Im-Politic: Biden Shows How Not to Spur Chinese Progress on Climate Change

Tags

Biden, Biden administration, carbon emissions, carbon footprint, China, clean energy, climate change, Environmental Protecton Agency, EPA, fossil fuels, green energy, green hydrogen, greenhouse gas emissions, Im-Politic, Nicholas Burns, Rhodium Group, solar panels, Todd Stern

It seems that the Biden administration has come up with a novel strategy for competing against China in one dimension of what the President has called a campaign to “win the competition for the twenty-first century”: playing up Beijing’s record, and playing down America’s.

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Fake News About U.S. Gas Guzzling

Tags

conservation, energy, Financal Times, fossil fuels, fuel efficiency, gasoline, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Myles McCormick

“While Europeans learn energy frugality, Americans stick to petrol-guzzling.”

– Myles McCormick, Financial Times, July 27,2022

 

Post-1965 peak US gasoline consumption per person: 505 gallons (1978)

U.S. gasoline consumption per person, 2019*: 414 gallons

*Final pre-CCP full year

 

“While Europeans learn energy frugality, Americans stick to petrol-guzzling,” by Myles McCormick, Financial Times, July 27, 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/ed785094-ddc0-4e60-8ab4-fa244e0249a3 and “Gasoline consumption per capita in 2020 was on par with that in 1965,” by Michael Sivak, Green Car Congress, December 8, 2021, https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/12/20211208-sivak.html)

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Could the West Blink First on the Anti-Russia Sanctions?

Tags

energy, fossil fuels, G7 Summit, Group of 7, inflation, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, sanctions, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Vladimir Putin

Quite a few years ago, I fretted here that one big obstacle could appear before too long to any U.S. government ambitions to squelch cyber attacks from rogue states with cyber retaliation of its own: Some of the main rogue states (like Iran and North Korea) and larger aggressors (like Russia and China) were likely to have a higher pain threshhold than America’s because they were so much poorer and their populations so much more used to hardship. So in any prolonged cyber duel, Washington could well be forced to cry “Uncle” before its adversaries.

Fast forward to today, and this very problem seems to be plaguing the U.S. and  overall free world/western policy of punishing Russia for its invasion of Ukraine with various kinds of economic sanctions.

It’s not that Russia’s economy hasn’t suffered from these measures. But headlines and news developments like this have become awfully common in recent weeks:

>”U.S.-Led Alliance Faces Frustration, and Pain of its Own, Over Russia Sanctions”;

>”Pressed by domestic economic challenges and a desire to see European nations contribute more to Ukraine’s defense, U.S. lawmakers appear more wary of committing further military aid for Ukraine or slapping new sanctions on Russia”;

>”French energy giants tell households to ration supplies ahead of looming winter shortage”; and

>”Japan tells business and public to save power to avert Tokyo blackout”

And accompanying these reports have been news items and findings like:

>”Russia’s economy is weathering sanctions, but tough times are ahead”;

>“Why Russia’s Economy Is Holding On”;

>”Russia’s ruble hit its strongest level in 7 years despite massive sanctions”; and

>Revenue from Russia’s fossil fuel exports “exceeded the cost of the Ukraine war during the first 100 days….”

As indicated, Russian stoicism isn’t all that’s at work. The country’s immense fossil fuel deposits, the world economy’s continued crying need for them (preventing the sanctions from being global in scope), and the high prices oil in particular has been fetching ironically because sanctions have crimped overall global supply, have enabled Moscow to keep its economy a going concern. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, clearly certain that he’d antagonize many foreign powers with his expansionism plans, has also been working for years to insulate his country from just these punitive measures. (See, e.g., here.)

But by the same token, for many years, Putin’s imperial ambitions, the massive amounts of resources they’ve commanded, the curbs on personal spending required to build a fortress economy, and the pervasive corruption he’s needed to tolerate (and even encourage) to keep potential rivals placated (and of course feather his own nest) have produced a dismal failure of an economy by virtually every important non-security-related measure. (See here and here for two especially insightful analyses.) And yet there’s absolutely no sign that conditions that western populations would find completely unacceptable have remotely immiserated the Russian people enough to spark any kind of revolt.

Moreover, considering this situation in light of the recent statement by Jens Stoltenberg, head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that the Ukraine conflict could last for “years,” it’s easy to see why the mounting energy shortages and historic inflation they’ve helped feed could tip the odds surrounding the current economic conflict of wills in Moscow’s favor.

