Category: Travel

Iran and the bomb

In the greatest public address any American President has ever given, Donald Trump claimed to have stopped Iran from developing atomic bombs (in the greatest lie every told).

Here are the facts. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran at the time, supported the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that provided international inspection of Iran’s enrichment of uranium used for its nuclear power plants to ensure that it did not enrich it to the level needed for atomic bombs. Khamenei repeatedly stated that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic law. This religious position is formalized as a fatwa (a legal ruling under Sharia), which the Iranian government has cited for decades as proof of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.

During his first term, President Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA and international inspections stopped. A broad international consensus holds that the US/Israeli attacks on Iran this year will drive Iran to overcome its religious restraints on developing the bomb and proceed to do so out of its need to defend itself. Thus, rather than preventing Iran from developing atomic bombs Trump (and his friend Bibi) have probably forced Iran to do so. For good measure US/Israel killed Khamenei with an airstrike on February 28. Maybe Trump will find a way to blame NATO for all of this???

Winning the War in Iran

Most of you know that I am an optimist (though often disappointed). But I am quite optimistic that Trump will declare victory in his and Israel’s illegal war in Iran very soon. Moreover, he will offer Iran enough (lifting of sanctions, etc.) that they will end their attacks as well, including, of course, insuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel will also end its attacks on Iran (as well as on Lebanon, Syria, West Bank and Gaza) because Trump will tell them to (or is it the other way around).

But here is the really optimistic forecast. Trump will blame the mess in Iran on the worst, most damaging Secretary of Defense we have ever had and fire Pete Hegseth. How is that for good news!

Fixing Palestine

In 1995 and 6 I led IMF technical assistance teams to Israel to establish the Palestine Monetary Authority as called for by the Oslo Accord. We were excited by the prospects of contributing to peace between the Arab and Jewish populations who had occupied the area for millennia (as well as new arrivals). We spoke, as did many others, of the Oslo Peace Process establishing a two-state solution to the struggles between the Palestinians and Jews since the establishment of Israel in 1948. In fact, we should have referred to the Oslo Accords as establishing only a step, a rather small one at that, toward a two-state solution—two independent states following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

I wrote about these experiences in “Palestine-The Oslo Accords Before and After-My Travels to Jerusalem” Our work was greatly facilitated by the fact that the governors of the Bank of Israel, Stan Fischer, and of the newly created Palestine Monetary Authority, George Abed, had been IMF colleagues. I asked each if they would write the foreword to my book. Stan declined saying that it was too sensitive a topic and George declined saying that my book was unfair to the Palestinians.

I have just finished reading a new account of the efforts to find peace in the area by two insiders with much wider exposure than I had had:  “Tomorrow is Yesterday-Life, Death and the Pursuit of peace in Israel/Palestine” by  Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. And I concluded that George Aben had been right about my account.

The two authors had been intimately involved in the many efforts to find agreement between the relevant parties. Drawing on their experience advising the Palestinian leadership (Arafat and Abbas) and US presidents (Clinton, Obama, and Biden) and their participation in secret talks over decades, Agha and Malley expose the weaknesses of those efforts and point to the potential of a very different approach. “They stress that the two-state solution became a global goal only when it was no longer viable; that U.S. officials preferred technical schemes to a frank reckoning with the past; that Hamas’s onslaught [on Oct 7, 2023] and Israel’s war of destruction were not historical exceptions but historical reenactments; and that the gaps separating Israelis and Palestinians have less to do with territorial allocation than with history and emotions.” From Amazon Books website.

Robert Malley was the United State Special Envoy for Iran in 2021-23 and as Special Assistant to President Clinton from 1998 to 2001, he was a member of the U.S. peace team and helped organize the 2000 Camp David Summit. Hussein Agha, a Lebanese, is a senior associate of Oxford University’s St. Antony’s College was a senior associate fellow at Chatham House.

Malley and Agha stress the diversity of players in the search for peace—ultra orthodox to nonreligious Jews—Palestinian groups that spent more energy fighting one another than fighting Jews. Selecting Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat for US lead negotiations at the Camp David summit left out most groups and many relevant issues. The authors end with the somewhat encouraging call to return to the beginning (1948 and before) and seating all Jewish and Palestinian groups at the table to take on the fundamental issues of history head on if there is any chance of finding the compromises needed to live together in peace with one, two, or more states as options.  https://wcoats.blog/2024/01/19/one-state-solution-for-palestine-israel/   Their narrative is a very enlightening account. 

