Center for American and Arab Studies

It is ironic that 51 years ago last week, American President Nixon announced that he would “temporarily” stop redeeming US dollars for gold.  What Nixon had temporarily instituted has in many ways come true when the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act, an Orwellian name for legislation that will likely increase inflation.

Nixon’s move did more than stop the use of gold in monetary transactions, it also eliminated the age-old monetary theory that government spending should generally equal government revenues and that governments should back their currency with gold or silver.

The discipline that curbed politicians was eliminated.

Today, gold and silver are archaic metals, except in countries like Zimbabwe, which is issuing gold coins for circulation because its own paper currency is worthless.

But gold isn’t so archaic that central banks have sold their gold reserves.  Central banks hold vaults of gold, and many banks are even buying more.  And, the US, which has the largest reserve of gold, keeps it in a vault at Fort Knox, surrounded by the Second Armored Division.

The Inflation Reduction Act reflects Modern Monetary Thought, and although it has never been proven in the real world, it has become popular with central bankers and politicians who want an easy, painless way to budget government spending.

In short, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds that government revenues are unimportant.  It holds that countries that make their own money like the US, UK, Japan, and Canada needn’t worry about spending, taxing, or borrowing because they can pay their debts, since they can print as much money as they need.  Government budgets should not be constrained by fears of a rising national debt.

MMT also holds that conventional monetary thinking is merely a holdover of the gold standard.  It also allows for politicians to pass expensive, popular programs like healthcare, free college education, and other programs for favorite voter groups and corporations because government debt shouldn’t lead to monetary collapse.

The Inflation Reduction Act mirrors these MMT beliefs.  $430 billion goes to new green energy programs although current evidence shows that these programs will not pay for themselves over time.

The current US national debt is over $30.7 trillion dollars and that doesn’t include obligations like Social Security.

Much of that growth in debt came under administrations that preferred politically popular MMT over conventional, but politically painful monetary thought.  Obama added $8.3 trillion to the deficit – a 70% increase.  Trump increased the debt by $7.8 trillion.  Biden has added $2.26 trillion in his first year, which will outpace Trump and Obama if he continues this pace for the rest of his administration.

Any economist will tell you that inflation is demand divided by supply.  And demand is a function of money supply.  The $430 billion in new programs will only increase the demand for goods by $430 billion.

Unfortunately, it appears that supply will not grow enough to tamper down inflation.  From 1992 to 2021, the average growth of the US economy was 2.4%.  However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the average growth of the US economy from 2022 to 2052 will only be 1.7% per year.

Clearly the supply of goods provided by the economy will not keep pace with the additional demand caused by the increased demand caused by government spending and MMT.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model, which is associated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business school, showed that the new law would not invigorate the economy or curb inflation.

“We project no impact on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by 2031,” the study noted.  “The Act would very slightly increase inflation until 2024.”

The study also noted that benefits also reduced the incentive to work, which would result in a small decline in hours worked, which would reduce the supply of goods produced.

There, however, was one aspect of the law that did fit conventional monetary thought – increasing the number of tax collectors to conduct audits for those making less than $200,000.

Traditionally, audits were focused on companies and richer individuals to maximize the amount recovered because those making less weren’t profitable enough to audit in the eyes of the IRS.

The law allows for an increase of 87,000 new IRS agents.  To give a better idea of how large that number is, there are three US Armored Brigade Combat Teams in Europe, with about 4,700 soldiers in each brigade.

Those who monitor the erosion of rights for American citizens are especially concerned as the IRS has become a tool to silence government opponents.

The Obama Department of Justice refused to seek criminal charges against her although she did apologize for improper targeting of some organizations.

Another concern was an online ad for IRS applicants that said they must be willing to “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force if necessary.”

The ad was quickly edited as word spread about the ad and its requirements.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said, “When people realize that most of the IRS agents will not be going after billionaires and big companies – but will instead be auditing waitresses, Uber drivers, self-employed people, and small businesses – I expect the opposition will grow even more intense.”

Clearly, the Inflation Reduction Act has created a lot of controversy, both in economic and civil rights areas.  However, since it has been passed by Congress and signed into law by Biden, we will have to wait to see the results.

