People living in their vehicles at the Berkeley Marina left Marina Boulevard when ordered to do so by police this morning, one of the vehicle dwellers said this afternoon. 

The 20 to 25 people living in vehicles have relocated to the parking lot of the Hs. Lordships restaurant at 199 Seawall Drive, according to a vehicle dweller who goes by her first name, "Amber." 

"The police came and told everybody we had to leave right then or they would start towing peoples' homes, so we had to move as quickly as we could," Amber said.  

The vehicle dwellers were living in about a dozen large recreational vehicles lined up on Marina Boulevard. 

Most of them have moved to the Hs. Lordships parking lot. Hs. Lordships is closing July 2, according to the restaurant's website. 

Amber said she has heard that if the group doesn't leave the Hs. Lordships parking lot by 11 p.m., the vehicles will be towed. 

The officers said the vehicle dwellers had to move to get out of the way of construction, Amber said. 

Amber described the group of vehicle dwellers, who she said had lived at the Berkeley Marina for many months, as "an unintentional community." She said the community includes families with children. 

Berkeley police did not respond to a phone message and an email requesting comment by press time.

One of Richmond's most beloved restaurants, Salute E Vita, run by a black woman immigrant known for her charitable activities, is closing because of a landlord-tenant dispute.

The waterfront restaurant, which has been open 25 years, is slated to close July 6. On July 5 and 6, proprietor Menbere Aklilu is offering a free meal at Salute in exchange for donations to benefit the 40 employees left jobless by the closure. 

"I will miss my loyal employees. I am successful because of them," Aklilu said in a telephone interview today. "It's about all of us."  

She added, "I am confident it will all work out for the best." 

Since taking over the restaurant 15 years ago, Aklilu provided more than 30,000 meals to homeless people and others in need, through annual Thanksgiving dinners and other events. Salute became a community hub, hosting the 2014 wedding reception of then-Police Chief Chris Magnus. 

Richmond Mayor Tom Butt announced the closing in his email newsletter, heaping praise on Aklilu, who goes by the nickname Menbe. 

"Menbe has not only become Richmond's best-known restaurateur but is also Richmond's best-known philanthropist, raising and donating hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars and services to homeless youth, and a shelter for girls in her native Ethiopia, to name a few beneficiaries," Butt said. 

In 2016, Aklilu was served a 30-day notice to vacate. 

"The community saved me," she said. "The people came to rally for me." 

More than 100 people, including Butt, showed up at a rally at the restaurant, and the Penterra Company under the leadership of Richard Poe rescinded the eviction notice. 

However, Aklilu has been running on a month-to-month lease for 11 years, she said. In his widely circulated newsletter, the mayor said the rent Aklilu was charged was "twice, or more, the comparable local market rent," leading to her giving up on the restaurant after running it for 15 years.  

In a phone interview, Poe said, "We tried to negotiate a lower-than-market rate rent with her (Aklilu)." 

He said the kitchen needed repairs and had outdated equipment, that the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen floor and that rent would go "up a little bit to cover the cost of repairs."  

Poe said Aklilu was unwilling to bear the cost of replacing the kitchen equipment. 

In a story familiar in the annals of immigrants, Aklilu, a native of Ethiopia, moved to the United States from Italy 23 years ago, a single mother and domestic violence survivor. 

"I was homeless. I lost my mother when I was 11 years old," Aklilu said. "My brother raised me. I gave birth to my son in the womens' shelter when I was in Rome. I came to America in 1995 with a young boy."  

Living in the Oakland projects, she got a job at Salute at $7 an hour. 

Aklilu worked at Salute under the previous owners as a hostess, working her way up to supervisor and manager. She bought the restaurant in 2002. 

"A lot of people didn't believe in me. 'Oh my God, Menbere Aklilu? A black woman and immigrant, and she wants to run this beautiful restaurant? She can't do it,'" Aklilu said. 

"But I did it," she said. "And I am proud of it." 

She added, "I am blessed, and there is no doubt in my mind I will be blessed again."

From a long-time reader and contributor: “Voter Guide? Will the Planet offer one for June 5?”

Yes. Pertinent question. It seems to be June 1, with election day on Tuesday. Undoubtedly our most opinionated and confident readers have already returned their ballots, the written kind that used to be called absentees. But for the rest of us, the game is still in play.

