whatever the two sides negotiated would be revised and destroyed by their political opponents, and even their friends.

For this reason, the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.

The Jordanians have feared and loathed Fatah in the West Bank ever since the Black September uprisings of 1970. The ruling Hashemites are ethnically different from the Palestinians (who constitute an overwhelming majority of the Jordanian population), and they fear that a Palestinian state under Fatah would threaten the Jordanian monarchy. For their part, the Egyptians see Hamas as a descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the Mubarak government's ouster — meaning Cairo would hate to see a Hamas-led state. Meanwhile, the Saudis and the other Arab states do not wish to see a radical altering of the status quo, which would likely come about with the rise of a Palestinian polity.

At the same time, whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about. Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes' interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states' challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing.

The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington. The United States must therefore simultaneously publicly demonstrate its sensitivity to pressures from these nations over the Palestinian question while being careful to achieve nothing — an easy enough goal to achieve.

The various Israeli-Palestinian peace processes have thus served U.S. and Arab interests quite well. They provide the illusion of activity, with high-level visits breathlessly reported in the media, succeeded by talks and concessions — all followed by stalemate and new rounds of violence, thus beginning the cycle all over again.

The Palestinian Peace Process as Political Theater

One of the most important proposals Netanyahu is bringing to Obama calls for reshaping the peace process. If Israeli President Shimon Peres is to be believed, Netanyahu will not back away from the two-state formula. Instead, the Israeli prime minister is asking that the various Arab state stakeholders become directly involved in the negotiations. In other words, Netanyahu is proposing that Arab states with very different public and private positions on Palestinian statehood be asked to participate — thereby forcing them to reveal publicly their true positions, ultimately creating internal political crises in the Arab states.

The clever thing about this position is that Netanyahu not only knows his request will not become a reality, but he also does not want it to become a reality. The political stability of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt is as much an Israeli interest as an American one. Indeed, Israel even wants a stable Syria, since whatever would come after the Alawite regime in Damascus would be much more dangerous to Israeli security than the current Syrian regime.

Overall, Israel is a conservative power. In terms of nation-states, it does not want upheaval; it is quite content with the current regimes in the Arab world. But Netanyahu would love to see an international conference with the Arab states roundly condemning Israel publicly. This would shore up the justification for Netanyahu's policies domestically while simultaneously creating a framework for reshaping world opinion by showing an Israel isolated among hostile states.

Obama is likely hearing through diplomatic channels from the Arab countries that they do not want to participate directly in the Palestinian peace process. And the United States really does not want them there, either. The peace process normally ends in a train wreck anyway, and Obama is in no hurry to see the wreckage. He will want to insulate other allies from the fallout, putting off the denouement of the peace process as long as possible. Obama has sent George Mitchell as his Middle East special envoy to deal with the issue, and from the U.S. president's point of view, that is quite enough attention to the problem.

Netanyahu, of course, knows all this. Part of his mission is simply convincing his ruling coalition — and particularly Lieberman, whom Netanyahu needs to survive, and who is by far Israel's most aggressive foreign minister ever — that he is committed to redefining the entire Israeli-Palestinian relationship. But in a broader context, Netanyahu is looking for greater freedom of action. By posing a demand the United States will not grant, Israel is positioning itself to ask for something that appears smaller.

Israel and the Appearance of Freedom of Action

What Israel actually would do with greater freedom of action is far less important than simply creating the appearance that the United States has endorsed Israel's ability to act in a new and unpredictable manner. From Israel's point of view, the problem with Israeli-Palestinian relations is that Israel is under severe constraints from the United States, and the Palestinians know it. This means that the Palestinians can even anticipate the application of force by Israel, meaning they can prepare for it and endure it. From Netanyahu's point of view, Israel's primary problem is that the Palestinians are confident they know what the Israelis will do. If Netanyahu can get Obama to introduce a degree of ambiguity into the situation, Israel could regain the advantage of uncertainty.

The problem for Netanyahu is that Washington is not interested in having anything unpredictable happen in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The United States is quite content with the current situation, particularly while Iraq becomes more stable and the Afghan situation remains unstable. Obama does not want a crisis from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush. The fact that Netanyahu has a political coalition to satisfy will not interest the United States, and while Washington at some unspecified point might endorse a peace conference, it will not be until Israel and its foreign minister endorse the two-state formula.

Netanyahu will then shift to another area where freedom of action is relevant — namely, Iran. The Israelis have leaked to the Israeli media that the Obama administration has told them that Israel may not attack Iran without U.S. permission, and that Israel agreed to this requirement. (U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went through the same routine not too long ago, using a good cop/bad cop act in a bid to kick-start negotiations with Iran.)

In reality, Israel would have a great deal of difficulty attacking Iranian facilities with non-nuclear forces. A multitarget campaign 1,000 miles away against an enemy with some air defenses could be a long and complex operation. Such a raid would require a long trip through U.S.-controlled airspace for the fairly small Israeli air force. Israel could use cruise missiles, but the tonnage of high explosive delivered by a cruise missile cannot penetrate even moderately hardened structures; the same is true for ICBMs carrying conventional warheads. Israel would have to notify the United States of its intentions because it would be passing through Iraqi airspace — and because U.S. technical intelligence would know what it was up to before Israeli aircraft even took off. The idea that Israel might consider attacking Iran without informing Washington is therefore absurd on the surface. Even so, the story has surfaced yet again in an Israeli newspaper in a virtual carbon copy of stories published more than a year ago.

Netanyahu has promised that the endless stalemate with the Palestinians will not be allowed to continue. He also knows that whatever happens, Israel cannot threaten the stability of Arab states that are by and large uninterested in the Palestinians. He also understands that in the long run, Israel's freedom of action is defined by the United States, not by Israel. His electoral platform and his strategic realities have never aligned. Arguably, it might be in the Israeli interest that the status quo be disrupted, but it is not in the American interest. Netanyahu therefore will get to redefine neither the Palestinian situation nor the Iranian situation. Israel simply lacks the power to impose the reality it wants, the current constellation of Arab regimes it needs, and the strategic relationship with the United States on which Israeli national security rests.

In the end, this is a classic study in the limits of power. Israel can have its freedom of action anytime it is willing to pay the price for it. But Israel can't pay the price. Netanyahu is coming to Washington to see if he can get what he wants without paying the price, and we suspect strongly he knows he won't get it. His problem is the same as that of the Arab states. There are many in Israel, particularly among Netanyahu's supporters, who believe Israel is a great power. It isn't. It is a nation that is strong partly because it lives in a pretty weak neighborhood, and partly because it has very strong friends. Many Israelis don't want to be told that, and Netanyahu came to office playing on the sense of Israeli national power.

So the peace process will continue, no one will expect anything from it, the Palestinians will remain isolated and wars regularly will break out. The only advantage of this situation from the U.S. point of view it is that it is preferable to all other available realities.

The Geopolitics of Pandemics

John Mauldin — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:55:12 GMT

Dear Friends -

If you ever look at the footnotes, you know that "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." That said, by the time you've gotten a bit of gray hair, you realize that there are few teachers as good as history. "But this time it's different!" is the cry of people that are usually just about to lose a bunch of money.

Read the analysis below from my good friend George Friedman at STRATFOR on the latest new thing, the swine flu outbreak. A few points you ought to take away with you:

while the situation is serious, it's not cause to become hysterical or irrational
the way to evaluate the current threat is by benchmarking it against similar historical events
and as investors, if we don't look outside the worlds of finance and economics, we can get painfully blindsided

These three points are precisely why I incorporate STRATFOR insights into my investment planning. STRATFOR provides the narrative of the future by studying the past. Those of you that got to visit with George in La Jolla know what I'm talking about. If you're looking for context and understanding of tomorrow's global events - and if you're not, you're really in trouble! - I heartily suggest you click here to take advantage of the special offer that George makes available to my readers for a STRATFOR Membership.