(This is an ongoing event and there may be some new events that haven’t been covered in this analysis)

America is undeniably divided.  And the FBI raid on former President Trump’s home in Florida only put an axe to the divided society.  Many consider the FBI raid on Trump’s home at Mar-A-Lago akin to the actions of third world dictatorships that regularly use police or soldiers to attack political opponents.  This is the first time this has occurred in the US.

While the nature of many public comments was expected based on the political beliefs of the person, there were reactions by some Democrats who were worried about this unprecedented raid.  Former Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 Tulsi Gabbard said, “This is something that every American should be concerned about.”

Another 2020 democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang called it political and said, “I’m no-Trump fan…This raid strengthens the case for millions of Americans who will see this as unjust persecution.”

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who frequently had disagreements with Trump, demanded the Department of Justice explain its raid.

“It must be more than a search for inconsequential archives, or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation,” Cuomo stated.

Although Attorney General Garland stated in his speech on Thursday, that the Department of Justice under him applied the law equally, he didn’t take questions after his prepared statement.  He merely admitted that he had signed the request for the warrant.  He also defended Department of Justice and FBI members as patriots who worked hard under difficult circumstances.

There are many questions that he didn’t answer.  There are questions of a conflict of interest as Trump campaigned in 2016 on withdrawing Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, leaving Garland’s actions on the raid seem political revenge.  There are questions on the federal magistrate’s political activities.  Nor did he answer why his department hasn’t prosecuted or raided Obama’s home over missing documents.  This doesn’t address other Obama Administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Lynch, EPA officials or the IRS, who have not turned in files.

Although there are many rumors, the facts are scarce.  On Monday, the FBI sent in 30 agents to recover documents from Mar-A-Lago.  The search warrant was signed by a federal magistrate and concerned the failure to turn over presidential documents under the Presidential Records Act.

The Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) has no enforcement mechanism and carries no penalties.  That, in and of itself, makes the use of an FBI raid questionable.  Many see this as what is called in legal circles as a “fishing expedition,” where prosecutors use a flimsy search warrant to give police a chance to find something that might be construed as illegal.  This is unconstitutional and is considered as illegal “search and seizure.”  There has been some speculation that the raid was to find something that could tie Trump into the January 6, 2021, invasion of the Capitol.

Others have hoped that the presidential documents can be used to prevent Trump from running for president in 2024 under U.S.C. 2071, which states that anyone guilty of hiding removing, or mutilating official documents can be kept from holding office.  However, the courts have clearly held that the only qualifications for president are in the Constitution and no other restrictions can be made unless it is added to the Constitution in an amendment.

However, this is more about presidential documents.  There is a growing perception amongst Americans that there are differing levels of law depending on who you are.  While Obama, Clinton and others are let off the hook, average citizens must meet stricter standards.  If you are perceived as an “enemy” the legal system goes even farther to destroy you.

This has been noticed by most Americans and the credibility of agencies like the FBI have suffered, even though they have ignored the problem.  In fact, the FBI seemed surprised by the largely negative response to the raid.

A look at the polls shows that the FBI is plunging in its approval.  A Gallup poll showed that most of the American people have a negative opinion of the FBI.  Only 44% had a positive opinion of the FBI in 2021 – down 13 percentage points from 2019.  It ranks at the bottom with other federal agencies like the IRS, CDC, and Homeland Security.

An example of the bias in the FBI was seen last week in Senate hearings with FBI Director Wray.  FBI whistle blowers had given senators documents showing that the FBI considered showing some patriotic flags like the Betsey Ross Flag (the first American flag) as potential signs of a domestic terrorist.  Ironically Senator Cruz (R, TX) showed that the Betsy Ross Flag was flown as part of the Biden and Obama inaugurations.

Quoting parts of the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence were also considered suspicious.

While the FBI has had problems in the past few years, Trump has improved in the polls.  If the election were held today, Trump would soundly beat Biden.

This may be the real reason for the raid.

In the days since the raid, Trump has raised record amounts of money.  A Trafalgar Group poll done after the raid showed that the raid energized both Republicans and independents to vote in the 2022 mid-term election.