Kurdistan

Though large numbers of Jews were scattered around the world for two thousand years, Palestine has always retained a significant number of them. Of the almost 11.3 million Jews in 1900, most were in Europe (9 million), Russia (3.9 million) and the United States (1.5 million). At the beginning of the WWII the global population of Jews had grown to 15.4 million of which one third were in the US.

Even before the holocaust there were movements to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The 1917 Belfour Declaration from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, pledged British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The local Christian and Muslim community of Palestine, who constituted almost 90% of the population, strongly opposed the declaration.

What became known as Zionism (as formalized by Theodor Herzl, it aimed to secure a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution and to revive Jewish culture and language) took many forms. For example, the question who is Jewish continues to be debated. Following World War I, Britian ruled the Lavant (Palestine). On September 3, 1947, the UN adopted the boundaries (green line) to divide the British mandate between a state of Israel and the rest. Israel was given 56% and Jerusalem (an important Christian, Jewish, and Muslim shrine) was made international. When Britten ended its Mandate, Israel declared its independence.

Most Zionists sought a democratic Jewish state. Upon its founding in 1947, Israel was roughly 60% Muslim, 40% Jewish and 10% Christian. That was an unacceptable problem for those wanting a democratic Jewish state. From the Nakba of 1948 (Jewish ethnic cleaning of over half of the Palestinians then living in Israel) Israel was about 90% Jewish in 1949. Currently the population of Israel is about 10 million, of which 73% are Jewish, and 20% are Muslims. Finding peace with the rest of Palestine has remained a challenge to this day. Are the prospects for a peaceful Kurdistan very different.

The Kurdish population worldwide is estimated to be between 40 and 45 million, making them one of the largest ethnic groups without a sovereign state. However, about 30 million of them live within what would be the sovereign state of Kurdistan should it be allowed to exist, made up of chunks of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Kurdish military forces have fought for territory but largely in pursuit of claims to rule what they considered home ground. It is extremely unlikely that the Kurds in this area would have any interest in expanding their territory. None the less Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey have generally been hostile to any effort of the Kurds to rule themselves. The formation of a Kurdistan raises the questions whether that would bring greater peace to the wider region and whether the “internal” politics would support domestic rule that would properly serve the Kurdish people (or all residents of the area). Intense opposing political views exist within Kurdistan, particularly in Iraq, where the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) compete for control, often leading to governance deadlocks, separate security forces, and split zones of control.

In addition, we must ask whether the Iraqi Kurds, Iranian Kurds, Turkish Kurds, and Syrian Kurds feel more loyal to the country they are located in or to their fellow Kurds in the surrounding countries. Does a nation function better toward the interests of its citizens when based on ethnic and/or religious commonality or when based on common principals of governance and rights?

Israel is an example of the first option—Jewishness. As a classical liberal (libertarian) I support the American approach of rights and laws applied equally without regard to ethnicity or personal religious beliefs. For Kurdistan, the question with whether the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Syria feel greater loyalty to other Kurds or to the country they live in.

I started this blog expecting to build the case for a Kurdistan. I have talked myself out of it.

Trump’s Board of Pease and Founding Executive Board

Trump’s current Gaza “peace plan” presented last September combines a 20‑point ceasefire and demilitarization while promising large‑scale reconstruction and investment. The ceasefire starting October 10 and hostage return that “ended” Israel’s two-year attack on Gaza following Hama’s Oct 7, 2023, attack on Israel, is to be followed by rebuilding the totally flattened Strip.

Hama’s Oct 7 attack killed 1,400 Israelis and Israel’s counterattack has killed over 72,000 Palestinians (over half of them women and children) with more yet to be counted under the rubble. Moreover, the attacks and blockage of food and medical supplies since the “ceasefire” starting October 10, have resulted in almost 500 more Palestinian deaths.

The next phase is the rebuilding of the buildings destroyed by Israel during its war on Hamas. For this purpose President Trump has created a Board of Peace. Wikipedia reports that: “Donald Trump is explicitly named in the Charter of the Board of Peace as its inaugural Chairman. The chairman has no term limit, and they alone have the authority to nominate their designated successor. Only the Chairman has the ability to invite countries to join the board. The Chairman has the exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities of the Board of Peace. All revisions to the Charter and administrative directives issued by the Board of Peace are subject to approval by the Chairman.[1] Trump’s chairmanship of the Board of Peace is independent to him holding the presidency of the United States and he has indicated that he would like to remain chairman for life.” “Board of Peace”

“To operationalize the Board of Peace’s vision—under the chairmanship of President Donald J. Trump—a Founding Executive Board has been formed…. The appointed members are:

  • Secretary Marco Rubio
  • Steve Witkoff
  • Jared Kushner
  • Sir Tony Blair
  • Marc Rowan
  • Ajay Banga
  • Robert Gabriel”.