The reader in question is someone I’d happily consult before making up my own mind. That’s how I do it myself—just asking around among people whose opinion I respect, and using the rough consensus of their opinions. I also look at the candidate’s claimed endorsements and try to avoid those candidates endorsed by people I don’t respect.

What I don’t do: Watch television. Watch ads on social media. Follow endorsements of the corporate press: San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Times, East Bay Express (The Voice of the Cannabis Industry). I do look at what’s now called the San Francisco Bay Guardian endorsements, still orchestrated by my friend Tim Redmond, who was once the print Guardian editor and now edits 48hills.org. But I don’t follow even those slavishly.

Really, it’s a crap shoot, particularly for these June under-the-radar pseudo-primaries. I’m slowly realizing that this top-two system, which has been around since 2010, is a godsend to the big money neo-liberal crowd. The profile of such donors is broadmindedness on social issues coupled with a touching belief in the efficacy of markets on economic topics like for-profit charter schools and market rate housing development.

Even establishment Democratic party endorsements have a better record of producing effective candidates than top-two, though the two systems all too often echo each other. We have a great example of how the “top-two + DCCC” method works right here in California Assembly District 15, where one candidate (enough of her name already!) has both big-name big-Dem endorsers from out of town and “dark money” from a state PAC funded by the corporate finance crowd.

But we’ve complained about all this before, so on to the work at hand. Which candidate would give the corporate candidate a run for her money in the fall, and how about the other races? 

Here’s where I’m going, relying often on advice from the SFBG and Margot Smith of the Grey Panthers. If I’ve skipped something it’s likely I haven’t been able to find out enough to form an opinion. 

FEDERAL  

Senator: Kevin de Leon. As an old lady myself, I don’t like the ageist criticism of Feinstein, but on the other hand she’s always left a lot to be desired politically. 

Representative: Barbara Lee. Of course. 

STATE 

Governor: Delaine Eastin. It’s doubtful that she has a chance to get into the November primary, but the other two are Democrats-lite, each annoying in different ways. She’s got the best position on the important issues. One of the others will win in the end, maybe two for November—it doesn’t really matter which. 

Lieutenant Governor: Gayle McLaughlin. Again, one of the others will win, but here’s a Green Party protest vote you can feel good about. 

Attorney General: Dave Jones 

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla (SFBG) or Ruben Major (Margot) 

State Controller: Betty Yee  

State Treasurer: Fiona Ma 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond  

State Assembly AD15: Jovanka Beckles, Here we’re looking for the anyone-else candidate to oppose the corporate Democrat Buffy Wicks in the top two race. I think I’ll vote for Beckles, who as an African-American immigrant gay women is the kind of candidate who should be representing this diverse district. I don’t think she’s perfect, and I think several others are fine, but she’s done a good job campaigning and would provide a vigorous contest in November. 

Judge: Tara Flanagan 

STATE PROPOSITIONS
68--YES--Parks and road improvement,
69--YES, Infrastructure repair
70--NO, raises passing votes on green expenditures from 50% to 66%.
71--YES, technical correction of legislation
72--YES, promotes water conservation 

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

Assessor: Phong La
Auditor: Irella Blackwood
District Atty: Pamela Price. Incumbent Nancy O’Malley (no relation) is better than many D.A.s, but I know of at least one case where her staff pursued a spite prosecution to ridiculous and expensive lengths before losing in court. Also, the two hit pieces I got from her campaign this week are scurrilous, truly disgusting and untrue, so I could never vote for her after seeing them. Price would push the office in new and positive directions. She probably won’t win, but she’s showing leadership on the issues.
Sheriff: WRITE IN "No Confidence” suggests Margot.

MEASURES 

I’m voting no on both Alameda County Measure A, sales tax for childcare and Regional Measure 3, increased bridge tolls. I think both are too vaguely drafted and might not end up paying for real programs but just for administration. They are both regressive, taxing the poor for things that should be paid out of general funds. 

Herewith the usual disclaimer: these recommendations are nothing more than my own somewhat informed opinion. It’s only Friday—I could change my mind before Tuesday. If you know something I don’t know, please write to opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com about it. 

. 

New issues will now be published on Saturdays and will be online until the next Saturday. If you'd like a preview of what's being posted, use the Next Issue button. Articles submitted mid-week can be added to the current issue if they're time-sensitive, but will be held for the next new issue if not. New editorials will be added mid-week and will run until the middle of the next week. If you don't want to miss anything, become a a subscriber by emailing subscribe@berkeleydailyplanet.com, which will put you on the list to get an email with new links as articles are added.