There aren't any guarantees in life. But there are good, solid principles that you ignore at your peril. That "there's nothing new under the sun" is a lesson to take to heart.

Your Gray(ing) Eminence Analyst,
John Mauldin

The Geopolitics of Pandemics

By George Friedman

May 4, 2009

Related Special Topic Page - Swine Flu Outbreak 2009

Word began to flow out of Mexico the weekend before last of well over 150 deaths suspected to have been caused by a new strain of influenza commonly referred to as swine flu. Scientists who examined the flu announced that this was a new strain of Influenza A (H1N1) derived partly from swine flu, partly from human flu and partly from avian flu strains (although there is some question as to whether this remains true). The two bits of information released in succession created a global panic.

This panic had three elements. The first related to the global nature of this disease, given that flus spread easily and modern transportation flows mean containment is impossible. Second, there were concerns (including our own) that this flu would have a high mortality rate. And third, the panic centered on the mere fact that this disease was the flu.

News of this new strain triggered memories of the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, sparking fears that the "Spanish flu" that struck at the end of World War I would be repeated. In addition, the scare over avian flu created a sense of foreboding about influenza — a sense that a catastrophic outbreak was imminent.

By midweek, the disease was being reported around the world. It became clear that the disease was spreading, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Phase 5 pandemic alert. A Phase 5 alert (the last step before a pandemic is actually, officially declared, a step that may be taken within the next couple of days) means that a global pandemic is imminent, and that the virus has proved capable of sustained human-to-human transmission and infecting geographically disparate populations. But this is not a measure of lethality, only communicability, and pandemics are not limited to the deadliest diseases.

'Pandemic,' not 'Duck and Cover'

To the medical mind, the word "pandemic" denotes a disease occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population. The term in no way addresses the underlying seriousness of the disease in the sense of its wider impact on society. The problem is that most people are not physicians. When the WHO convenes a press conference carried by every network in the world, the declaration of a level 5 pandemic connotes global calamity, even as statements from experts — and governments around the world — attempt to walk the line between calming public fears and preparing for the worst.

The reason to prepare for the worst was because this was a pandemic with an extremely unclear prognosis, and about which reliable information was in short supply. Indeed, the new strain could mutate into a more lethal form and re-emerge in the fall for the 2009-2010 flu season. There are also concerns about how its victims disproportionately are healthy young adults under 45 years of age — which was reported in the initial information out of Mexico, and has been reported as an observed factor in the cases that have popped up in the United States. This was part of the 1918 flu pandemic pattern as well. (In contrast, seasonal influenza is most deadly among the elderly and young children with weaker immune systems.)

But as the days wore on last week, the swine flu began to look like little more than ordinary flu. Toward the end of the week, a startling fact began to emerge: While there were more than a hundred deaths in Mexico suspected of being caused by the new strain, only about 20 (a number that has increased slightly after being revised downward earlier last week) have been confirmed as being linked to the new virus. And there has not been a single death from the disease reported anywhere else in the world, save that of a Mexican child transported to the United States for better care. Indeed, even in Mexico, the country's health minister declared the disease to be past its peak May 3. STRATFOR sources involved in examining the strain have also suggested that the initial analysis of the swine flu was in fact in error, and that the swine flu may have originated during a 1998 outbreak in a pig farm in North Carolina. This information reopens the question of what killed the individuals whose deaths were attributed to swine flu.

While little is understood about the specifics of this new strain, influenza in general has a definitive pattern. It is a virus that affects the respiratory system, and particularly the lungs. At its deadliest it can cause secondary infections — typically bacterial rather than viral — leading to pneumonia. In the most virulent forms of influenza, it is the speed with which complications strike that drives death rates higher. Additionally, substantively new strains (as swine flu is suspected of being) can be distinct enough from other strains of flu that pre-existing immunity gained from flus of years past does not help fend off the latest variation.

Influenza is not a disease that lingers and then kills people — save the sick, old and very young, whose immune systems are more easily compromised. Roughly half a million people (largely from these groups) die annually worldwide from more common strains of influenza, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pegging average American deaths at roughly 36,000 per year.

Swine flu deaths have not risen as would be expected at this point for a highly contagious and lethal new strain of influenza. In most cases, victims have experienced little more than a bad cold, from which they are recovering. And infections outside Mexico so far have not been severe. This distinction of clear cases of death in Mexico and none elsewhere (again, save the one U.S. case) is stark.

Much of what has occurred in the last week regarding the new virus reminds us of the bird flu scare of 2005. Then as now, the commonly held belief was that a deadly strain was about to be let loose on humanity. Then as now, many governments were heightening concerns rather than quelling them. Then as now, STRATFOR saw only a very small chance of the situation becoming problematic.

Ultimately, by the end of last week it had become clear to the global public that "pandemic" could refer to bad colds as well as to plagues wiping out millions.

A Real Crisis

The recent swine flu experience raises the question of how one would attempt to grapple with a genuine high-mortality pandemic with major consequences. The answer divides into two parts: how to control the spread, and how to deploy treatments.

Communicability

The flu virus is widely present in two species other than humans, namely, birds and pigs. The history of the disease is the history of its transmission within and across these three species. It is comparatively easy for the disease to transmit from swine to birds and from swine to humans; the bird-to-human barrier is the most difficult to cross.

Cross-species influenza is of particular concern. In the simplest terms, viruses are able to recombine (e.g., human flu and avian flu can merge into a hybrid flu strain). What comes out can be a flu transmissible to humans, but with a physical form that is distinctly avian — meaning it fails to alert human immune systems to the intrusion. This can rob the human immune system of the ability to quickly recognize the disease and put up a fight.

New humanly transmissible influenza strains often have been found to originate in places where humans, pigs and/or fowl live in close proximity to each other — particularly in agricultural areas where animal and human habitation is shared or in which constant, close physical contact takes place.

Agricultural areas of Asia with dense populations, relatively small farms and therefore frequent and prolonged contact between species traditionally have been the areas in which influenza strains have transferred from animals to humans and then mutated into diseases transmissible by casual human contact. Indeed, these areas have been the focus of concern over a potential outbreak of bird flu. This time around, the outbreak began in Mexico (though it is not yet clear where the virus itself originated).

And this is key to understanding this flu. Because it appears relatively mild, it might well have been around for quite awhile — giving people mild influenza, but not standing out as a new variety until it hit Mexico. The simultaneous discovery of the strain amid a series of deaths (and what may now be in hindsight inflated concerns about its lethality) led to the recent crisis footing.

Any time such threats are recognized, they already are beyond containment. Given travel patterns in the world today, viruses move easily to new locations well before they are identified in the first place they strike. The current virus is a case in point. It appears, although it is far from certain, that it originated in the Veracruz area of Mexico. Within two days of the Mexican government having issued a health alert, it already had spread as far afield as New Zealand. One week on, cases completely unrelated to Mexico have already been confirmed on five continents.

In all probability, this "spread" was less the discovery of new areas of infection than the random discovery of areas that might have been infected for weeks or even months (though the obvious first people to test were those who had recently returned from Mexico with flu symptoms). Given the apparent mildness of the infection, most people would not go to the doctor. And if they did, the doctor would call it generic flu and not even concern himself with its type. What happened last week appears to have been less the spread of a new influenza virus than the "discovery" of places to which it had spread awhile ago.