And it’s no discredit to the American character to venture that U.S. resolve seems particularly vulnerable precisely because economic sacrifices continue to be demanded on behalf of a country whose fate has never been and is not now a vital security or economic interest.

To me, there’s an obvious message being sent by these trends and circumstances – along with the steady transformation of Eastern Europe into a genuine powderkeg that could all too easily explode into a nuclear World War Three: It’s becoming more important than ever to end this conflict and its clearly unforeseen, tremendous collateral damage ASAP, even if the outcome isn’t ideal from Ukraine’s standpoint.

But that’s not what the heads of government of the Group of Seven (G7) major industrial powers think.  They’ve just declared at their current summit in Germany, “We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” – even though before too long these leaders may start running out of followers.   

Those Stubborn Facts: China Celebrates Earth Day

Tags

China, climate change, coal, Earth Day, energy, fossil fuels, Those Stubborn Facts

Coal production capacity China says it will add this year:   300 million tons

Increase from China’s new coal production capacity last year: 36.36%

China share of global coal production & consumption: c. 50 percent

 

(Source: “With coal surge, China puts energy security and growth before climate,” by Christian Shepherd, The Washington Post, April 22, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/china-coal-climate-change-xi-energy/)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: #PutinPriceHike? Not Even Close – Yet

Tags

baseline effect, Biden administration, CCP Virus, coronvirus, COVID 19, energy, fossil fuels, gasoline, inflation, lockdowns, oil, Putin, sanctions, stay-at-home, Ukraine invasion, Ukraine-Russia war, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

According to the Biden administration, it’s the #PutinPriceHike. That is, don’t blame anything Washington has or hasn’t done for the the bulk of the high gasoline prices Americans have been paying lately. Instead, blame Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, his aggression against Ukraine, and the global oil market turmoil it’s triggered.

The trouble is, if you look at these prices in a comprehensive, statistically legitimate way, scapegoating Putin in this case isn’t justified yet. But the same methodology shows that Mr. Biden and his aides are off the hook, too – at least until recently.

Critics (see, e.g., here) have countered the Biden claims by noting that strong U.S. gasoline inflation predates the Ukraine war and even Russian military buildup by many months, and they’re right. As known by RealityChek readers, however, that’s far from the whole story. In particular, they’re ignoring the impact on gasoline and other prices of the ongoing aftermath of the CCP Virus pandemic, the brief but sharp recession created by the disease and related lockdowns and voluntary behavioral changes, and ongoing stop-start U.S. economy that’s still resulting.

In other words, they’re ignoring the “baseline effect” caused by the economic shocks of the 2020 pandemic year in particular. These drove economic activity down to such low levels, and kept it there so long, that any major return to normal (and therefore normal prices) is going to produce unusually lofty inflation stemming from a catch-up effect. Therefore, it won’t be possible to determine the role of other contributors to inflation in gasoline or any other goods and services until this baseline effect fades significantly and finally disappears. And therefore, scapegoating Biden for soaring gasoline prices pre-Ukraine buildup isn’t justified, either.

RealityChek reported yesterday that the latest official U.S. figures show that the baseline effect has ended for headline inflation, and looks on the way out for core inflation (which strips out food and energy price. And roughly the same is true for gasoline prices.

The table below shows their monthly year-on-year percentage changes for last year (2020-21) in the middle column and for pandemic-dominated 2019-2020 (in the righthand colum). The numbers begin in March because March, 2020 was the first month in which the virus began significantly affecting the economy.

Gasoline price annual percentage changes      2020-21             2019-20

March:                                                               22.58                 -10.05

April:                                                                 49.68                 -32.03

May:                                                                  56.51                 -33.67

June:                                                                  45.42                 -23.41

July:                                                                   41.93                -20.12

Aug.:                                                                  42.76                -16.67

Sept.:                                                                  41.93                -15.43

Oct.:                                                                   49.52                -18.15

As is evident, starting in March, 2020, gasoline prices began nosediving from their levels of 2019, and steep annual drops continued (though at a slower pace) through October. It’s easy to understand why. The combination of lockdowns and stay-at-home behavior caused automotive travel to crater, and national demand for gasoline naturally plummeted as well. Further, that’s clearly a big part of the reason why during the following March-October period, gasoline prices prices skyrocketed on the same annual basis. They were returning to normal from an artificially low base. And as a result, it’s wrong to blame the Biden administration exclusively or even mainly for this hot gasoline inflation.