Over a five-week period (so far) the Israeli army, in full sight of a world viewership, has killed more than 100 and injured more than 13,000 unarmed demonstrators positioned behind a security fence and mostly several football fields away from the firing line (although some approached the fence). How can Israel do this and suffer no repercussions whatsoever? Perhaps to ask this is to ask how Israel can do what it does in Gaza all the time. 

Of course, the international status of Israel is unique, for many complicated reasons. But I believe there is also something unique about Gaza. 

I’ll ignore the clearly absurd word “clashes” as in the frequently repeated “border clashes” and focus on the word “border.” In political usage, “border” denotes the demarcation between contiguous sovereign states. Although Israel has unusual characteristics, I have no trouble granting that it is a sovereign state. But what, on the other side of the so-called “border,” is Gaza? 

Technically it and the West Bank comprise the Occupied Palestinian Territories (as designated by the UN), and there are rules governing occupations, including the requirement that the occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the occupied. However, a 51-year “occupation” stretches the meaning of the term almost beyond recognition, and Israel has never agreed to it anyway, calling the West Bank “the disputed territories” and—in the aftermath of Sharon’s 2005 unilateral “disengagement” from Gaza, when he withdrew both the settlers and the army—refusing to acknowledge that the strip is still occupied and part of the OPT. 

Oslo also muddied the waters by creating the Palestinian Authority, beginning a now-25-year-long fiction that “Palestine” is a state-in-waiting, generally treated as if it were an actual state—capable, for example, of negotiating (although it lacks any of the attributes of actual states, such as defined territory, sovereignty, and the capacity to defend itself): thus the fiction of “borders” which trips so lightly from so many tongues. 

Finally, a rupture between Hamas, which won the last election held in the Palestinian territories (in 2006) and Fatah, which controls the PA and the West Bank, left Gaza not only physically but also politically isolated. 

We should note also that Israel wants/intends to incorporate the West Bank, which it has now annexed in every way but formally, but does not want the Gaza Strip, which is basically a holding tank for nearly two million Palestinians, who do not need to be counted. As for Gaza’s offshore gas deposits, Israel simply takes them as it takes West Bank water. 

What then is Gaza? Many have described it as the world’s largest prison, and perhaps this is accurate, although since prisons exist (usually) within the territories of states, those confined within them enjoy—at least theoretically—the legal rights and protections to which citizens are entitled. 

I have tended towards the idea that Gaza exists permanently in a state of exception, or state of emergency, a concept originated by the German Carl Schmitt and explored most thoroughly by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben. Agamben sees the entire Nazi period as a state of exception and the concentration camps in particular as places where the stripping of citizenship and the rights thereof which the state of exception permits was enacted. 

In Black Earth: the Holocaust as History and Warning, historian Timothy Snyder argues that before Jews could be killed, they had to be deprived of citizenship, and to accomplish that, state structures had to be dismantled. Wherever states remained intact, mass murder did not occur. 

About President George W. Bush’s November 2001 military order, Agamben has written, “What is new about President Bush’s order is that it radically erases any legal status of the individual, thus producing a legally unnameable and unclassifiable being. Not only do the Taliban captured in Afghanistan not enjoy the status of POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention, they do not even have the status of people charged with a crime according to American laws.” 

In Spiral: Trapped in the Forever War, Mark Danner also posits the “state of exception” to explain how the US government came to permit itself torture after 9/11, arguing, sadly, that while President Bush imposed the state of exception, President Obama normalized it. 

This stripping of protective legal status which political thinkers struggle to define has happened, I would argue, to the people confined to the Gaza Strip, not suddenly through a military order, but over time, through a succession of redefinitions which has left them “unnameable and unclassifiable”—with biological (“bare life”) but neither social nor juridical being. 

The writer of the leader in this past week’s issue of The Economist ignored all this highfalutin analysis and cut to the chase. He wrote: “Gaza is a human rubbish heap that everyone would rather ignore.” 

I think, by the way, The Economist is only partly right. Although Israel does not want 

Gaza, it has uses for it: as a shooting range [note 1]; a weapons testing ground [note 2]; and—perhaps—as a laboratory in which to discover just how far it can push slow genocide before the liberal democracies object. 

Note 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLzRv_kNXU 

Note 2. Saar Koursh, CEO of Magal Security Systems, Ltd., which built the Gaza fence, noted that Gaza has become a showroom for the company’s “smart fences,” as customers appreciate that the products are battle-tested. Bloomberg News, 4/10/2018.