The problem with the new variety was not that it was so deadly; had it actually been as uniquely deadly as it first appeared to be, there would have been no mistaking its arrival, because hospitals would be overflowing. It was precisely its mildness that sparked the search. But because of expectations established in the wake of the Mexico deaths, the discovery of new cases was disassociated from its impact. Its presence alone caused panic, with schools closing and border closings discussed.

The virus traveled faster than news of the virus. When the news of the virus finally caught up with the virus, the global perception was shaped by a series of deaths suddenly recognized in Mexico (as mentioned, deaths so far not seen elsewhere). But even as the Mexican Health Ministry begins to consider the virus beyond its peak, the potential for mutation and a more virulent strain in the next flu season looms.

Mortality

As mentioned, viruses that spread through casual human contact can be globally established before anyone knows of it. The first sign of a really significant influenza pandemic will not come from the medical community or the WHO; it will come from the fact that people are catching influenza and dying, and are doing so all over the world at the same time. The system established for detecting spreading diseases is hardwired to be behind the curve. This is not because it is inefficient, but because no matter how efficient, it cannot block casual contact — which, given modern air transportation, spreads diseases globally in a matter of days or even hours.

Therefore, the problem is not the detection of deadly pandemics, simply because they cannot be missed. Rather, the problem is reacting medically to deadly pandemics. One danger is overreacting to every pandemic and thereby breaking the system. (As of this writing, the CDC remained deeply concerned about swine flu, though calm seems to be returning.)

The other danger is not reacting rapidly enough. In the case of influenza, medical steps can be taken. First, there are anti-viral medicines found to be effective against the new strain, and if sufficient stockpiles exist — which is hardly universally the case, especially in the developing world — and those stockpiles can be administered early enough, the course of the disease can be mitigated. Second, since most people die from secondary infection in the lungs, antibiotics can be administered. Unlike with the 1918 pandemic, the mortality rate can be dramatically reduced.

The problem here is logistical: The distribution and effective administration of medications is a challenge. Producing enough of the medication is one problem; it takes months to craft, grow and produce a new vaccine, and the flu vaccine is tailored every year to deal with the three most dangerous strains of flu. Another problem is moving the medication to areas where it is needed in an environment that maintains its effectiveness. Equally important is the existence of infrastructure and medical staff capable of diagnosing, administering and supporting patients — and doing so on a scale never before attempted.

These things will not be done effectively on a global basis. That is inevitable. But influenza, even at the highest death rates ever recorded for the disease, does not threaten human existence as we know it. At its worst, flu will kill a lot of people, but the human race and the international order will survive.

The true threat to humanity, if it ever comes, will not come from influenza. Rather, it will come from a disease spread through casual human contact, but with a higher mortality rate than flu and no clear treatment. While HIV/AIDS boasts an extraordinarily high mortality rate and no cure exists, it at least does not spread through casual contact as influenza does, and so the pace at which it can spread is limited.

Humanity will survive the worst that influenza can throw at it even without intervention. With modern intervention, its effect declines dramatically. But the key problem of pandemics was revealed in this case: The virus spread well before information on it spread. Detection and communication lagged. That did not matter in this case, and it did not matter in the case of HIV/AIDS, because the latter was a disease that did not spread through casual contact. However, should a disease arise that is as deadly as HIV, that spreads through casual contact, about which there is little knowledge and for which there is no cure, the medical capabilities of humanity would be virtually useless.

There are problems to which there are no solutions. Fortunately, these problems may not arise. But if they do, no amount of helpful public service announcements from the CDC and the WHO will make the slightest bit of difference.

On Energy Production and US Intelligence Failures

John Mauldin — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:36:46 GMT

I send you Outside the Box each week not to make you comfortable but to make you think. Usually it is on some financial topic, but life is more than investments. Economics is not an isolated discipline (more like an art form I think) so we have to have a real understanding of the world around us. This week I offer two essays which made me both think and reflect. We live in a world which wants easy solutions to complex problems, and wish as we may, will not get easy solutions which will work.

The first essay is by Pewter Huber on the reality of energy production. We all want to be able to "go green." How realistic is that? The second is by my friend George Friedman on torture and US intelligence failures.

Peter Huber is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and the coauthor, most recently, of The Bottomless Well. His article develops arguments that he made in an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate in January. George is well known to OTB readers. He is president of Stratfor and was with the CIA (as was his wife Meredith) before they founded Stratfor, what I think of as the premier private intelligence agency in the world.

I suggest you put on your thinking caps and take some time to read both of these very important essays, and enjoy your week. I am off to Orlando and the CFA conference.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Bound to Burn

Humanity will keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere, but good policy can help sink it back into the earth.

By Peter W. Huber

Like medieval priests, today's carbon brokers will sell you an indulgence that forgives your carbon sins. It will run you about $500 for 5 tons of forgiveness -- about how much the typical American needs every year. Or about $2,000 a year for a typical four-person household. Your broker will spend the money on such things as reducing methane emissions from hog farms in Brazil.

But if you really want to make a difference, you must send a check large enough to forgive the carbon emitted by four poor Brazilian households, too -- because they're not going to do it themselves. To cover all five households, then, send $4,000. And you probably forgot to send in a check last year, and you might forget again in the future, so you'd best make it an even $40,000, to take care of a decade right now. If you decline to write your own check while insisting that to save the world we must ditch the carbon, you are just burdening your already sooty soul with another ton of self-righteous hypocrisy. And you can't possibly afford what it will cost to forgive that.

If making carbon this personal seems rude, then think globally instead. During the presidential race, Barack Obama was heard to remark that he would bankrupt the coal industry. No one can doubt Washington's power to bankrupt almost anything -- in the United States. But China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electrical capacity a year. That's another whole United States' worth of coal consumption added every three years, with no stopping point in sight. Much of the rest of the developing world is on a similar path.

Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions -- because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.

We don't control the global supply of carbon.

Ten countries ruled by nasty people control 80 percent of the planet's oil reserves -- about 1 trillion barrels, currently worth about $40 trillion. If $40 trillion worth of gold were located where most of the oil is, one could only scoff at any suggestion that we might somehow persuade the nasty people to leave the wealth buried. They can lift most of their oil at a cost well under $10 a barrel. They will drill. They will pump. And they will find buyers. Oil is all they've got.

Poor countries all around the planet are sitting on a second, even bigger source of carbon -- almost a trillion tons of cheap, easily accessible coal. They also control most of the planet's third great carbon reservoir -- the rain forests and soil. They will keep squeezing the carbon out of cheap coal, and cheap forest, and cheap soil, because that's all they've got. Unless they can find something even cheaper. But they won't -- not any time in the foreseeable future.

We no longer control the demand for carbon, either. The 5 billion poor -- the other 80 percent -- are already the main problem, not us. Collectively, they emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do. We burn a lot more carbon individually, but they have a lot more children. Their fecundity has eclipsed our gluttony, and the gap is now widening fast. China, not the United States, is now the planet's largest emitter. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and others are in hot pursuit. And these countries have all made it clear that they aren't interested in spending what money they have on low-carb diets. It is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved -- decades hence -- at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn't signed on to pay more than 0 percent.

Accepting this last, self-evident fact, the Kyoto Protocol divides the world into two groups. The roughly 1.2 billion citizens of industrialized countries are expected to reduce their emissions. The other 5 billion -- including both China and India, each of which is about as populous as the entire Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development -- aren't. These numbers alone guarantee that humanity isn't going to reduce global emissions at any point in the foreseeable future -- unless it does it the old-fashioned way, by getting poorer. But the current recession won't last forever, and the long-term trend is clear. Their populations and per-capita emissions are rising far faster than ours could fall under any remotely plausible carbon-reduction scheme.