Ironically, the raid on Trump’s home may guarantee the nomination and election for Trump.  The growing lack of faith in government and the scandals that have plagued the FBI worry Americans, not just Trump supporters.  They are worried by the growing corruption in government and want someone who can do something about it.  It seems Trump is the one – especially since the government is so opposed to him.

The Future

Will this raid on Trump have any negative impact on Trump or the GOP?  Probably not.  Trump has survived two impeachments, attacks based on the January 6, 2021, invasion of the US Capitol, Russian collusion charges, and falsified evidence by FBI agents.  If anything, the GOP is coalescing around Trump.

Although Trump hasn’t announced he is running, his comments since the raid indicate that he is determined to run again.

This leaves the Democrats in a dilemma.  Biden is clearly senile and unable to effectively handle a campaign.  In addition, polls show Biden losing to Trump in a rematch.

VP Kamala Harris has even less support than Biden.  Secretary of Transportation Buttgieg, who ran for president in 2020, is a possible presidential choice, but he has done poorly in Washington.  The rest of the Cabinet doesn’t offer any obvious presidential candidates.

Gavin Newsome, Governor of California has made moves that indicate he may run.  But the multitude of problems in California may destroy his chances.

In desperation, the Democrats are even mentioning Hillary Clinton.

Some Democrats have argued that letting Trump have his one term, while grooming a winning Democratic presidential candidate for 2028 may be the best choice.

The only other hope is to create another Trump scandal, one that can make Trump lose.

In that case, the Republicans may very well pick Florida Governor DeSantis, who would rally the Republican base.

There is also the threat of civil unrest.  An apparent Trump supporter tried to attack an FBI office in Cincinnati.  There is also talk of civil war on the internet.

But not all the talk is being made by the political fringe.  Victor David Hanson, a classist and military historian who writes occasionally for the New York Times outlined the FBI corruption in recent years.  He noted, “The FBI’s highest officials now routinely mislead Congress.  They have erased or altered court and subpoenaed evidence.  They illegally leak confidential material to the media.  And, they have lied under oath to federal investigators.”

“The FBI is dissolving before our eyes into a rogue security service akin to those in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.”

Hanson concluded by saying that the FBI has “become dangerous to Americans and an extensional threat to democracy.”

As US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi landed in Taiwan, China was engaged in several military exercises that took place around Taiwan.

27 Chinese aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defense zone on Wednesday.  Chinese naval and air forces conducted live fire exercises in six zones around Taiwan, clearly threatening a possible blockade.  Conventional Chinese missiles are expected to overfly Taiwan for the first time and Chinese forces entered within 12 miles of Taiwan’s shore.

Is this the beginning of a conflict between China, Taiwan, and the United States?  Or is this merely a show of strength?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who visited Taiwan as Speaker in 1997 says China’s threats are a bluff.

Speaking of his visit in 1997, he said, “They [the Chinese] backed down…Their current bluff is just that.”

Discounting the unsubstantial war talk, the evidence is with Gingrich, while China then was” far weaker economically and militarily”.

First, investors, who usually make sound financial decisions, have moved back into the market as it became obvious that China hadn’t planned anything serious like an invasion or actual attack on Taiwan’s military forces.

Second, although military exercises seem threatening, all militaries conduct exercises all year.  This is the best way to conduct training and test weapons systems.  Live fire is a regular part of these types of exercises so the military leaders are sure that their soldiers know how to use the weapons systems and are sure that they will work in a conflict.

The fact that China held 6 exercises around Taiwan in no way guarantees that the Chinese Navy can carry out a long-term blockade in a war.

Blockades rarely occur because they require a major naval presence that can stay at sea for long periods of time.  They require large warships that can stay on station for months at a time.  They require logistics ships that can carry out underway replenishment.  And they require 24 hour a day air superiority to defend lightly armed logistics ships.

An excellent example of the difficulty of carrying out a blockade is the German blockade of England in WWII.  Despite better submarine technology, Allied air and naval superiority in the Atlantic prevented the German U Boats from cutting Britain off from its Commonwealth allies and colonies.  German attempts to conduct surface warfare with battleships like the Bismarck also failed.