Voters find few challenges in using ranked choice voting ballot; more voters are ranking multiple candidates, while voter errors decline; new machines to allow improvements

SAN FRANCISCO – Ahead of San Francisco’s June 5 mayoral election, a report released today by FairVote California reveals that city voters interact effectively with ranked choice voting (RCV) ballots. Findings indicate that voters are increasingly ranking multiple candidates and that voter errors like skipped rankings and overvotes (when voters rank more than one candidate for each choice) are rare.

The report, which draws on data from elections that took place in San Francisco between 2004 – 2016, finds that city voters have used RCV ballots well from the start and more effectively each year. The report divides the elections into categories based on how competitive they were and analyzes the rates at which voters ranked candidates, the rates at which they skipped the election entirely, and voting errors. 

Voters have become more likely to rank second and third choices, while skipped rankings -- especially in competitive races with three or more candidates -- are rare and become rarer over time. Likewise, overvotes are rare, and issues with overvoting are comparable with non-RCV elections. 

“Ranked choice voting is a key narrative in this year’s competitive mayoral election in San Francisco, and this report shows that voters are easily able to use ranked choice voting to cast their votes,” said Pedro Hernandez, deputy director of FairVote California and an author of the report. “RCV allows San Franciscans to vote for the candidates they prefer as opposed to wasting time trying to figure out how to game the system, so their vote isn’t wasted.” 

The report also reviews the growing body of evidence on the impact of RCV on voter choice and voter turnout. Authors of the report also modeled cost-estimates savings for runoff elections, estimating that the city of San Francisco saved more than $10 million by electing leaders in one election. They also identify a sharp increase in electoral success by candidates of color in the 53 city offices elected by RCV in the Bay Area. 

“One way to understand the impact of RCV is to contrast the mayoral election in San Francisco with California’s current top-two system in place for state and federal elections,” Hernandez said. “Having eight mayoral candidates is not a problem when using RCV in San Francisco, but having only one vote with top-two sanctions vote-splitting and is less representative of the state’s electorate.” 

The report does provide evidence suggesting that RCV will work all the better with two changes that will be in place in 2019 due to leasing of new voting equipment: allowing voters to rank more than three candidates, and having a ballot design proven in other cities to make ranking more candidates easy. In its first mayoral elections this spring, Santa Fe, N.M. experienced a significant rise in turnout and nearly two-in-three voters choosing to rank all five mayoral candidates. 

The full report can be found here. 

Background
San Francisco has used RCV to elect 18 city offices: its Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and six other citywide offices since 2004. At least 14 other cities will be using RCV in upcoming elections, and Maine will be using it for statewide primaries in June. Using RCV permits voters to rank candidates on the ballot rather than voting for a single candidate, which can limit voter participation and contribute to an uneven playing field for diverse and underrepresented voices in cities like San Francisco. More information about ranked choice voting can be found here. 

# # # 

In the wake of yet another mass shooting in Texas, many Americans are asking, what will it take for Congress to restrict access to guns? The inconvenient truth is most lawmakers have a pervasive fear of the NRA and wish to maintain their charmed life style uninterrupted, a generous salary, Cadillac health care and virtually no accountability especially if they live in “safe” Congressional districts. 

A few offered the same insane remedy – arm the teachers! 

A terrifying statistic, 82 percent of teenagers are more likely to die from violence than their peers in the developed world. 

These apathetic, laissez- faire, attitudes need to change. 

Here are a few suggestions. 

1. Vote out any member receiving NRA funding. 2. Parents allowing their children access to firearms which are used in the commission of a crime must be regarded as accessories and charged a heavy fine commensurate with the gravity of the crime - and possible jail time. 3. Concerned citizens are urged to write or call the IRS and demand the NRA lose its 501©(3) non-profit status and pay back taxes from the date of their incorporation in 1975. 4. As John Paul Stevens, the eminent former Supreme Court Justice, opinioned recently in the New York Times, it is past time to repeal the Second Amendment which currently allows Americans to purchase unlimited quantities of weapons. 70 percent of Americans do not possess weapons which mean a majority of Americans are held hostage to the whims of a small minority.