Might we simply buy their cooperation? Various plans have circulated for having the rich pay the poor to stop burning down rain forests and to lower greenhouse-gas emissions from primitive agricultural practices. But taking control of what belongs to someone else ultimately means buying it. Over the long term, we would in effect have to buy up a large fraction of all the world's forests, soil, coal, and oil -- and then post guards to make sure that poor people didn't sneak in and grab all the carbon anyway. Buying off people just doesn't fly when they outnumber you four to one.

Might we instead manage to give the world something cheaper than carbon? The moon-shot law of economics says yes, of course we can. If we just put our minds to it, it will happen. Atom bomb, moon landing, ultracheap energy -- all it takes is a triumph of political will.

Really? For the very poorest, this would mean beating the price of the free rain forest that they burn down to clear land to plant a subsistence crop. For the slightly less poor, it would mean beating the price of coal used to generate electricity at under 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

And with one important exception, which we will return to shortly, no carbon-free fuel or technology comes remotely close to being able to do that. Fossil fuels are extremely cheap because geological forces happen to have created large deposits of these dense forms of energy in accessible places. Find a mountain of coal, and you can just shovel gargantuan amounts of energy into the boxcars.

Shoveling wind and sun is much, much harder. Windmills are now 50-story skyscrapers. Yet one windmill generates a piddling 2 to 3 megawatts. A jumbo jet needs 100 megawatts to get off the ground; Google is building 100-megawatt server farms. Meeting New York City's total energy demand would require 13,000 of those skyscrapers spinning at top speed, which would require scattering about 50,000 of them across the state, to make sure that you always hit enough windy spots. To answer the howls of green protest that inevitably greet realistic engineering estimates like these, note that real-world systems must be able to meet peak, not average, demand; that reserve margins are essential; and that converting electric power into liquid or gaseous fuels to power the existing transportation and heating systems would entail substantial losses. What was Mayor Bloomberg thinking when he suggested that he might just tuck windmills into Manhattan? Such thoughts betray a deep ignorance about how difficult it is to get a lot of energy out of sources as thin and dilute as wind and sun.

It's often suggested that technology improvements and mass production will sharply lower the cost of wind and solar. But engineers have pursued these technologies for decades, and while costs of some components have fallen, there is no serious prospect of costs plummeting and performance soaring as they have in our laptops and cell phones. When you replace conventional with renewable energy, everything gets bigger, not smaller -- and bigger costs more, not less. Even if solar cells themselves were free, solar power would remain very expensive because of the huge structures and support systems required to extract large amounts of electricity from a source so weak that it takes hours to deliver a tan.

This is why the (few) greens ready to accept engineering and economic reality have suddenly emerged as avid proponents of nuclear power. In the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident -- which didn't harm anyone, and wouldn't even have damaged the reactor core if the operators had simply kept their hands off the switches and let the automatic safety systems do their job -- ostensibly green antinuclear activists unwittingly boosted U.S. coal consumption by about 400 million tons per year. The United States would be in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol today if we could simply undo their handiwork and conjure back into existence the nuclear plants that were in the pipeline in nuclear power's heyday. Nuclear power is fantastically compact, and -- as America's nuclear navy, several commercial U.S. operators, France, Japan, and a handful of other countries have convincingly established -- it's both safe and cheap wherever engineers are allowed to get on with it.

But getting on with it briskly is essential, because costs hinge on the huge, up-front capital investment in the power plant. Years of delay between the capital investment and when it starts earning a return are ruinous. Most of the developed world has made nuclear power unaffordable by surrounding it with a regulatory process so sluggish and unpredictable that no one will pour a couple of billion dollars into a new plant, for the good reason that no one knows when (or even if) the investment will be allowed to start making money.

And countries that don't trust nuclear power on their own soil must hesitate to share the technology with countries where you never know who will be in charge next year, or what he might decide to do with his nuclear toys. So much for the possibility that cheap nuclear power might replace carbon-spewing sources of energy in the developing world. Moreover, even India and China, which have mastered nuclear technologies, are deploying far more new coal capacity.

Remember, finally, that most of the cost of carbon-based energy resides not in the fuels but in the gigantic infrastructure of furnaces, turbines, and engines. Those costs are sunk, which means that carbon-free alternatives -- with their own huge, attendant, front-end capital costs -- must be cheap enough to beat carbon fuels that already have their infrastructure in place. That won't happen in our lifetimes.

Another argument commonly advanced is that getting over carbon will, nevertheless, be comparatively cheap, because it will get us over oil, too -- which will impoverish our enemies and save us a bundle at the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. But uranium aside, the most economical substitute for oil is, in fact, electricity generated with coal. Cheap coal-fired electricity has been, is, and will continue to be a substitute for oil, or a substitute for natural gas, which can in turn substitute for oil. By sharply boosting the cost of coal electricity, the war on carbon will make us more dependent on oil, not less.

The first place where coal displaces oil is in the electric power plant itself. When oil prices spiked in the early 1980s, U.S. utilities quickly switched to other fuels, with coal leading the pack; the coal-fired plants now being built in China, India, and other developing countries are displacing diesel generators. More power plants burning coal to produce cheap electricity can also mean less natural gas used to generate electricity. And less used for industrial, commercial, and residential heating, welding, and chemical processing, as these users switch to electrically powered alternatives. The gas that's freed up this way can then substitute for diesel fuel in heavy trucks, delivery vehicles, and buses. And coal-fired electricity will eventually begin displacing gasoline, too, as soon as plug-in hybrid cars start recharging their batteries directly from the grid.

To top it all, using electricity generated in large part by coal to power our passenger cars would lower carbon emissions -- even in Indiana, which generates 75 percent of its electricity with coal. Big power plants are so much more efficient than the gasoline engines in our cars that a plug-in hybrid car running on electricity supplied by Indiana's current grid still ends up more carbon-frugal than comparable cars burning gasoline in a conventional engine under the hood. Old-guard energy types have been saying this for decades. In a major report released last March, the World Wildlife Fund finally concluded that they were right all along.

But true carbon zealots won't settle for modest reductions in carbon emissions when fat targets beckon. They see coal-fired electricity as the dragon to slay first. Huge, stationary sources can't run or hide, and the cost of doing without them doesn't get rung up in plain view at the gas pump. California, Pennsylvania, and other greener-than-thou states have made flatlining electricity consumption the linchpin of their war on carbon. That is the one certain way to halt the displacement of foreign oil by cheap, domestic electricity.

The oil-coal economics come down to this. Per unit of energy delivered, coal costs about one-fifth as much as oil -- but contains one-third more carbon. High carbon taxes (or tradable permits, or any other economic equivalent) sharply narrow the price gap between oil and the one fuel that can displace it worldwide, here and now. The oil nasties will celebrate the green war on carbon as enthusiastically as the coal industry celebrated the green war on uranium 30 years ago.

The other 5 billion are too poor to deny these economic realities. For them, the price to beat is 3-cent coal-fired electricity. China and India won't trade 3-cent coal for 15-cent wind or 30-cent solar. As for us, if we embrace those economically frivolous alternatives on our own, we will certainly end up doing more harm than good.

By pouring money into anything-but-carbon fuels, we will lower demand for carbon, making it even cheaper for the rest of the world to buy and burn. The rest will use cheaper energy to accelerate their own economic growth. Jobs will go where energy is cheap, just as they go where labor is cheap. Manufacturing and heavy industry require a great deal of energy, and in a global economy, no competitor can survive while paying substantially more for an essential input. The carbon police acknowledge the problem and talk vaguely of using tariffs and such to address it. But carbon is far too deeply embedded in the global economy, and materials, goods, and services move and intermingle far too freely, for the customs agents to track.