Although the Chinese navy has a larger number of ships, they are lighter, have fewer weapons, and are too small to maintain station in rough seas or far from the Chinese mainland.  This includes the Chinese aircraft carriers.

Not only does the US have the nuclear supercarriers that outclass any other navy’s air wing, but it also has several allies with carriers that match or surpass China’s aircraft carriers.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth class carriers are larger and better than all but the American nuclear supercarriers.  It is the largest Royal Navy ship built and it displaces 66,000 tons.  That makes it larger than the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle at 42,500 tons, and the domestically built Chinese carriers of 50,000 tons displacement.

Just as important, these ships will interface with US carriers and Britain has pledged to support Taiwan in a war.

Japan and Australia also have aircraft capable ships.

Consequently, there is a serious question if China can maintain a naval blockade of Taiwan.

China’s air force is also questionable.  China’s aircraft are based on old Russian designs.  The Chinese Shenyang J-11, which is the backbone of the Chinese air force and the aircraft regularly used to violate Taiwan’s airspace, is based on the Sukhoi Su-27.  It is a high maintenance aircraft that has a shortage of spare parts.  Its primary role was to defend the USSR from long range American bombers like the B-1 Lancer and the B-52 Stratofortress.

Given the Su-27’s performance in Ukraine, there is a serious question if the J-11 can outperform Taiwan’s air force.

Taiwan’s air force is hampered by older American and French aircraft.  However, they have been able to purchase the American air defense Patriot PAC 3 missile system.

China’s Type 99 tank is also developed from the old Soviet T-72 tank.

The fact is that the Chinese military is stronger than Taiwan’s.  However, it is not a certainty that China can defeat Taiwan easily in a major conflict.  True, China could take some of the smaller islands controlled by Taiwan, but at a serious economic risk as most Western nations would impose sanctions.

China has threatened economic sanctions against Taiwan by blocking shipments of food like fish or sand for its semiconductor industry.  However, as China is in the middle of an economic downturn, the question is who would suffer more – Taiwan or China.

American Politics

Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan posed several problems back in the United States.  Clearly, this was Pelosi’s idea, not Biden’s.

The fact is that with elections coming up in a few months and Republicans expected to win control of the House of Representatives, Pelosi’s reign as Speaker is likely to end.

By going to Taiwan, Pelosi can cap off her speakership with a major diplomatic win.  She is also supported by most Republicans, some of which joined Pelosi in her trip to Taiwan.  This gives her bipartisan cover.

Biden opposed the trip on the advice of his military advisors, who were afraid of a confrontation with China.  They countered this with the movement of the nuclear carrier USS Ronald Reagan to the area and American fighter aircraft to Japan.  Two amphibious assault groups, including the F-35 fighter aircraft capable USS Tripoli and USS America, are also in the vicinity, The USS Reagan is southeast of Taiwan, the USS Tripoli is northeast of Taiwan, and the USS America is northeast of Taiwan, and close to Japan.

The problem with following the military’s advice was that backing down would show weakness to the Chinese and probably encourage them to take more aggressive moves in the future.

The future is more problematic.  How far do the US and its allies support Taiwan?  Korea appears to be remaining neutral as South Korea’s president refused to meet with Pelosi this week.

Several nations like Germany, Britain, Australia, and Japan have made it clear that they view Chinese aggression with concern and will support Taiwan.

If China continues to increase pressure on Taiwan, the US can start selling modern fighter aircraft to the island nation.  Currently Taiwan suffers from an aging air force of older F-16 fighters and French Mirage 2000s.  F-35 or F-18 fighters would be of great help, although it takes time and considerable training to make the pilots proficient in air combat in these new aircraft.

The US has sent Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan – the same that have recently devastated several Russian ships in the Black Sea.  More of these missiles would make it harder for the Chinese to invade Taiwanese territory or logistically support Chinese forces after a landing.

A more advanced air defense system would benefit Taiwan as well as US naval forces sailing the waters around Taiwan.  Although China claims to have fielded a hypersonic missile, there are probably few in the Chinese arsenal and it is uncertain if they are effective in a combat situation.