It is shameful that federal labor law does not include any provision that curtails the right of an employer to impose last minute changes on work schedules. So the lives of a substantial number of workers, particularly in food service and retail business, can become problematic because they do not receive sufficient notice. This neglect in the labor laws is particularly burdensome for women, who need a stable work schedule to plan how their children will be taken care of in their absence. Generally speaking, unpredictable schedules in low wage jobs interferes considerably with the ability of working woman, especially single parents, to care for their families.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 41 percent of hourly workers (ages 26-32) find out about their upcoming shifts a week or less in advance.

Working people need consistency in their lives. Many obligations and activities that working people engage in depends on knowing well in advance what their work schedule will be. They should not have to cancel an appointment with their doctor, for example, because the employer on very short notice changes their hours of work. And parents should not be shocked when they learn that their child sitter would be on vacation just when the new schedule takes effect. The Economic Policy Institute found that haphazard scheduling not only reduces job satisfaction. It increases work-family conflict.  

In the absence of federal legislation, it is up to the states and local communities to enact worker friendly scheduling laws. But only one state, Oregon, has done so. Employees must be given at least 7 days notice of their schedule. In July 2020 the notice period increases to 14 days. However, only employees who work in retail, hospitality, and food service companies with 500 employees worldwide are covered. Obviously, the vast majority of workers are not. Unfortunately, Oregon's law is essentially window dressing. 

In the Bay Area, only two cities require employers to notify employees of their schedule well in advance. --San Francisco and Emeryville. The San Francisco ordinance, which was enacted in 2014, requires employers to give their schedules to employees two weeks in advance. With regard to how many employees are covered, the law is stingy. It applies to workers at chain stores with at least 11 locations worldwide or that employ 20 or more employees and have 20 or more locations worldwide. Clearly the law benefits only a very small fraction of workers in San Francisco. 

Emeryville passed a scheduling ordinance that obligates far more businesses than the San Francisco law allows. All retail and food services businesses with at least 56 or more employees worldwide are covered under the law, which requires employers to provide employees an advanced scheduling notice of at least 14 days in advance. About applying the law only to firms with at least 56 employees, isn't that too high? Why not apply the law to businesses with half that number of employees? Nevertheless, by enacting a scheduling law that allows employees to plan their activities, Emeryville has moved in the right direction. 

It is very disappointing that very few cities in the United States have adopted a worker oriented scheduling law. Working people need not only decent wages, but humane working conditions, which protect employees against volatile working conditions. Employees should be able to plan their lives beyond work. But the local legislatures and mayors in the bay area cities have so far not been interested. However, a real possibility is that the progressive majority of the City Council in Berkeley will take up this issue. One council member, Kate Harrison, has already indicated her support for predictive scheduling legislation. 

Progressives and Labor unions in the various bay area towns must demand that their city councils act. And certainly organizations that represent women should be very concerned about and active on this issue. It is vital for all progressives to remind employers that working people are not things. That is, employees are not only the means to an employers' ends.  

The question is: has the Trump administration already made a decision to go to war with Iran, similar to the determination of the Bush administration to invade Iraq in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington? 

Predictions are dicey things, and few human institutions are more uncertain than war. But several developments have come together to suggest that the rationale for using sanctions to force a re-negotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is cover for an eventual military assault by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia aimed at regime change in Teheran. 

As clueless as the Trump administration is on foreign policy, the people around the White House—in particular National Security Advisor John Bolton—know that sanctions rarely produce results, and unilateral ones almost always fail. 

Sanctions aimed at Cuba, North Korea, Iraq and Libya did not dislodge any of those regimes and, in the case of North Korea, spurred Pyongyang into producing nuclear weapons. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi were eventually overthrown, but by American firepower, not sanctions. 

The only case in which sanctions produced some results were those applied to Iran from 2010 to 2015. But that embargo was multi-lateral and included China, India, and one of Iran’s major customers, the European Union (EU). When the U.S. unilaterally applied sanctions to Cuba, Iran and Libya in 1996, the move was a conspicuous failure. 

This time around, the White House has made no effort to involve other countries. The Trump plan is to use the power of the American economy to strong-arm nations into line. Back our sanctions, threatens the administration, or lose access to the US market. And given that the world uses the dollar as its de-facto international currency, financial institutions may find themselves barred from using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Telecommunications (SWIFT), the American-controlled network that allows banks and finance centers to transfer money from country to county. 

Those threats have not exactly panicked the rest of the world. China and India, which between them buy more than 1 million of Iran’s 2.1 million barrels per day production, say they will ignore the sanctions. According to Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs minister, “The European Union is determined to act in accordance with its security interests and protect its economic investments.” 