Consider your next Google search. As noted in a recent article in Harper's, "Google . . . and its rivals now head abroad for cheaper, often dirtier power." Google itself (the "don't be evil" company) is looking to set up one of its electrically voracious server farms at a site in Lithuania, "disingenuously described as being near a hydroelectric dam." But Lithuania's grid is 0.5 percent hydroelectric and 78 percent nuclear. Perhaps the company's next huge farm will be "near" the Three Gorges Dam in China, built to generate over three times as much power as our own Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State. China will be happy to play along, while it quietly plugs another coal plant into its grid a few pylons down the line. All the while, of course, Google will maintain its low-energy headquarters in California, a state that often boasts of the wise regulatory policies -- centered, one is told, on efficiency and conservation -- that have made it such a frugal energy user. But in fact, sky-high prices have played the key role, curbing internal demand and propelling the flight from California of power plants, heavy industries, chip fabs, server farms, and much else (see "California's Potemkin Environmentalism," Spring 2008).

So the suggestion that we can lift ourselves out of the economic doldrums by spending lavishly on exceptionally expensive new sources of energy is absurd. "Green jobs" means Americans paying other Americans to chase carbon while the rest of the world builds new power plants and factories. And the environmental consequences of outsourcing jobs, industries, and carbon to developing countries are beyond dispute. They use energy far less efficiently than we do, and they remain almost completely oblivious to environmental impacts, just as we were in our own first century of industrialization. A massive transfer of carbon, industry, and jobs from us to them will raise carbon emissions, not lower them.

The grand theory for how the developed world can unilaterally save the planet seems to run like this. We buy time for the planet by rapidly slashing our own emissions. We do so by developing carbon-free alternatives even cheaper than carbon. The rest of the world will then quickly adopt these alternatives, leaving most of its trillion barrels of oil and trillion tons of coal safely buried, most of the rain forests standing, and most of the planet's carbon-rich soil undisturbed. From end to end, however, this vision strains credulity.

Perhaps it's the recognition of that inconvenient truth that has made the anti-carbon rhetoric increasingly apocalyptic. Coal trains have been analogized to boxcars headed for Auschwitz. There is talk of the extinction of all humanity. But then, we have heard such things before. It is indeed quite routine, in environmental discourse, to frame choices as involving potentially infinite costs on the green side of the ledger. If they really are infinite, no reasonable person can quibble about spending mere billions, or even trillions, on the dollar side, to dodge the apocalyptic bullet.

Thirty years ago, the case against nuclear power was framed as the "Zero-Infinity Dilemma." The risks of a meltdown might be vanishingly small, but if it happened, the costs would be infinitely large, so we should forget about uranium. Computer models demonstrated that meltdowns were highly unlikely and that the costs of a meltdown, should one occur, would be manageable -- but greens scoffed: huge computer models couldn't be trusted. So we ended up burning much more coal. The software shoe is on the other foot now; the machines that said nukes wouldn't melt now say that the ice caps will. Warming skeptics scoff in turn, and can quite plausibly argue that a planet is harder to model than a nuclear reactor. But that's a detail. From a rhetorical perspective, any claim that the infinite, the apocalypse, or the Almighty supports your side of the argument shuts down all further discussion.

To judge by actions rather than words, however, few people and almost no national governments actually believe in the infinite rewards of exorcising carbon from economic life. Kyoto has hurt the anti-carbon mission far more than carbon zealots seem to grasp. It has proved only that with carbon, governments will say and sign anything -- and then do less than nothing. The United States should steer well clear of such treaties because they are unenforceable, routinely ignored, and therefore worthless.

If we're truly worried about carbon, we must instead approach it as if the emissions originated in an annual eruption of Mount Krakatoa. Don't try to persuade the volcano to sign a treaty promising to stop. Focus instead on what might be done to protect and promote the planet's carbon sinks -- the systems that suck carbon back out of the air and bury it. Green plants currently pump 15 to 20 times as much carbon out of the atmosphere as humanity releases into it -- that's the pump that put all that carbon underground in the first place, millions of years ago. At present, almost all of that plant-captured carbon is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by animal consumers. North America, however, is currently sinking almost two-thirds of its carbon emissions back into prairies and forests that were originally leveled in the 1800s but are now recovering. For the next 50 years or so, we should focus on promoting better land use and reforestation worldwide. Beyond that, weather and the oceans naturally sink about one-fifth of total fossil-fuel emissions. We should also investigate large-scale options for accelerating the process of ocean sequestration.

Carbon zealots despise carbon-sinking schemes because, they insist, nobody can be sure that the sunk carbon will stay sunk. Yet everything they propose hinges on the assumption that carbon already sunk by nature in what are now hugely valuable deposits of oil and coal can be kept sunk by treaty and imaginary cheaper-than-carbon alternatives. This, yet again, gets things backward. We certainly know how to improve agriculture to protect soil, and how to grow new trees, and how to maintain existing forests, and we can almost certainly learn how to mummify carbon and bury it back in the earth or the depths of the oceans, in ways that neither man nor nature will disturb. It's keeping nature's black gold sequestered from humanity that's impossible.

If we do need to do something serious about carbon, the sequestration of carbon after it's burned is the one approach that accepts the growth of carbon emissions as an inescapable fact of the twenty-first century. And it's the one approach that the rest of the world can embrace, too, here and now, because it begins with improving land use, which can lead directly and quickly to greater prosperity. If, on the other hand, we persist in building green bridges to nowhere, we will make things worse, not better. Good intentions aren't enough. Turned into ineffectual action, they can cost the earth and accelerate its ruin at the same time.

And now to George Friedman:

Torture and the U.S. Intelligence Failure

By George Friedman

The Obama administration published a series of memoranda on torture issued under the Bush administration. The memoranda, most of which dated from the period after 9/11, authorized measures including depriving prisoners of solid food, having them stand shackled and in uncomfortable positions, leaving them in cold cells with inadequate clothing, slapping their heads and/or abdomens, and telling them that their families might be harmed if they didn't cooperate with their interrogators.

On the scale of human cruelty, these actions do not rise anywhere near the top. At the same time, anyone who thinks that being placed without food in a freezing cell subject to random mild beatings -- all while being told that your family might be joining you -- isn't agonizing clearly lacks imagination. The treatment of detainees could have been worse. It was terrible nonetheless.

Torture and the Intelligence Gap

But torture is meant to be terrible, and we must judge the torturer in the context of his own desperation. In the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn't terrified was not in touch with reality. We know several people who now are quite blasé about 9/11. Unfortunately for them, we knew them in the months after, and they were not nearly as composed then as they are now.

Sept. 11 was terrifying for one main reason: We had little idea about al Qaeda's capabilities. It was a very reasonable assumption that other al Qaeda cells were operating in the United States and that any day might bring follow-on attacks. (Especially given the group's reputation for one-two attacks.) We still remember our first flight after 9/11, looking at our fellow passengers, planning what we would do if one of them moved. Every time a passenger visited the lavatory, one could see the tensions soar.

And while Sept. 11 was frightening enough, there were ample fears that al Qaeda had secured a "suitcase bomb" and that a nuclear attack on a major U.S. city could come at any moment. For individuals, such an attack was simply another possibility. We remember staying at a hotel in Washington close to the White House and realizing that we were at ground zero -- and imagining what the next moment might be like. For the government, however, the problem was having scraps of intelligence indicating that al Qaeda might have a nuclear weapon, but not having any way of telling whether those scraps had any value. The president and vice president accordingly were continually kept at different locations, and not for any frivolous reason.