Meanwhile, the Chinese air defense system is questionable.  The Chinese HQ-9 is derived from the Russian S-300, which is showing limited success in Ukraine that the Russians are using it for a crude surface to surface missile.  The Chinese HQ-22 has a shorter range than the S-300 and is cheaper.

The Future

Of course, China can counter with economic sanctions or even a threat to closely ally itself with Russia.  However, Russia is currently tied down in Ukraine and can offer little to the Chinese in terms of weapon systems or spare parts.

In the end, it appears that much of China’s talk is merely a pressure buildup.  China will undoubtedly continue military exercises, especially air incursions that are designed to wear out Taiwan’s air force.  They will also try to show that they can blockade Taiwan if they choose.

However, as we have seen, China’s threat is more pressure than actual intervention.

The US appears to be calling China’s bluff and making it clear that US forces can intervene should China take an aggressive step.

A Chinese media outlet reported that RT criticized Pelosi for Taiwan trip and encouraged China with a saying “revenge is a dish best served cold,” which is similar to a Chinese saying, “it’s never too late for a gentleman to take his revenge.”

It seems China will be able to use the Pelosi trip as a catalyst to strengthen its position and display  readiness to use force if necessary to control Taiwan, but still prefer

to create the conditions to gain such control by peaceful means over time.

We must remember that the Chinese Communist Party has always made clear that reunification of Taiwan and mainland China is its “historical task” and, since coming to power in 2012, Xi has steadily underscored his commitment with active military maneuvers around Taiwan.

 Europe isn’t the only region worried about a mass failure of its electrical power network.  America is also in the throes of an electrical power crisis.  In Texas, high temperatures have forced conservation measures, including cutbacks at some factories in the state. The electrical grid, however, has not failed as it did two winters ago – although it has been pushed to its limits.

However, there is a greater threat to the nation’s power system, along with the threat to the water supply of millions of citizens.  It is the 86-year-old Hoover Dam system, which borders Nevada and Arizona.  A long-term drought has caused its reservoir, Lake Mead, to drop to historically low levels, which threatens the electrical power of the American Southwest as well as water for millions of people in the West.  It also provides critical irrigation water for many farmers in the desert Southwest.

Despite the critical nature of this dam, little of the infrastructure money allocated in the past few years has gone to the dam or its reservoirs.

The Hoover Dam is responsible for the unprecedented population growth in the Southwest in the last eight decades.  Over 50% of the electricity supplied by the dam goes to Southern California municipalities.  Los Angeles, itself, uses nearly as much electricity as Arizona.  Los Angeles and Southern California take over 50%.

The dam system is so critical that after 9-11, the US government diverted US Route 93 to prevent possible terrorist attacks on the dam.

The US Army also stationed troops at Hoover Dam during WWII.

The current threat is more long term – drought.  The Southwest has been in a historical long-term drought.  Although some have blamed manmade climate change, archeologists have recorded many long-term droughts in the past – droughts so severe that it changed population movements in the region and led to the disappearance of the Anasazi civilization around 1300 AD.

“We are in the 23^rd year of drought here in the Colorado River Basin and Lake Mead (the largest reservoir in America, which stores the water for the dam) has dropped down to 28 percent,” says Patti Aaron of the US Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dam.

The lake is currently 1,200 feet above sea level, but if it drops down to 1,050 feet, it will be unable to produce electricity.

The lake is currently dropping about a foot a week.

If Lake Mead drops too much, the government can release water from other dams upstream of the Hoover Dam to keep the generators running.  However, that only delays the problem.

The short-term answer is to cut back on water demand, especially in populated areas like Southern California, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.  Reducing water for farming in the region would only exacerbate the food shortage currently driving up prices.

But America’s electrical infrastructure has more problems than the Hoover Dam.

The Midwest is at risk in addition to the Southwest and Texas.  The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warns of a high risk of its energy reserves falling short of its energy needs this summer.  Energy generation capacity has dropped 2.3%, while demand has gone up by 1.7%.

The Western US is currently at an elevated level of risk.

None of this has been helped by the Biden Administration’s attempt to regulate the fossil fuel industry out of business, the reduced supply of fossil fuel from Russia, and America’s attempt to supply its allies with a backup supply of gas for this winter.

