Criminal minds, criminal intent

A reminder that, like rust, radicalism never sleeps came in the post-trial comments on one of the Urewera Four, convicted this week on charges of illegally possessing firearms and Molotov cocktails.

Depicted in the media as being “let off” because the jury was hung on charges of being an organised criminal gang, this defendant boasted on radio that next on her agenda was “fighting fracking.”

The worldwide campaign against mining and oil exploration – of which fracking has proved highly successful in extracting gas – can only undermine countries’ abilities to be self-sufficient in energy. That, surely, is akin to a crime of economic sabotage.

The US is well on the way back to self-sufficiency – largely as a result of exploiting shale oil deposits all over the country.

But the anti-gas campaigners have been more successful in Europe, where France and Bulgaria have banned fracking on alarmist grounds that it causes water pollution and earthquakes.

Similar fears of global warming, genetically modified organisms and nuclear power have led to costly carbon taxes on such activities as air travel, restrictions on modern crop yields and a moratorium on nuclear power generation.

While Europe is heavily dependent on imported energy – mainly from Russia and the Middle East – it also has large-scale shale deposits, and fracking is a cheap and efficient means of extracting it.

The price differential today tells the story: In the US, gas futures are below $US3 for a standard measure (million British thermal units) while in the EU it is $US14. Ample gas would also contribute to lower carbon emissions as coal burning is replaced.

This means Europe will continue to lose competitiveness and its energy-dependent industries, such as chemicals, will be endangered – just what the Greenies presumably want.

A longer-term danger to Europe is that the US could start winding down its protection of Europe energy security needs in the Middle East, though this is not likely until the Iran situation is resolved.

Calling Iran’s bluff
A military strike against Iran’s nuclear bomb project is looking more likely and, counter to what you might believe, could well pay off.

In fact, says a visiting European expert on Iran, Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi, for all its sabre-rattling the Islamic republic has limited ability to fight back.

“Teheran has no arrows left in its quiver,” he says, going on to explain Iran’s weak military and economic position, thanks to the effects of existing financial sanctions and (soon) an oil import embargo.

“The fierce rhetoric is a reflection of the regime's impotence as a Western-led oil embargo looms. The bluff is an implicit admission of how much the regime fears the ultimate weapon in the Western sanctions toolkit.”

Sketching the geo-political scene, Dr Ottolenghi says Iran is burning off its main allies, Russia, China and Turkey, and is left only with a bankrupt regime in Syria and a terrorist bands in Gaza and Lebanon.

He points out that Iran realises its weakness and rather than rely on conventional military force uses “asymmetrical tactics” favoured in the past by guerrillas and insurgents.

These have reached their apogee in suicide terrorism, which was first used against US and French Marines in Lebanon soon after the American diplomats were taken hostage in Teheran (1979). It has since been used on dozens of occasions around the world against other American and Jewish targets.

On Tuesday, when Dr Ottolenghi spoke in Auckland, he correctly surmised the attacks in Toulouse were more likely to be Iranian-inspired acts of Islamic terrorism than the work of a Norwegian-style far-right extremist.

Put Iran on the rack
Iran is playing what Dr Ottolenghi calls a “delicate game of brinkmanship” because it has limited time in which it can “cross the line” on its nuclear bomb project.

“Why would they give up now?” he asks, after decades of setbacks since Iran and its neighbours Iraq and Pakistan began to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Iran has been accelerating its programme because the next round of EU and US sanctions have been spun out in the hope of a diplomatic settlement.

By buying time, Iran has also been able to better protect its installations from bombing attacks, which have proved effective in the past when Israel obliterated sites in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).

In this New York Times op-ed, Dr Ottolenghi explains how past actions by Iran could have been prevented and why the sanctions should be imposed hard and fast:

“The pain inflicted must be far greater for the country to see backtracking as preferable. Iran is a rational actor; and it cannot be dissuaded at this point, barring extreme measures.

“Western nations … must adopt crippling sanctions that will bring Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse. That means a complete UN-imposed oil embargo enforced by a naval blockade, as well as total diplomatic isolation. And they must warn Iran that if it tries to jump the last wall, the West is willing and capable of inflicting devastating harm.”

Richard Cohen, in the Washington Post, provides another perspective on acting sooner rather than later.

Don’t respect the bums
American sociologist Charles Murray, whose book Coming Apart was mentioned here recently, has answered his critics, who claim he failed to take account of a decline in well-paid working class jobs as the reason for a expanding underclass.

The critics argued the loss of manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere made it harder for male workers to support their families, resulting in the marriage breakdowns and loss of cultural values outlined in Murray’s book.

He replies by showing that while real wages have not declined, marriage breakdowns and labour market dropout rates have risen regardless.

The reasons, Murray concludes, is that since the 1970s women have found it easier to raise families on their own, with both earned incomes and welfare.

Murray also says working age men have been let off lightly from their responsibilities and have escaped opprobrium as being considered “lazy, irresponsible and unmanly.”

He says they should not be condoned as “demoralised” or treated with any respect. It is not easy being a social analyst in the Murray mould but give him a go by reading this.