This lack of intelligence led directly to the most extreme fears, which in turn led to extreme measures. Washington simply did not know very much about al Qaeda and its capabilities and intentions in the United States. A lack of knowledge forces people to think of worst-case scenarios. In the absence of intelligence to the contrary after 9/11, the only reasonable assumption was that al Qaeda was planning more -- and perhaps worse -- attacks.

Collecting intelligence rapidly became the highest national priority. Given the genuine and reasonable fears, no action in pursuit of intelligence was out of the question, so long as it promised quick answers. This led to the authorization of torture, among other things. Torture offered a rapid means to accumulate intelligence, or at least -- given the time lag on other means -- it was something that had to be tried.

Torture and the Moral Question

And this raises the moral question. The United States is a moral project: its Declaration of Independence and Constitution state that. The president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." This indicates that world opinion matters.

At the same time, the president is sworn to protect the Constitution. In practical terms, this means protecting the physical security of the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Protecting the principles of the declaration and the Constitution are meaningless without regime preservation and defending the nation.

While this all makes for an interesting seminar in political philosophy, presidents -- and others who have taken the same oath -- do not have the luxury of the contemplative life. They must act on their oaths, and inaction is an action. Former U.S. President George W. Bush knew that he did not know the threat, and that in order to carry out his oath, he needed very rapidly to find out the threat. He could not know that torture would work, but he clearly did not feel that he had the right to avoid it.

Consider this example. Assume you knew that a certain individual knew the location of a nuclear device planted in an American city. The device would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but he individual refused to divulge the information. Would anyone who had sworn the oath have the right not to torture the individual? Torture might or might not work, but either way, would it be moral to protect the individual's rights while allowing hundreds of thousands to die? It would seem that in this case, torture is a moral imperative; the rights of the one with the information cannot transcend the life of a city.

Torture in the Real World

But here is the problem: You would not find yourself in this situation. Knowing a bomb had been planted, knowing who knew that the bomb had been planted, and needing only to apply torture to extract this information is not how the real world works. Post-9/11, the United States knew much less about the extent of the threat from al Qaeda. This hypothetical sort of torture was not the issue.

Discrete information was not needed, but situational awareness. The United States did not know what it needed to know, it did not know who was of value and who wasn't, and it did not know how much time it had. Torture thus was not a precise solution to a specific problem: It became an intelligence-gathering technique. The nature of the problem the United States faced forced it into indiscriminate intelligence gathering. When you don't know what you need to know, you cast a wide net. And when torture is included in the mix, it is cast wide as well. In such a case, you know you will be following many false leads -- and when you carry torture with you, you will be torturing people with little to tell you. Moreover, torture applied by anyone other than well-trained, experienced personnel (who are in exceptionally short supply) will only compound these problems, and make the practice less productive.

Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt. The problem is that unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all. Torture thus becomes not only a waste of time and a violation of decency, it actually undermines good intelligence. After a while, scooping up suspects in a dragnet and trying to extract intelligence becomes a substitute for competent intelligence techniques -- and can potentially blind the intelligence service. This is especially true as people will tell you what they think you want to hear to make torture stop.

Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks. They assume that to the extent that torture was useful, it was not essential; that there were other ways to find out what was needed. In the long run, they might have been correct. But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn't known was how much time there was.

The U.S. Intelligence Failure

The endless argument over torture, the posturing of both critics and defenders, misses the crucial point. The United States turned to torture because it has experienced a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade. The U.S. intelligence community simply failed to gather sufficient information on al Qaeda's intentions, capability, organization and personnel. The use of torture was not part of a competent intelligence effort, but a response to a massive intelligence failure.

That failure was rooted in a range of miscalculations over time. There was the public belief that the end of the Cold War meant the United States didn't need a major intelligence effort, a point made by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan. There were the intelligence people who regarded Afghanistan as old news. There was the Torricelli amendment that made recruiting people with ties to terrorist groups illegal without special approval. There were the Middle East experts who could not understand that al Qaeda was fundamentally different from anything seen before. The list of the guilty is endless, and ultimately includes the American people, who always seem to believe that the view of the world as a dangerous place is something made up by contractors and bureaucrats.

Bush was handed an impossible situation on Sept. 11, after just nine months in office. The country demanded protection, and given the intelligence shambles he inherited, he reacted about as well or badly as anyone else might have in the situation. He used the tools he had, and hoped they were good enough.

The problem with torture -- as with other exceptional measures -- is that it is useful, at best, in extraordinary situations. The problem with all such techniques in the hands of bureaucracies is that the extraordinary in due course becomes the routine, and torture as a desperate stopgap measure becomes a routine part of the intelligence interrogator's tool kit.

At a certain point, the emergency was over. U.S. intelligence had focused itself and had developed an increasingly coherent picture of al Qaeda, with the aid of allied Muslim intelligence agencies, and was able to start taking a toll on al Qaeda. The war had become routinized, and extraordinary measures were no longer essential. But the routinization of the extraordinary is the built-in danger of bureaucracy, and what began as a response to unprecedented dangers became part of the process. Bush had an opportunity to move beyond the emergency. He didn't.

If you know that an individual is loaded with information, torture can be a useful tool. But if you have so much intelligence that you already know enough to identify the individual is loaded with information, then you have come pretty close to winning the intelligence war. That's not when you use torture. That's when you simply point out to the prisoner that, "for you the war is over." You lay out all you already know and how much you know about him. That is as demoralizing as freezing in a cell -- and helps your interrogators keep their balance.

U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible. He has published the memos authorizing torture to make this entirely a Bush administration problem while refusing to prosecute anyone associated with torture, keeping the issue from becoming overly divisive. Good politics perhaps, but not something that deals with the fundamental question.

The fundamental question remains unanswered, and may remain unanswered. When a president takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," what are the limits on his obligation? We take the oath for granted. But it should be considered carefully by anyone entering this debate, particularly for presidents.

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

John Mauldin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:31:00 GMT

I've been in this business a long time. Some days it feels like a very long time. But never in all the years that I've been in the financial markets have I felt like business per se has less impact on my investment decisions. Let me explain.

GM shares have gone from being a claim on earnings from car sales to being a call option on whether the US government will extend another lifeline. Banks' capital structures have gone from being the province of Boards of Directors and CFOs to the "expertise" of Congressional committees and appointed regulators. Used to be when I thought about Financial Centers New York and London came to mind. Instead now I have to think about Washington and Brussels.

My friend George Friedman and his team at STRATFOR are where I turn when I need help thinking about these new realities. George's team provides me context and understanding of the environment in which financial developments are going to take place. I may tweak him about his ties, but if you saw George speak at my conference in La Jolla, you know that he's an absolutely compelling speaker. And it's small wonder that his latest book spent those weeks on the New York Times bestseller list too.

Below you'll find STRATFOR's 2Q Forecast. I hope you find it as helpful as I do in formulating my plans. What I can tell you with certainty is that if you're not taking into account the impact of geopolitical events on the markets, it's no different than trading agricultural futures without a weather forecast. George and his team provide their Members - myself included - with forecasts and on-going analysis that's invaluable in understanding the seachange in the global economy. And in exchange for me not teasing him any more, he's offering my readers a special rate on a STRATFOR Membership. Click here to join STRATFOR at this special rate and get access to a full year of the same geopolitical intelligence I use in my strategic planning. You'll be glad you did.

Yours, John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

Editor’s note: STRATFOR arranges its primary forecasts — in this case the document below — topically rather than geographically. Thus, the entirety of our South Asia and Global Economy coverage for the quarterly is included in this primary forecast. Those portions of the Middle East and Eurasia forecasts that are not included in this forecast have been appended with the other regional sections.