From that point, however, the Blame Biden case gets stronger. The above table stops in October, 2021 because November was when the Putin military buildup began – and according to the Biden argument, gasoline prices really began taking off. What happened to annual gasoline prices increases from then until the end of  2021, and how strong was the baseline effect? Here are the numbers for November and December, with the 2020-21 annual increases in the middle column and the 2019-20 increases in the righthand column:

Gasoline price annual percentage changes      2020-21             2019-20

Nov.:                                                                  57.76                 -19.53

Dec.:                                                                  49.34                 -15.34

The strong 2020-21 yearly price increases continued for these two months. But the baseline effect (from the big 2019-20 price drops) weakened. In fact, the December, 2019-20 annual 15.34 percent annual gasoline price decline was the smallest such figure since March, 2019-20’s 10.05 percent. And the annual increase for the following March (22.58 percent) was less than half December’s 49.34 percent.

What about this January and February? For these months, of course, the comparison years are 2021-22 (whose increases are presented in the middle column) and 2020-21 (in the right hand column).

Gasoline price annual percentage changes      2020-21             2019-20

Jan.:                                                                   40.02                  -8.90

Feb.:                                                                   38.01                   5.42

So the story for the first two months of this year – between the start of Putin’s buildup and the (late February) invasion – is that annual increases slowed, but the baseline effect vanished much faster. Indeed, between February, 2020 and February, 2021, gasoline prices actually rose. So the administration’s #PutinPriceHike claims hold much less water.

Blaming Putin will become more credible going forward, as sales of Russian oil worldwide are curbed by sanctions. Since the global oil market is so thoroughly integrated, U.S. oil supplies will be crimped and upward price pressures will strengthen. But this is also the point at which other major administration policies will rightly attract attention for their role in spurring torrid gasoline inflation. They include in particular measures and rhetoric that throughout the President’s term have convinced oil and other fossil fuel providers that their industries’ growth will keep facing ever greater policy obstacles, and whose cumulative effect has undercut their ability to ramp up output quickly to fill the Russia gap.(See, e.g., here and here.)

All of which means that, as is the almost always the case with major economic trends and developments, recent gasoline price inflation has many causes, not one. And they can change profoundly in their nature and respective importance with the kinds of changing circumstances that have shaken the global oil and U.S. energy policy landscapes since the CCP Virus pandemic began. Let’s all hope, therefore, that American leaders across the political spectrum begin spending more time developing effective responses to oil price inflation, and less on bombarding each other and the rest of us with facile talking points.

Following Up: Podcast On-Line of National Radio Interview on the Economics of the Ukraine War

Tags

Following Up, fossil fuels, Iran, Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, natural gas, oil, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview yesterday today with Moe Ansari on his nationally syndicated “Market Wrap” radio program.

Press the “play” button under “Current Market Wrap” at this link for a timely discussion of how the Ukraine war – and especially sanctions on Russian fossil fuel exports – will likely impact the U.S. and global economies. And we shine a special spotlight on how the recent burst of energy diplomacy is influencing the talks on curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Back on National Radio to Talk War and the Economy

Tags

climate change, energy, European Union, fossil fuels, green energy, Green New Deal, Iran, Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA, Making News, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, Moe Ansari, natural gas, oil, renewable fuels, Russia, Ukraine

I’m pleased to announce that tonight I’m scheduled to be back on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari” radio program to discuss the economic – and especially energy – repercussions of the Ukraine-Russia war.

“Market Wrap” is broadcast nightly between 8 and 9 PM EST, the guest segments typically come in the second half-hour, and you can tune in by visiting Moe’s website and clicking on the “Listen Live” link on the right-hand side.

As usual, moreover, if you can’t tune in, the podcast will be posted as soon as it’s on-line.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How to Really Make Trade Fair

Tags

automotive, BBB, Biden administration, bubbles, Build Back Better, Canada, consumption, Donald Trump, electric vehicles, EVs, fossil fuels, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, North America, production, tax breaks, Trade, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s no doubt that the next few weeks will see a spate of (low-profile) news articles on how unhappy Canada and Mexico are about proposed new U.S. tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) and how these measures could trigger a major new international trade dispute.

There’s also no doubt that any such disputes could be quickly resolved, and legitimate U.S. interests safeguarded, if only Washington would finally start basing U.S. trade policy on economic fundamentals and facts on the ground rather than on the abstract and downright childishly rigid notions of fairness that excessively influenced the approach taken by Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Canadian and Mexican complaints concern a provision in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better (BBB) bill that’s been passed by the House of Representatives but is stuck so far in the Senate. In order to encourage more EV sales, and help speed a transition away from fossil fuel use for climate change reasons, the latest version of BBB would award a refundable tax break of up to $12,500 for most purchases of these vehicles.