Adding up all the countries that will go along with the sanctions—including South Korea and Japan--will cut Teheran’s oil exports by 10% to 15%, nothing like the 50% plus that Iran lost under the prior sanctions regime. 

In short, the sanctions won’t work, but were they really meant to? 

It is possible that the White House somehow thinks they will—delusion is a characteristic of the Oval Office these days—but other developments suggest the administration is already putting in place a plan that will lead from economic sanctions to bombing runs. 

For starters, there is the close coordination between the White House and Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s April 30 speech shortly before Trump withdrew from the Iran agreement was tailored to give Washington a casus belli to dump the agreement. Virtually all of what Netanyahu “revealed” about the Iranian nuclear program was old news, already known by US, Israeli and European intelligence services. 

Four days before Netanyahu’s speech Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman met with his American counterparts and, according to Al Monitor, got a “green light” for any military action Tel Aviv might take against Iran. 

The same day Liberman was meeting with the Pentagon, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompao told Saudi Arabia to end its campaign against Qatar because the Americans wanted the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to be united around a campaign against Iran. 

Each of these moves seems calculated to set the stage for a direct confrontation with Iran involving some combination of the US, Israel and the two most aggressive members of the GCC, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The latter two are currently waging war on the Iranian-supported Houthis in Yemen. 

It is almost impossible to imagine what the consequences of such a war might be. On paper, it looks like a cakewalk for the anti-Teheran axis. Iran has an antiquated air force, a bunch of fast speedboats and tanks that date back to the 1960s. The military budgets of the US, Israel and the GCC are more than 58 times those of Iran. But, as the Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz once remarked, the only thing one can determine in war is who fires the first shot. 

Military might does not translate into an automatic win. After almost 17 years of war, the US is still bogged down in Afghanistan, and it basically left Iraq with its tail between its legs. Indeed, the last time the American military won a war was in Grenada. As for the GCC, in spite of more than two years of relentless warfare in Yemen, the monarchs are no nearer victory than they were when the war started. And Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate in 2006. 

While Iran does not have much in the way of military force, it has 80 million people with a strong streak of nationalism who would certainly unite against any attacker. It would be impossible to “win” a war against Iran without resorting to a ground invasion. 

But none of Iran’s antagonists have the capacity to carry that out. The Saudis have a dismal military record, and the UAE troops are stalemated in their campaign to take Yemen’s capital, Saana from the rag-tag Houthi militia. The Israelis don’t have the troops—and, in any case, would never put them in harm’s way so far from home—and the Americans are not about to send in the Marines. 

Most likely this would be a war of aircraft and missiles to destroy Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure. There is little that Teheran can do to stop such an assault. Any planes it put up would be toast, its anti-aircraft weapons are obsolete, and its navy would not last long. 

But flattening Teheran’s military is not winning a war, and Iran has other ways to strike back. The Iranians, for instance, have shown considerable skill at asymmetric warfare in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and it does have missiles. 

The real damage, however, will be the fallout from the war. The price of oil is already on the rise, and hostilities in the middle of one of the world’s largest petroleum repositories will likely send it through the roof. While that will be good for the GCC, high oil prices will put a dent into the economies of the EU, China, India, and even the US. 

What a war will almost certainly do is re-ignite Iran’s push to build a nuclear weapon. If that happens, Saudi Arabia will follow, and the world will be faced with several new nuclear powers in one of the most volatile regions of the world. 

Which doesn’t mean war is inevitable. 

The Trump administration hawks broke the JCPOA because they hoped Iran would then withdraw as well, giving the anti-Iranian axis an excuse to launch a war. Iranians are divided on this issue, with some demanding that Teheran re-start its uranium enrichment program, while others defend the agreement. Europe can play a key role here by firmly supporting the Joint Agreement and resisting the American sanctions, even if it means taking a financial hit. Some European firms, however, have already announced they are withdrawing their investments. 

The US Congress can also help stop a war, although it will require members—mostly Democrats—to put aside their anti-Iranian bias and make common cause with the “stay in the pact” Iranians. This is a popular issue. A CNN poll found that 63 percent of Americans opposed withdrawing from the agreement. 

It will also mean that the Congress—again, mainly Democrats—will have to challenge the role that Israel is playing. That will not be easy, but maybe not as difficult as it has been in the past. Israel’s brutality against Palestinians over the past month has won no friends except in the White House and the evangelical circuit, and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to Democrats. 