Executive Summary

STRATFOR’s 2009 annual forecast focused on three broad trends: the global recession, the Russian resurgence and the evolution of the jihadist war.

There are number of indications that the U.S. economy is showing signs of life, but it will be weeks — if not months — before these glimmers may assemble into a firm recovery. At that point, it would be a minimum of an additional three months before a U.S. recovery could foster a global recovery. This means that for the second quarter, STRATFOR is able to take a pass on this part of our forecast. Either this quarter will be the dark before the dawn, or it will be the dark before midnight. Either way, it will be dark. A noticeable recovery will have to wait until the third quarter.

In the first quarter, Russia was convinced that it had the new U.S. president and his administration right where it wanted them: so obsessed with the Afghan war that Russia could demand anything it wanted in exchange for allowing military supplies to enter Afghanistan from the north. Russia miscalculated. It seems the Obama administration puts something above fighting the Afghan war on its priority list: limiting Russia’s resurgence. The second quarter will be Russia’s time to consolidate the advances it has made over the course of the past four years, before the Americans can gain any capacity from their planned Iraqi drawdown. Washington will be looking for ways to bolster allies against Moscow, with a somewhat ambivalent Turkey taking center stage.

Finally there is the jihadist war itself. The U.S. divide-and-conquer strategy has worked reasonably well in Iraq: Some Sunni militants, rather than shooting at U.S. forces, are now being integrated (after a fashion) into the fragile yet strengthening Iraqi federal government. This is allowing the United States to remove some forces from Iraq, and thus to surge some into Afghanistan. The American intent is to rework the divide-and-conquer trick on the Taliban. However, this tactic is not likely to be replicable for a mixture of historical, demographic and geographic reasons. The most likely reason for the plan to not succeed is because in Iraq, the “good” Sunnis the Americans courted were locals — nationalists under pressure from Shiite Iran — while the “bad” Sunnis were foreign Islamists. In Afghanistan, there is no neat factional split within the Taliban. So for the Americans, the next three months will be about trying to force a square peg into a round hole. There will be little if any progress, and the Pakistani government’s lack of enthusiasm for the conflict will allow the region’s militants to expand the scope of the war.

Primary Forecast

Global trend: The Economy

Undoubtedly, there is plenty of bad news — stock market surges tend to be the first major sign that the U.S. economy is healing, but the stock market cannot seem to find its feet, and employment remains well off ideal levels. Yet in the latter half of the first quarter, there were several developments indicating that the credit chokehold that caused the American recession to go global has begun to slacken. The availability of credit is the critical issue when evaluating this recession. Until firms and consumers can reliably borrow, economic growth cannot recover.

There are limited signs that credit is indeed loosening, and that some life is creeping back into the U.S. economy. Recent changes in accounting rules in the United States and Europe should grant banks the confidence they need to resume lending, independent of anything the governments might attempt. The Obama stimulus package — albeit far from perfect for actually stimulating the economy — is beginning to take effect. Retail sales have been surprisingly buoyant and since consumer spending comprises 70 percent of the American economy, this is a critical factor. Even more important is the fact that the stock of inventories has dropped for six consecutive months (September 2008 to February 2009, the latest month for which data is available) in the steepest decline on record. With inventories low, producers will soon be getting orders. That is how economic recoveries begin. There are even flickers of activity in the most moribund U.S. economic sector: housing.

But even if the United States economy is indeed showing signs of life, four caveats must kept in mind.

First, even a robust resumption in U.S. growth will not begin on any specific date. Instead, there will be increasingly bright glimmers of light here and there that will not be fully recognized until six months after the fact. It appears that the second quarter may be a transition quarter for the United States, with the more noticeable growth happening later in the year.

Second, the future of the American automotive industry his shifted from bleak to dark, with General Motors Corp. in particular planning for imminent bankruptcy (and GM is not the worst off of the Detroit Three). The dislocations caused by this industry’s implosion will be felt far and wide and even if they somehow do not delay the recovery, they are certain to have a material impact on how serious the average American views the recession as being.

Third, a resumption in growth in the United States historically does not mean an immediate rebound in either income or employment figures — both tend to be lagging indicators — particularly if the automotive industry breaks apart. Therefore, even if the recession does let up in the second quarter and growth turns nominally positive, that does not mean that most Americans will feel like the situation has improved. Bear in mind that it did not become conventional wisdom that the United States’ 2001 recession — which actually ended in October 2001 — had ended until 2004. Dispelling Americans’ mental gloom required more than two years of strong and sustained growth.

Fourth, while STRATFOR is certain that the U.S. economy will lead the world out of recession — the roughly $10 trillion American consumer market will demand products from, and thus generate growth in, Asia and Europe — STRATFOR is equally certain that there will be a lag of one to three quarters between a U.S. recovery and a global recovery. Most of Asia has suffered export plunges of at least 50 percent, and industrial output is down by a third the world over. Even if the Americans already have eaten through existing inventory, it will take some time for foreign suppliers to spin their industrial bases back up. The global system does not turn on a dime.

This means in the quarter ahead STRATFOR actually gets to opt out of taking a hard stance on this issue. If the United States does not recover, the world will remain mired in recession. If the United States begins to recover, the world will remain mired in recession and will begin pulling out later in the year. Either way, the second quarter is not going to be a comfortable time; it just might be slightly less uncomfortable for the Americans.

Internationally, there will be only one force aside from the U.S. economy to watch: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was recapitalized at the April G-20 summit to handle the growing need for bailouts. The IMF’s assistance programs can be split into two parts. First, traditional structural adjustment programs will provide funds to states that have made poor economic decisions. These states then fall under the IMF’s tutelage, and they must make often-wrenching changes to how their systems are run. States tapping this sort of loan program include Ukraine, Hungary, Iceland, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. These states in essence are on a sort of life support while undergoing economic surgery.

The second kind of program — introduced in March — is a bridge loan for states that have been doing a decent job of economic management but are affected by factors related to the recession that lie utterly beyond their control. This second type of program does not require any meaningful changes to a state’s economic management as (in the IMF’s eyes) they have not done anything wrong, and could perhaps be extended to countries like South Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Poland. It is this second sort of program that will have a deeper effect on the system in the short run as it will allow larger states to maintain economic activity independent of the United States, somewhat blunting the effects of the recession without threatening social stability. It is also going to absorb the lion’s share of the IMF’s funding; the first program negotiated under this system — a $40 billion line of credit to Mexico — is two-thirds as large as the combined total of the more traditional loans granted since the crisis began.

Global trend: The Russian resurgence

In STRATFOR’s 2009 annual forecast, we outlined how a dominant issue for the year would be Russia’s effort to force the United States to make a strategic bargain: Russia would grant U.S. forces a northern supply route into Afghanistan in exchange for an expunging of Western influence from the former Soviet space. At a series of summits in the first week of April, the Obama administration broadly rebuffed Russia’s demands, and the two states are sliding quickly into confrontational stances.

From the U.S. point of view, Russia has overreached and has failed to consolidate its position in the key former Soviet spheres it assumed were under its control. From the Russian point of view, the U.S. refusal to accept Russia’s superior position has forced Moscow to redouble its consolidation efforts in order to erode Washington’s confidence and limit Washington’s future options inside the former Soviet sphere.

Russia will make three major consolidation efforts during the next three months. First and most important, Moscow will try to manipulate Ukraine to remove pro-Western elements such as Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko from power. Second, Moscow will undermine the Georgian government to destabilize pro-Western elements there. Georgia, unlike Ukraine, is solidly pro-Western, so Russia is satisfied simply to destabilize or neutralize it rather than transform it into something useful to Moscow. The deck is stacked in the Kremlin’s favor in both states due to Russia’s overwhelming energy, intelligence, political, economic and cultural influence, as well as geographic proximity.