White House statement on President Trump’s comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict”

A long list of countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and other European nations, were absent from the signing of the Board of Peace in Davos, and some have specifically rejected the invitation.  And why should they join an organization that puts Trump in charge of the world for life.

“His plan is to strip the United Nations – and thereby the international community – of any oversight of Gaza’s fate…. The US president hopes his “Board of Peace” will deliver the knockout blow, supplanting the UN and the system of international law it is there to uphold.” “Trump’s Board of Peace is the nail in the UN”

These concerns for the status of the UN are important, but I want to flag a different flaw in Trump’s “peace” plans having to do with its rebuilding.

“Jared Kushner on Thursday unveiled a sweeping U.S.-backed vision at Davos to rebuild the war-torn Gaza Strip into a “New Gaza” economic hub by 2035,” “Jared Kushner unveils new Gaza”  These plans reflect the statements made by Trump one year ago in which he proposed that the United States should “own” the Gaza Strip, “level the site” (clear the ruins) and build resorts there, calling it “the Riviera of the Middle East.” Rights groups and major news outlets noted that behind these pledges to make Gaza a “Riviera of the Middle East” was a plan to permanently “empty” Gaza of its more than 2 million Palestinian residents and not allow them to return. Trump said Palestinians would be moved to neighboring states such as Jordan and Egypt, providing them with “much better housing” and a “beautiful location” elsewhere.

In a statement by Tony Blair: “For Gaza and its people, we want a Gaza which does not reconstruct Gaza as it was but as it could and should be.”

What is missing in these plans is recognition that Gaza is the home of and owned by two million Palestinians, who surely should have a say in its future.

“What is Israel’s objective in Gaza”

Bosnia

In my last blog I condemned the US’s illegal attack on Venezuela and worried about what might follow given the apparent lack of a broadly considered and agreed plan. In this blog I will contrast it with the approach taken at the end of the vicious civil war between the Croat, Serb and Bosnian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton accords. “Three decades ago, in November 1995, the U.S.-brokered Dayton accords ended the Bosnian war, a three-and-a-half-year ethnic conflict that killed roughly 100,000 people and displaced two million. The settlement imposed a complex power-sharing structure on a divided country, promising the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a new start.” This quote is from an excellent assessment of that agreement and the new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that it created by Elmira Bayrasli in Foreign Affairs: “Bosnia’s Unfinished Peace”

I drafted the monetary section of that constitution, which established a central bank bound by currency board rules (i.e. no monetary policy as the money supply is determined by the public’s demand for and willingness to purchase its currency). I also led the IMF teams that drafted the Central Bank Law that merged the existing three central banks (Croat, Serbian and Bosnian) into one national bank and currency. The negotiations with the three (obviously) future governors of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBH) lasted for over a year of heated discussions of the CBBH’s powers and the details of its currency notes. For details see my account in “One Currency for Bosnia”  Surprisingly to many the CBBH’s currency board rules were accepted instantly by all three with no debate. The reason was that the three didn’t trust one another and currency board rules eliminate an monetary policy discresion.

The Dayton accord was the product of intense negotiations between the Presidents of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian provinces of B&H and diplomates from the US, UK, EU and Russia culminating with the agreement at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio—the Dayton Accord. To lay out the sharp contrast between these negations and the lack of them in the current “take over” of Venezuela, I will quote extensively from Wikipedia:

“During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, pressured the leaders of the three sides to attend settlement negotiations; Dayton, Ohio was eventually chosen as the venue.

“Talks began with an outline of key points presented by the US in a team led by National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in visits to London, Bonn, Paris and other European stops 10 – 14 August 1995. These included Sochi, to consult Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. Lake’s team handed off to a separate US inter-agency group led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, who went on to negotiate with Balkan leaders in their capitals. The Holbrooke crew conducted five rounds of intense shuttle diplomacy from August to October, including short conferences in Geneva and New York that resulted in the parties’ adoption of principles for a settlement on 8 and 26 September respectively.

“The Dayton conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević (whom the Bosnian Serbs had previously empowered to represent their interests), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg.

“The peace conference was led by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two co-chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark. The head of the UK’s team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey. Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.”