Some power companies in America and abroad are reactivating coal powered power stations.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2000, there were fewer than two dozen major power failures.  In 2020, it increased to over 180.  Yet, the recent infrastructure bill only allocated $27 billion to the electrical grid, although experts say over two trillion dollars is needed – an amount of money that would have to be paid by consumers who are already facing crippling inflation.

Part of the problem is the administration’s demand for reducing fossil fuel as a source of electricity.  Renewable sources like wind and solar are unreliable, especially during extreme weather like cold weather.

That means electrical demand is expected to grow as more consumers buy electrical vehicles and move away from heating their houses with natural gas.

Will America Muddle Through?

America is facing several problems that could push the nation’s power industry into a crisis.  If there isn’t enough snowfall in the Rockies this winter, the Colorado River may not provide enough water to keep Lake Mead at a level to produce energy.

The same problem can occur if the Midwest experiences high temperatures that drive up electrical demand – as well as damaging crops.

The East is not immune, and a bad hurricane season can ruin the aging infrastructure of the East Coast.

One problem in the US is that the Biden Administration is tone deaf to the signs – which is why Biden’s poll numbers are at levels lower than Lake Mead.  While European nations are moving back to fossil fuel to survive the upcoming winter, the Biden Administration seems fixed on forcing US consumers to spend more on energy – both for their homes and vehicles.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said high energy prices wouldn’t impact consumers with electric vehicles, although studies show that the cost of powering an electric vehicle is four times the cost of air conditioning one’s house.

Even Transportation Secretary Buttigieg has noted that the current power grid can’t handle the increased demand for powering electric vehicles.

There has been discussion that Biden can move America dramatically towards a “clean energy” infrastructure by declaring a national emergency.  However, given the recent Supreme Court Ruling (West Virginia vs. EPA), there is little likelihood that such a national emergency will be declared constitutional.

And, given the response of the Saudis to the idea of a massive increase in petroleum production last week during the Biden Salman meeting, it appears that the Middle East will not save him.

This leaves the Biden Administration with a difficult balancing act.  They can roll back their energy policies like many European nations and not risk the anger of American voters.  Or they can use executive regulation, face higher inflation in the energy sector, risk the loss of the Senate and House in November, and a possible failure of the electrical infrastructure.

Given Biden’s past behavior, he is heading towards a major midterm election loss.  If a crisis breaks the US electrical infrastructure, civil unrest may be on the horizon.

There were once two truisms of an American president travelling overseas on a diplomatic mission.  The first was that politics stops at the border to show a united front to the outside world.  The second was that the President would get a boost at the polls as he showed himself to be presidential.

Neither are true today.  American presidents are regularly criticized by political opponents while overseas.

The second truism, which is true for Biden, is that physical problems and diminished mental capability are highlighted, which gives the president a reduced impact both at home and overseas.

Even members of his own party admit that Biden is suffering from senility.  Obama and Trump’s White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, said on Twitter, “Everyone knows he’s [Biden] unfit for the job.  His mind is too far gone.”

When Jackson first questioned Biden’s cognitive ability, Obama sent an email that chastised him for bringing Biden’s mental Ability to the public.

Biden’s condition has progressed so far that the White House staff is unable to hide the gaffs anymore.  When the staff decided that using fist bumps instead of handshakes (supposedly because of the risk of spreading Covid) would prevent Biden from being photographed shaking hands with Prince Mohammed Salman, Biden forgot and proceeded to do handshakes with other people in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

There were other instances of Biden looking confused and physically uncoordinated during the trip.

These gaffes only confirmed for foreign leaders that Biden is suffering serious cognitive problems and is only a front man for others who are making decisions, and is unlikely to finish his term.

A president who can’t make decisions and is unlikely to finish his term has little chance of convincing other national leaders to accept American foreign policy.  The fact that former White House Doctor Jackson has called for Biden’s resignation only emphasizes the problem.

The second problem with Biden foreign policy is that he is following a political agenda rather than a pro-American agenda.