But it is the third consolidation attempt where things will get tricky: Armenia.

Turkey and Russia’s spheres of influence overlap in many regions, including the Caucasus. Not only is Russia very active in Georgia, but Turkey — as part of its efforts to relaunch long-dormant geopolitical ambitions — is trying to normalize relations with Armenia. Turkey ended relations with Armenia in 1993 after Armenia began its war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the secessionist Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh located inside Azerbaijan — and the Turkish-Azerbaijani relationship has only strengthened (especially against Armenia) since then.

However, the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia would open the Caucasus to a flood of Turkish political and economic influence. Until now, Moscow has actually facilitated this process, thinking that a grateful Turkey would not side with Europe and particularly the United States in containing Russian influence. Now that U.S. President Barack Obama has personally forged a partnership with the Turks, the Kremlin is not so sure.

The restoration of ties between Turkey and Armenia was rumored to occur in the first week of April, though now dates for the event range from May to October. Russia has many levers, including energy, which it can use to counter Turkey’s orientation toward the Americans, including Moscow’s power to decide whether its protectorate of Armenia will go forward with any deal with Ankara.

The wild card in talks between Turkey and Armenia is Azerbaijan. Baku — which considers Yerevan its worst enemy — feels that its close ally Turkey has abandoned it and wants to ensure its interests are not overlooked in any deal between Turkey and Armenia. Baku is considering two means of scuttling the talks, both with the intent of severing growing Turkish-Armenian ties: appealing to Russia (the logic being that Turkey does not wish to simply trade energy-rich Azerbaijan for energy-poor Armenia), or directly attacking Armenian-held territory (triggering a war in which Turkey would feel forced to take sides).

Global trend: The U.S.-jihadist war

While STRATFOR maintains that the overall strategic threat posed by the transnational jihadist movement continues to wane, the U.S.-jihadist war, which stretches from Iraq to the Indian subcontinent, remains a dominant theme for 2009.

The United States has no choice but to wrap up the war in Iraq so that it can devote more resources to the war in Afghanistan, but the transition from the Middle East to South Asia will not be easy. A fragile power-sharing deal among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish power groups remains intact, and violence levels are still low. Yet, as STRATFOR expected, the United States is facing difficulties ensuring that the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government is integrating into the security apparatus members of the Sunni militia forces that split off from al Qaeda and allied with the United States. Shiite-Sunni tensions will continue to simmer. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), while a much-weakened force, may still appeal to dissident Sunnis — which may allow AQI to regain space and carry out more attacks.

Kurdish-Arab tensions are also likely to escalate over the next several months. Kurdish claims to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and constant political maneuvering among Sunnis, Kurds and Shia (most notably involving the Iraqi prime minister) could ignite the dispute over Kirkuk’s future for political gain. In addition, political infighting within the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) is likely to worsen as PUK leader and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani prepares for his succession.

The United States will try to improve its chances of holding Iraq together internally by laying the groundwork for a more constructive relationship with Iraq’s Persian neighbors. On the surface, the U.S.-Iranian relationship is improving: Obama has made clear his intent to engage Iran; his administration has agreed to direct, multilateral talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue; and Iran is participating in U.S.-led summits on Afghanistan. But beyond the rhetoric, little has changed between Tehran and Washington. Iran is more likely to ratchet up ambiguity and Western anxiety over its nuclear program than make concessions to Washington. Like AQI, Iran’s influence may have slipped, but it has not evaporated: Iran’s influence with Shiite militants remains strong enough to upset the delicate Sunni-Shiite balance the Americans are counting on holding.

Iran is also unhappy with the developing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that calls for engaging with “moderate” members of the Taliban — a radical Sunni force that Tehran regards as a strategic threat. Tehran will keep up appearances in the diplomatic sphere but will continue to keep its distance from Washington on any issues of substance in the near term. Iranian presidential elections will be held in June, but regardless of which camp the winner comes from — hard-line, moderate or reformist — Iran’s foreign policy goals and concerns are unlikely to shift significantly.

Meanwhile, Washington will shift its focus to South Asia even though there are evidently many loose ends to tie up in the Middle East. The developing U.S. strategy for this region will focus on bolstering the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, negotiating with moderate Taliban and diversifying supply routes to deny Pakistan some of the leverage it holds in this war. However, this plan suffers from a number of strategic flaws.

The second quarter will be a trying one for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The initial surge of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan will not be in place until summer’s end. Though European NATO members have contributed additional forces to help secure the country for elections in August, most are temporary commitments and do little to alter the overall U.S. and NATO force structure being directed at a native guerrilla force with superior local knowledge and intelligence. This puts NATO on its heels in combating Taliban and al Qaeda forces, which will use this spring fighting season to shape the battlefield, carrying out operations in the countryside that aim to expand their territorial control and launching complex attacks in urban centers that aim to degrade the confidence of Afghan civilians and security forces.

American attempts to elicit cooperation from Pakistan through aid packages are unlikely to affect Pakistani behavior significantly in the near term. Though Pakistan is threatened by a separate Taliban insurgency at home, it prefers negotiations over force on its side of the border. This gap between U.S. and Pakistani policy in managing the insurgency will become more evident in the coming weeks and months as Pakistan fends off U.S. attempts to overhaul the Pakistani intelligence apparatus and makes agreements that undermine the writ of the Pakistani state in its northwest periphery. Pakistan’s preference to avoid combat will allow Taliban forces to concentrate their attacks on the U.S. and NATO supply routes that originate in the port of Karachi.

The United States had attempted to diversify its supply lines by opening up a northern route that enters Afghanistan through Russian-dominated Central Asia, but talks have frozen as U.S.-Russian relations deteriorate. The United States is now almost completely dependent on Pakistan; the logistical burden is rising with support for the troop surge, and the militants feel emboldened as Pakistan feels it can use a lighter touch in combating them.

India’s concerns will rise as little progress is made in the war.

As STRATFOR forecasted in the 2009 annual, New Delhi has refrained from taking overt military action against Pakistan after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks for fear of destabilizing Pakistan further and giving regional jihadists an excuse to focus their attention on India. Yet the gradual unraveling of command and control within the Pakistani military establishment has enabled many more of Islamabad’s Islamist militant proxies operating in Pakistan and India to team up with transnational jihadists to carry out deadlier and more strategically targeted attacks. Though the timing is uncertain, India is likely to witness another large-scale Islamist militant attack on its soil that will once again escalate cross-border tensions on the subcontinent.

India has thus far stayed on the sidelines of U.S. dealings with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its involvement is largely limited to two items: first, making clear to Washington that Kashmir is not up for debate as Washington attempts to rehabilitate Pakistan, and second, increasing its presence in Afghanistan, devoting effort to reconstruction projects and perhaps providing covert support to anti-Taliban groups in the north (in part to counter a U.S. strategy to engage “pragmatic” Taliban). Much like the Iranians and the Russians, India has no interest in engaging Taliban forces who share a Pashtun link with the Pakistanis.

India is currently in the midst of a general election that will conclude in mid-May. No party is likely to win a clear majority, and it will be up to the incumbent Congress party and the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to cobble together a ruling coalition of smaller regional parties. STRATFOR will not attempt to predict the outcome of this uncertain election, which will largely be based on the populist votes of India’s lower classes, but should the BJP manage to overcome its setbacks and take the lead, Indian restraint against Pakistan would not be assured in the event of another large-scale militant attack.

Part Two: Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Regional Breakouts