I just carved another notch in the I told you so column…

I posted about Germany and its trade deficit, amongst other things, only few weeks ago and now the WSJ comes in with a front page article justifying everything that I said (See my post “Trade Deficit: Trump, WSJ, Germany and China”).

I have been wailing about the Euro for years as you can see in my post “The Euro: A Modern Tower of Babel.” While I was (and still am) wrong on the timing, I truly believe that it simply cannot survive as–is.

Again, it is good to see credible sources like the WSJ and on its front page saying it in so many words.

So, here again I can bask in my glory of being correct in my analysis.
This is a big issue. Germany has a “proven” track record of being the spark that lights world-level disorder and disaster.

How can it make sense that the citizens of the economically strongest country (not in size but by many measures of economic health) in Europe—and probably in the world—have only middle of the road personal wealth? The UK, France, Italy are all much less economically healthy, with France in bad shape and Italy on the verge of bankruptcy, yet the citizens of each have significantly higher personal wealth.

It is possible because the German people are by nature very industrious, disciplined, and frugal and believe in strong nation, in other words nationalism.

Horrifically, these are exactly the kinds of traits that made Germany the nursery of WWII, for instance.
I am a fairly intelligent person but I am a nobody in terms of world affairs or policy knowledge. How is it, then, that I can decipher and observe serious world issues at a time when the same issues are notably absent from public discourse—even though they absolutely need to be aired in public? Where are all the so called “experts”? Why are they silent? Where are all the politicians and Administration executives that MUST be aware of the issues I am raising independently and know that these issues are true and relevant issues, but they simply do not talk about those? Why?
The shallowness of public discourse in the USA is a serious problem at all times and on all subjects. At times, it reaches risky levels that promote conspiracy theories even in someone as sane and well-grounded as I am.
Take, for example, the matter that still is badly irks me of the debate surrounding Iran’s race to becoming a nuclear weapons power. This has been going on for years. And, for years, I have maintained that the debate misses the point altogether.

The public debate—the entire discourse surrounding the JCPA—revolved around the issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment capability, as if this was the be all and end all of the nuclear weapon matter. Nothing was, or still is, further from the truth. I said it so many times that I turned blue in the face.

The issue, the critical time line and factor, is and always was Iran’s ability to miniaturize the nuclear device in order to fit it on a missile head. The JCPA does not even address this matter. It revolves entirely around the worn issue, that of uranium enrichment. The entire debate revolved around the wrong issue. Yet no one ever mentioned it. Not one mention by a pundit, media reporter, expert, politician or Administration official of the critical matter of miniaturization.
“So, maybe RBZ is wrong,” you may say to yourself, “maybe that was not an issue at all.” But look at the debate surrounding North Korea. NK already has nuclear weapons. That is a certainty. It had them for years and no one really cared. Yet, the alarm is growing now. Why? Because they are making serious headway in missile technology, on the one hand, and miniaturization, on the other. Suddenly the debate clearly covers both these issues. What good are nuclear bombs if you have no delivery vehicle? Neither NK nor Iran possess an air force that can deliver old fashioned WWII level nuclear bombs, which are what NK currently has and Iran can have tomorrow if they want—JCPA or not. Yet, I repeat, what good is it if they cannot deliver it to their enemies?
It seems that fitting a nuclear device on top of a missile is a technological challenge that neither of these rogue regimes have yet mastered.

If this is the case, why did the JCPA not even deal with missile technology (most of which, Iran already has, at least as far as short term missiles are concerned) and/or with the technology needed to miniaturize the device onto a war head?

Why give Iran hundreds of billions in cash and sanctions relief for giving up, temporarily, on enrichment which they cannot use for any relevant purpose anyway? Let them enrich. What would they do with it until they have the technology to fit it onto a missile?

That was always the ONLY relevant issue in the Iran debate, yet it never came up. Not once.
There are other examples of the debate on serious issues missing the point big time.

I simply do not understand it.

I do worry that it leads to wrong decisions and certainly keeps the public seriously misinformed.