Lastly, Congress should cut the arms pipeline to the GCC and stop aiding the Saudis in their war on Yemen 

If war comes, Americans will find themselves in the middle of an unwinnable conflict that will destabilize the Middle East and the world’s economy, and pour more of this country’s resources into yet another quagmire. 

The Trump Administration is so dreadful they've made the George W. Bush Administration seem almost acceptable in comparison. Dubya surrounded himself with qualified staff. As awful as Bush Vice President Dick Cheney was, he had notable Washington experience: he'd served as White House Chief of Staff and as Secretary of Defense. In contrast, Mike Pence went from conservative talk-show host to Ineffective congressman (and governor) to Trump's Vice President. 

Nonetheless, the primary criticism of Pence isn't that he doesn't possess the cojones to perform the job of President, if need be. The Vice President -- who has touted his "Christian credentials" -- is castigated because he could act as a moral check on Trump. Instead, Pence has chosen to be Trump's primary cheerleader. His fawning buddy. His toady. 

When Trump selected Pence as his running mate, none of us expected them to be equal partners in a Trump Administration; it was unrealistic to expect Pence to compliment Trump's imbecility with thoughtful insight. Most observers recognized Pence for what he was intended to be: an empty suit with impeccable conservative Christian credentials who had the blessing of Republican oligarchs such as the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer. (In July 2016, Trump was leaning towards choosing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as his running mate; Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway persuaded Trump to choose Pence -- for the stated reasons plus the fact that Pence would be better as the liaison to congressional Republicans. By the way: Conway got her position because of the influence of Robert Mercer.) 

Now, Pence has a limited portfolio within the Trump Administration: he placates big donors, such as the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer, and also reassures the religious right. (In July 2016, the 538 website noted that Pence was the most conservative Republican VP candidate in forty years (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-pence-would-be-a-really-conservative-and-mostly-unknown-vp-pick/ ).) When there's a Trump imbroglio, Pence declares fealty to Trump and the religious right is assuaged -- this first happened with the October 2016 release of the notorious Trump "Access Hollywood" tape and has continued to the present day with Pence's support for Trump in the Stormy Daniels scandal. (Uncharacteristically, on May 21st, Pence spoke out on North Korea, threatening it with "the Libya model." In response, a high-ranking North Korean official called Pence, "a political dummy," characterizing his remarks as "ignorant and stupid.") 

Nonetheless, because of Pence's high-visibility Christianity, many political observers believed he would provide a moral framework for Trump; they expected that when Donald Trump became president he would soften his behavior and that Pence would play an important role in this process. That is, they expected Trump would begin to act presidential. This hasn't happened and part of blame must fall on the shoulders of Mike Pence. 

In his May 9th Washington Post oped (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html? ), conservative columnist George Will criticized the Vice President: "The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness... is the authentic voice of today’s lickspittle Republican Party, he clarifies this year’s elections: Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing." George Will noted that Pence frequently claims he is "deeply humbled" to be able to serve in the Trump Administration. 

George Will castigated the President: "Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic." But Will savds his most ferocious commentary for the Vice-President: "Pence is what he has chosen to be, which is horrifying." 

Why has Mike Pence become Trump's toady? 

There are two possible explanations; neither of which is flattering to Pence. The first is that the Vice President has realized that the only way to work closely with Trump is to continually flatter him; that Trump is so insecure that he only will tolerate close relations with those who proffer their unwavering love. This suggests that Pence -- realizing that Trump threatens the United States -- has decide to dampen his personality and pander to Trump, believing that only this behavior will mollify him. 

The second explanation is that Pence actually lacks a moral core; he is a hollow man ("Shape without form, shade without color, paralyzed force, gesture without motion", T.S. Eliot) The Vice President is not able to stand up to Trump because Pence is a weak person; he's playing a part in a political play and only reads the lines that he's been given -- he's been instructed to be Trump's toady and that's what he is doing. 

Since Trump became President there have been calls for his impeachment. Many observers have warned that if Trump was removed from office, we'd get Pence as President and he would be worse. 

What we know about Pence suggests that if he were to become President he would be different from Trump. Nowhere near as crazy. (No demented early morning tweets.) Pence would be a more conventional Republican President; an actor, content to read the lines written for him by Republican oligarchs. Instead of being Trump's toady, Pence would grovel at the feet of the powerful men who control the Republican Party. 

Trump or Pence. Not an appealing choice.