The history and situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was dramatically different than Venezuela. Ending its civil war required extensive negotiations and considerable international oversight of compliance to the agreed arrangements. As noted in the Foreign Affairs article sighted above, a serious mistake was holding national elections far too earlier. The intense hatreds of the three national groups were not given enough time to soften resulting in the election of hardliners and the continuation of the war by other means. The second mistake was the failure of international oversight (the UN High Representative) to fully exorcise its powers. None the less the three nation country has held together peaceably for three decades following its civil war.

While the political situation in Bosnia remains fragile (see the excellent article sited above in Foreign Affairs) the central bank itself has been a great success, widely trusted and respected by most citizens from the three provinces. I attribute this to its enlightened leadership and the central bank law with its currency board rules. Tragically the DOGE chain saw seems to have eliminated US capacity for effective diplomacy. “At the breaking point”

ICE

When I complained about the masked ICE bandits, I noted that they cover their faces and grab innocent people, including American citizens, off the street. A few people pushed back on my comment

“Why do you think ICE are bandits. They are there to protect Americans. All those who came here illegally must be sent back home.”

The dialog that followed on Facebook prompts me to provide a fuller treatment here.

Those who commit what for a legal resident would be a crime, should be deported, but this applies to a minority of those apprehended by ICE. And we must distinguish between those seeking refugee status from others here illegally. Refugee applicants claim that they would not be safe remaining in their home country (some of my Afghan friends come to mind). Thus, we cannot properly return them to their home country.

Those non refugees here illegally, about half are illegal because they overstayed their (student, tourist, work) visa and about half entered the US without a proper visa. Less than a third of those deported in recent years have been convicted of a crime (many of them traffic violations). Actual crimes (stealing, battery, etc.) are over whelmingly committed by legal residents.

There are currently almost 15 million illegal residents about 10 million of whom have jobs. A proper immigration regime, one that serves the best interests of the U.S., would better enforce legal status and deport those without legal status or provide a legal path to legal status. This is easier said than done. https://wcoats.blog/2025/08/29/immigration/

In 2013, a bipartisan group of eight senators (the “Gang of Eight”) drafted S.744, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a multi‑step path to legal status and eventual citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, alongside major expansions of border security and enforcement.​

The bill passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote of 68–32, including support from 14 Republicans, reflecting unusually broad elite consensus for an earned legalization and citizenship framework. Then‑Speaker John Boehner refused to bring the bill to the House floor because it lacked support from a majority of House Republicans, even though it likely had the votes to pass with a coalition of Democrats and some Republicans. Thus it sadly died.

Simply deporting these “illegal” (undocumented) workers would cripple the economy which is already fully employed. But I want to focus on the approach taken by ICE that I have been complaining about as contrary to America’s tradition of the rule of law. While I could cite a number of examples of ICE grabbing legal US citizens off the street for deportation, I want to focus on the most famous of them Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland. He entered the U.S. illegally 14 or so years ago and is married to a U.S. citizen and is the father of three children born here. He has not been convicted of any crimes in the U.S. but U.S. officials have repeatedly accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. These claims were largely based on a 2019 police report citing a confidential informant and Garcia’s choice of clothing (specifically a Chicago Bulls hat). He has never been charged with a gang-related crime.

In 2019 he was granted “withholding of removal”, a form of protection that explicitly prohibited the U.S. government from deporting him to El Salvador because of the risk of persecution and violence he would face there.​ Despite this protected status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him in March 2025 on alleged gang‑related grounds that a federal judge later described as ambiguous and unsupported.

On March 15, 2025, he was placed on one of three planes of alleged gang members sent under a Trump administration operation to El Salvador, where he was delivered to the CECOT mega‑prison, a facility widely described as one of the most dangerous in the Western Hemisphere.​ The U.S. Supreme Court eventually intervened, and he was returned to the U.S. in June 2025 to face the current pending charges. Bari Weiss has been sharply criticized for cancelling a CBS 60 minutes report on the conditions in that prison. “cbs news Bari Weiss intervention”

The administration has acknowledged to courts and the press that his deportation occurred despite the prior legal bar and has variously characterized it as an “administrative error.”  After being returned to the U.S., Abrego Garcia was indicted in Tennessee on two federal counts: conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. The government alleges he played a role in a smuggling ring, a claim he vehemently denies.

On December 11, 2025, a federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody, ruling that his detention was unlawful, and he returned to his home in Maryland. A judge extended an order in December 2025 preventing his return to immigration detention while awaiting further details on his case from the government. His trial is set to begin in January 2026, though he is attempting to have the charges dropped.