The idea is controversial because the administration and other BBB supporters see these rebates as a great opportunity to promote EV production and jobs in the United State by reserving his subsidy for vehicles Made in America. (As you’ll see here, the actual proposed rules get more complicated still – and could change some more.) And according to Canada and Mexico, this arrangement also violates the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) governing North American trade that replaced the old NAFTA during the Trump years in July, 2020.

Because USMCA largely reflects those prevailing concepts of global economic equity, Canada and Mexico probably have a strong case. But that’s only because this framework continues classifying all countries signing a trade agreement as economic equals. Even worse, there’s no better illustration of this position’s absurdity is the economy of North America.

After all, the United States has always accounted for vast majority of the continent’s total economic output and therefore market for traded goods. According for the latest (2020) World Bank figures, the the United States turned out 87.51 percent of North America’s gross product adjusted for inflation. And when it comes to new car and light truck sales, the U.S. share was 84.24 percent in 2019 (the last full pre-pandemic year, measured by units, and as calculated from here, here, and here).

But in 2019, the United States produced only 68.88 percent of all light vehicles made in North America (also measured by units and calculated from here, here, and here.) Moreover, more than 70 percent of all vehicles manufactured in Mexico were exported to the United States according to the latest U.S. government figures. And for Canada, the most recent data pegs this share at just under 54 percent (based on and calculated from here and here).

What this means is that, without the American market, there probably wouldn’t even be any Canadian and Mexican auto industries at all. They simply wouldn’t have enough customers to reach and maintain the production scale needed to make any economic sense.

So real fairness, stemming from the nature of the North American economy and the North American motor vehicle industry, leads to an obvious solution: Give vehicles from Canada and Mexico shares of the EV tax credits that match their shares of the continent’s light vehicle sales – just under 16 percent.

Therefore, using, say, 2019 as a baseline, from now on, the first just-under-16 percent of their combined light vehicle exports to the United States would be eligible for the credits for each successive year, and the rest would need to be offered at each manufacturer’s full price (a pretty plastic notion in the auto industry, I know, but a decision that would need to be left to whatever the manufacturers choose).

Nothing in this decision would force Canada or Mexico to subject themselves to these requirements; they would remain, as they always have been, completely free to try to sell as many EVs as they could to other markets (including each other’s).

What would change dramatically, though, is a situation that’s needlessly harmed the productive heart of the U.S. economy for far too long, resulting from trade agreements that lock America into an outsized consuming and importing role, but an undersized production and exporting role. In other words, what would change dramatically is a strategy bearing heavy responsibility for addicting the nation to bubble-ized growth. And forgive me for not being impressed by whatever legalistic arguments Mexico, Canada, any other country, or the global economics and trade policy establishments, are sure to raise in objection.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Biggest 2020 Winners & Losers

Tags

aerospace, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, computer and electronics products, consumer goods, coronavirus, COVID 19, energy, Federal Reserve, food products, fossil fuels, furniture, housing, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, lockdowns, machinery, manufacturing, on-line shopping, stay-at-home, travel, wood products, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Thanks to last Friday’s release of the Federal Reserve’s report on December U.S. manufacturing production, it’s possible to identify the sector’s biggest winners and losers for inflation-adjusted growth. And their ranks include some notable surprises. (As with all U.S. government economic data, though, there’ll be plenty of revisions over the next few years.)

First, let’s keep in mind that the following categories are pretty broad, including a wide range of products whose performances have varied just as widely. For example, as noted previously (e.g., here), “machinery” contains everything from machine tools to heating and cooling equipment to semiconductor production gear to turbines to construction equipment to farm machinery.

Still, these groupings are specific enough to show how much care is needed when generalizing about the performance of a piece of the economy as big as manufacturing. Moreover, they’re the categories that come early on in the incredibly detailed presentation each month of manufacturing output results deep in the weeds of the Fed’s own website.

With these observations in mind, the five strongest growers (or most modest shrinkers) in manufacturing during 2020 were automotive (vehicles and parts combined) at plus-3.64 percent; food, beverage, and tobacco products (up 0.40 percent), wood products (0.38 percent), computer and electronics products (up 0.14 percent), and non-metallic mineral products (down just 0.52 percent).

