Newsmax talks about our new Cold War

In the early days of this blog, I put together my story on the relationships among Russia and China, Iran and Syria, and terrorists and other violent factions in Iraq (including this little graphic of the situation). My point was that there is no Iraq solution without an Iranian solution, and there is no Iranian solution without a solution to Russian and Chinese support of Iran.

Today a Newsmax article puts a lot of the same story together:

Russia covertly supplies Iraqi terrorists, and to a lesser degree Syrian forces, with sophisticated weaponry of various kinds via Iranian and Syrian channels — of course, all at a huge profit.
…
Moscow’s influence doesn’t end there. In 2003-2006, Russia backed Iraqi Shiite guerillas — and other Iraqi guerillas and Middle Eastern anti-American and anti-Western “non-state actors” — with the weapons and support for the purpose of attacking American troops and, eventually, undermining U.S. influence and positions all over Middle East.

Syria and Iran, two major consumers of Russian weaponry in the Middle East — acted as middlemen between Moscow and Iraqi guerillas.
…
Maybe it is time for Russia to own up to its share in American troops losses and financial losses in Iraqi guerilla war.

Why do I insist that this is “Cold War II?” Here’s why:

Russia works clandestinely behind the scenes, effectively disrupting Middle East affairs and destabilizing U.S. relationships in the region.

Classic.

India’s a little PO’ed

India is in a bit of a snit over the Bush administration’s remarks that growing food and oil consumption by India and China has driven up prices. On Monday Scott Stanzel had to clarify those remarks in a futile attempt to defuse the situation:

“We think it is a good thing that countries are developing, that more and more people have higher and higher standards of living.”

“The point I think that was to be made is that as you increase your standard of living, the food that you eat — it can venture more into meats that require more commodities to feed the livestock, which uses more of those commodities, whether it’s corn or wheat or other commodities, and it drives up the price,” he said.

“So that is just a function of how those food prices that we’ve seen spike in the… around the world.” But reacting to the retort from Indian politicians that the US policy of promoting corn-based ethanol has had a bigger impact on world food prices, he said food prices rose about 43% over the last year. “Of that portion, an increase in the biofuel production, about 1.5% of that, is due to an increase in biofuel production.”

“The other majority, vast majority of that, is due to things like increased demand, like you were talking about, or increased energy prices, or weather-related problems in Australia or in Eastern Europe — problems with wheat production, as an example — that’s driving up the price of those commodities.

I agree that it’s a good thing that countries around the world are improving their standard of living. [A decade of dedicated capitalism has done far more good than many decades of foreign aid ever did.] So India’s umbrage is a little childish: there is no moral issue associated with simple supply-and-demand economics. If more people are willing to pay for food, the price of food goes up.

I’ve made this argument earlier, in somewhat alarmist fashion, trying to point out that our economy of the future must operate in a world with higher prices and more frequent shortages. Again, there is no fault associated with this fact - it is simply a reality that our nation must face. I’m worried that people think this is a transient situation, and that soon things will go back to normal.

It’s not, and they won’t.

So our future economy must either reduce dependence on raw materials, food, and energy, or find ways to guarantee a continuing supply of those items. Otherwise we face the prospect of a sagging economy and a declining standard of living. That’s not a prospect I look forward to.