There is no better example than the Khashoggi assassination.  Although frowned on in diplomatic circles, assassination is used.  In fact, Israel practices assassination when it comes to Iranian scientists – very likely with American help and approval.  There is no fuss when Israel helps assassinate an Iranian.

However, years after Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis, it is still an issue for Biden.  He called Saudi Arabia a “ pariah” state during the presidential election and he refused to shake the Prince’s hand.

Why?  Although he wasn’t a member of the Washington Post staff, Khashoggi occasionally wrote articles for them.  And, as the Washington Post has considerable power in the White House, they apparently can dictate foreign policy.  In fact, after the fist bump, the Washington Post attacked Biden by calling the action “Shameful.”  The Washington Post said in a statement that it, “projected a level of intimacy and comfort that delivers to MBS the unwarranted redemption he has been desperately seeking.”

Biden later said that the Crown Prince said he wasn’t responsible for the murder.

While Americans are unconcerned about an assassination by the Saudis, and more concerned about skyrocketing oil prices and getting Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, the Washington Post is dictating American foreign policy that is contrary to the wishes of American voters.

The whole of American-Saudi relations seems to rotate around US domestic policy rather than US interests.  The Biden Administration has focused on regulating the American oil industry to force Americans to buy electric cars.  It has also been hostile to foreign oil producers.

However, now that domesticated oil prices have skyrocketed – pushing inflation through the roof, Biden is now forced to come to a country that he called a “pariah” and ask for more oil production from a prince that he was unwilling to shake hands with.

It didn’t help that the US House of Representatives passed two amendments to the Defense bill that limits arms sales to Saudi Arabia even as Biden was flying to Riyadh.

Even a student in international relations would see the problems with that policy.

A bipartisan foreign policy also has advantages.  When the US and Soviet Union signed the SALT treaties, the presidents sought bipartisan help to get these controversial treaties approved.

That is no longer the case.

Obama signed the Paris environmental agreement, knowing full well that it had no chance for ratification in the US Senate.  He did the same with the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Since neither treaty was ratified, Obama merely tried to change US law through administrative regulation.  These regulations were eliminated when Trump was elected.

Biden has continued the same practice and is now observing the Paris Accords even though they have never been submitted to the US Senate for ratification.

Foreign leaders who meet Biden and receive a promise, must realize that without bipartisan agreement in the US Senate any promise made to a foreign leader will last only if Biden is president.  Even a Kamala Harris presidency would be unable to keep a promise as her ascendency to the presidency would automatically mean she is no longer President of the Senate and empowered to cast the deciding vote in a tie.  This would give the Republicans de facto control of the Senate until the Democrats regain the majority.

Given the current polls, it appears that the Democrats will then have to wait until 2024 – or longer.

Biden’s political and foreign policy agenda is seriously crippled.  And it’s not just with allies like Saudi Arabia.  Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi are aware of Biden’s weaknesses.  Although Biden has come out in support of Ukraine and Taiwan, his declining cognitive ability means he is more likely to hesitate in a crisis or even be overruled by one of his advisors.

A sign of this concern is that consulting firms are being regularly asked about the war risks between China and Taiwan.  The FBI director said of the Ukraine war, “There were a lot of Western companies that had their fingers still in the door when it slammed shut.”  “If China does invade Taiwan, we could see the same thing happen, at a much larger scale.”

Biden’s mental condition is also a factor for Israel’s new leadership.  Biden has promised to go to war with Iran to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Can they really rely on such a promise?  What would the American voters and US Congress think?

Although the American media will try to highlight the positives of the trip, the foreign leaders Biden will meet will get a different impression.

As a result, an American president with cognitive problems and falling popularity back home is trying to regain his power as president and world leader.

The situation was best described by the former Saudi intelligence chief.  Speaking on CNBC, Prince Turki Al-Faisal called Biden a “much diminished president.”

The prince continued, “As an example, on energy issues, he came with a policy to stop completely fossil fuel usage not only in the United States, but worldwide, and now he is finding himself having to rely on fossil fuels as a means of meeting the energy shortage that has come about not only because of the Ukraine war, but also because of US policy that itself shut down pipelines and stopped issuing…discovery of oil on US soil.”

This isn’t the quality of foreign policy usually expected of the US.