The biggest losers? Petroleum and coal products (down 13.34 percent); printing and related activities (off by 10.41 percent); furniture and related products (down 9.86 percent); non-durable miscellaneous manufactures (down 8.57 percent); and aerospace and other non-automotive transportation equipment (an 8.27 percent contraction).

Some of these results were entirely predictable. For example, petroleum and coal products essentially entails the fossil fuels industries, which have been decimated by the overall U.S. and global economic slumps triggered by the CCP Virus, and by the particular hit taken by business and leisure travel. And don’t forget the lingering effects of Boeing’s safety troubles. Moreover, of course those Boeing woes in turn have taken their toll on the aerospace sector.

On the flip side, despite major concern about the strength of America’s food supply chain, it proved impressively resilient. And since Americans didn’t stop eating, real food production expanded – although as the table below shows, its this expansion was much slower than in 2019.

I’m not sure what’s been up with furniture, though, especially considering that the good performance of wood products surely reflects the strength of a domestic housing industry that should have spurred production of furniture. Moreover, so far, the 2020 trade statistics reveal no significant increase in imports.

Non-durable miscellaneous manufactures are something of a puzzle, too. This category includes items like jewelry, silverware, sporting goods, toys, and musical instruments. Since on-line shopping has propped up consumption during the pandemic period, purchases and domestic production of these goods should have remained strong, too – even though many of these sub-sectors have long dominated by imports.

And speaking of imports, a clear sign of their importance is the negligible growth of the domestic computer and electronics industries. It’s clear that the virus and related lockdowns and stay-at-home orders has greatly increased demand for information technology products. But it’s evident that the biggest winners weren’t U.S.-based suppliers. In fact, 2020 growth was way below 2019’s, as the table below shows.

Meanwhile, the solid growth of the automotive sector is pretty remarkable, since the sector literally shut down almost completely in March and April. That looks like awfully strong evidence that much of the economic damage of the pandemic period has stemmed from government restrictions, and not from any inherent weakness in the economy.

In any event, below are the results for all of manufacturing’s main big industry groups, along with the data for the durable goods and non-durable goods super-sectors, and industry overall. For comparison’s sake with the pre-CCP Virus period, I’ve also presented their after-inflation growth for 2019. And a year from now, the final Fed 2021 statistics will permit judging just how complete a retun to normalcy has been achieved.

                                                                              2018-19              2019-20

manufacturing                                                        -1.06                   -2.63

durable goods                                                         -1.70                   -2.97

wood products                                                       +3.58                  +0.38

non-metallic mineral products                               -1.17                   -0.52

primary metals                                                       -2.69                   -7.66

fabricated metals products                                     -1.72                   -5.38

machinery                                                              -2.39                   -3.80

computer & electronics products                          +6.19                  +0.14

electrical equipmt, appliances & components       -1.71                   -1.68

motor vehicles and parts                                        -9.05                  +3.64

aerospace and misc transporation equipment       +0.29                   -8.27

furniture and related product                                +0.34                   -9.86

miscellaneous manufactures                                +0.30                    -3.67

non-durable goods                                                -0.72                    -2.24

food, beverage and tobacco products                  +2.67                   +0.40

textiles and products                                            -2.24                    -5.04

apparel and leather goods                                    -7.50                    -3.64

paper                                                                    -2.37                    -1.91

printing and related activities                              -3.20                  -10.41

petroleum and coal products                               -1.32                  -13.34

chemicals                                                            -2.07                     -1.31

plastics and rubber products                               -3.24                     -0.78

other manufacturing                                           -8.59                      -8.51

Following Up: Still No Biden Learning Curve in Sight on the Middle East or China

Tags

America First, China, energy revolution, Following Up, fossil fuels, globalism, Iran, Iran nuclear deal, Israel, Joe Biden, Middle East, oil, Phase One, Saudi Arabia, Sunnis, tariffs, The New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, Trade, trade war, Trump

Talk about great timing! Just two days ago, I analyzed New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s new offering warning Joe Biden not to rush back into the Iran nuclear deal because this step could undo lots of the progress made by President Trump’s America First foreign policy approach in greatly improving the prospects for advancing and protecting U.S. interests in the region.

And just this morning, Friedman has published a piece based on lengthy interview with the apparent President-elect making clear that he has no interest in learning these valuable lessons of the recent past. In addition, Biden confirmed that his China policy plans are just as dominated by cynical doubletalk these days as during the 2020 election campaign.