More than government’s abuse of Abrego Garcia’s rights, we read ugly and often mistaken “arrests” of residents from the streets and from their jobs. Earlier this month, multiple reports described immigrants being turned away or “plucked out of line” at U.S. citizenship oath ceremonies, especially in Boston’s Faneuil Hall and other locations, after new Trump administration directives targeting applicants from 19 so‑called “high‑risk” countries.

These individuals had already completed interviews and been approved, but USCIS officials stopped them at the final step, cancelling or pausing their naturalization, which advocates have described as “unspeakable cruelty.”

There are approximately 2.3 million to 2.4 million individuals with pending asylum cases in the U.S. immigration court system. These individuals are technically part of the unauthorized population but have “procedural protection” from deportation while they wait for a judge to rule on their status.  Because of a massive backlog, the average wait time for an asylum case to be resolved in court is currently about 4.3 years.

So I stand by my characterization of the masked ICE agents as bandits. Our immigration policy and its enforcement have real problems but they need a more thoughtful and serious approach.

But I want to leave you with a last very disturbing comments. One of my Facebook readers ask: “what are your thoughts on ICE government agents required to follow rules and regulations supporting people who do not follow the rules and regulations. I’ve always thought it Odd that law-enforcement has to enforce the law following the rules, detaining those who do not follow rules. Seems a little hypocritical.” Believe it or not he is actually saying that since the police (ICE) are apprehending people who are thought by them to be breaking the law, why can’t the police break it as well. No comment. https://wcoats.blog/2025/06/12/police-state/

America First

What does America First really mean and how can we best achieve it? It should mean pursuing a foreign policy—our relations with other countries—that best serves our national interest. That requires that our relations with other countries maximize our security and our ability to profitably trade with them including traveling and vacationing in them. In short, our own interest is best served by having friendly relations with our neighbors. It serves our interest for others to trust us and to interact with us on the bases of known and shared rules. Tourism in the US is one of our best exports both in terms of revenue and its contribution to mutual understanding. Sadly, these goals have been seriously damaged over this year leaving us less safe and poorer than we could have been.

I am reminded of the debate over whether companies should strive to maximize profits (shareholder value). As John Mackey, a co-founder of Whole Food, has insightfully argued, a firm’s profits are maximized (assuming the government is not protecting its monopoly) when its workers, neighborhood, and customers are treated well and kept happy with the most efficient cost possible of supplying whatever the firm supplies. We might call this the right way to serve Shareholders First. Supporting this or that charity or cause should be left to the individual shareholders, who are likely to choose to give to different causes.

Benjamin Netanyahu

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024, accusing him of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to Israel’s actions in Gaza, including the alleged use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally targeting civilians. 

Netanyahu is now considered a wanted suspect by the ICC, and member states are obligated to arrest him if he enters their jurisdiction. So why is he enjoying dinner with US President Trump? Sadly, the US too often ignores the rules of international relations that we helped establish. In doing so we are diminishing our status in the world community. Lossing friends and becoming more and more isolated is NOT in America’s self-interest.

As of now, Netanyahu has not been tried or found guilty by any international court for war crimes. The legal process would require his arrest, extradition, and a full trial before any conviction could occur. Not only has America failed its obligation to arrest him, we have supported his efforts to eliminate Palestinians (one way or another) from their homeland. America is complicit in these crimes. Our support of Israel’s wars is not compatible with our principles of the rights of each and every person and our generous and well-meaning hearts. Those of us who speak out against these crimes risk punishment by the Trump administration — even the deportation of legal residents who have committed no crimes. If we do not speak out against these horrors, we must accept some blame for them.

Ukraine Russian Peace Treaty

I am a monetary, not a foreign policy, expert. But after spending good bits of the last two decades in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, South Sudan and Israel/WBGS I have some questions:

  1. Why did we expand NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
  2. Why didn’t we discuss Putin’s Dec 2021demands to avoid Russia invading Ukraine? https://wcoats.blog/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-nato/
  3. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022, why didn’t we give Ukraine all the military equipment they wanted?
  4. When Russia and Ukraine were ready to sign a peace agreement negotiated in Turkey in March 2022, why did UK PM Boris Johnson tell Ukraine President Zelenskyy not to sign?
  5. Why do Americans, and especially Congressmen, tolerate President Trump’s threats to invade Panama, Greenland, Mexico and expel all Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and break so many American laws?