As Friedman argued on November 29, Mr. Trump’s message that Israel and the Arab world’s Sunni Muslim monarchies (mainly Saudi Arabia) should no longer count on the United States to fight their battles accomplished this critical objective: It

“forced Israel and the key Sunni Arab states to become less reliant on the United States and to think about how they must cooperate among themselves over new threats — like Iran — rather than fighting over old causes — like Palestine. This may enable America to secure its interests in the region with much less blood and treasure of its own. It could be Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievement.”

But as Biden made clear in his conversation with Friedman, he either can’t or refuses to understand the key development that validates the Trump approach – the U.S. fossil fuel production revolution that has eliminated America’s overriding reason for treating the Middle East as a vital national security interest, and enabled Washington to adopt a Trump-ian take-it-or-leave-it approach safely.

Not that domestic energy independence means that completely ignoring Middle East affairs is always the best response. But it certainly does mean much greater scope for Washington to advance objectives with varying degrees of importance (notably, preventing a nuclear-armed Iran from dominating the region) in ways far less risky and costly than the lengthy wars and immense military commitments that have dominated globalist strategy.

And as Friedman has indicated, the President has started lifting the United States off its dangerous hook by leaving its Middle East allies no choice but to stop quarreling over trifles (like the fate of the Palestinians) and work together to take responsibility for their own genuinely critical and shared interests.

Biden, however, still believes that America remains so dependent on “getting some stability” in this long-unstable region that deep entanglement in Middle East affairs is unavoidable. Just as worrisome: He’s laid out a genuinely Rube Goldberg-esque rationale for treating the Iran nuclear deal as his strategy’s linchpin. As Friedman describes his blueprint (based on this interview and other conversations with top Biden aides):

“[O]nce the [nuclear] deal is restored by both sides, there will have to be, in very short order, a round of negotiations to seek to lengthen the duration of the restrictions on Iran’s production of fissile material that could be used to make a bomb — originally 15 years — as well as to address Iran’s malign regional activities, through its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

“Ideally, the Biden team would like to see that follow-on negotiation include not only the original signatories to the deal — Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — but also Iran’s Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.”

To which the only reasonable response is “Good luck with that” – especially given the lack of consensus on Middle East goals among this highly diverse group of countries, and, equally important, the wildly varying stakes in success between governments inside and outside of the Middle East,

On China, the big and encouraging news is that Biden has decided not to remove the steep, sweeping Trump tariffs “immediately.” That position of course makes at best little sense given how disastrous he called these levies’ impact.

Otherwise, the former Vice President showed that his China policy statements could be even more thoroughly dominated by doubletalk and cluelessness than they were during the campaign.

Most troubling was how Biden contended (correctly) that “leverage” is the make-or-break factor in negotiating with China, and then quickly added “in my view, we don’t have it yet.” Even leaving aside Beijing’s at-least-suggestive decision to sign a Phase One trade deal whoppingly one-sided in favor of a country whose markets it needs desperately to secure adequate levels of prosperity, why did the apparent President-elect go out of his way to advertise supposed American weakness? Indeed, this perverse practice looks like an emerging habit of the Biden foreign policy camp.

As Biden told Friedman, he continues insisting that this leverage can be created in large measure by creating a “coherent strategy” behind which the United States and its European and Asian allies can unite. But as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, many of these countries (notably, Germany, Japan, and South Korea) have made too much money trading with China at the U.S.’ expense to support any position but a complete return to the pre-Trump era of actively coddling and enabling the People’s Republic.  (See, e.g., this analysis.)

At the same time, the apparent President-elect deserves credit for recognizing that gaining sufficient leverage to deal with China successfully requires (in Friedman’s words) “developing a bipartisan consensus at home for some good old American industrial policy — massive, government-led investments in American research and development, infrastructure and education to better compete with China.”

Finally, however, Biden still accepts the completely unjustified pre-Trump view that, without the kind of one-sided, pro-U.S. enforcement mechanism at the heart of the Phase One agreement, Washington can negotiate away most of China’s wide-ranging trade predation with precisely enough worded paper agreements. As I’ve explained, the only genuine hope for progress along these lines is the kind of dispute-resolution system set up in Phase One – in which Washington serves as judge, jury, and court of appeals. 

A few days before he spoke with Friedman, Biden told another journalist that he knows the nation and world are “totally different” from his Vice Presidential days and that therefore his administration would not be “a third Obama term.”  His conversation with Friedman, though, strongly indicated that he meant “except for the Middle East and China.”