The Chairman of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, gives an extensive interview to C-SPAN discussing his life, his career and his role in the White House.

Those who have followed the granular details of the how President Trump put together his team -to carry out decades-long discussed policy- will find this interview interesting. Kudlow has evolved in the past year from a MAGAnomic supporter to a MAGAnomic advocate.

Today the White House ends the initial 90-day period for the JCPOA withdrawal, and reveals the structure of the reinstatement of U.S. sanctions against Iran.

White House: REIMPOSING TOUGH SANCTIONS: President Donald J. Trump’s Administration is taking action to reimpose sanctions lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

♦President Trump made clear when he ended United States participation in the JCPOA that his Administration would be reimposing tough sanctions on the Iranian regime.

♦In connection with the withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Administration laid out two wind-down periods of 90 days and 180 days for business activities in or involving Iran.

♦Consistent with President Trump’s decision, the Administration will be reimposing specified sanctions after August 6, the final day of the 90-day wind-down period.

On August 7, sanctions will be reimposed on:

•The purchase or acquisition of United States bank notes by the Government of Iran.
•Iran’s trade in gold and other precious metals.
•Graphite, aluminum, steel, coal, and software used in industrial processes.
•Transactions related to the Iranian rial.
•Activities relating to Iran’s issuance of sovereign debt
•Iran’s automotive sector.

The remaining sanctions will be reimposed on November 5, including sanctions on:

•Iran’s port operators and energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors.
•Iran’s petroleum-related transactions.
•Transactions by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran.

The Administration will also relist hundreds of individuals, entities, vessels, and aircraft that were previously included on sanctions lists.

♦ ENSURING FULL ENFORCEMENT: President Trump will continue to stand up to the Iranian regime’s aggression, and the United States will fully enforce the reimposed sanctions.

• The Iranian regime has exploited the global financial system to fund its malign activities.
• The regime has used this funding to support terrorism, promote ruthless regimes, destabilize the region, and abuse the human rights of its own people.
• The Trump Administration intends to fully enforce the sanctions reimposed against Iran, and those who fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences.
• Since the President announced his decision on May 8 to withdraw from the JCPOA, the Administration has sanctioned 38 Iran-related targets in six separate actions.

♦ PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: The JCPOA was defective at its core and failed to guarantee the safety of the American people.

• President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal upheld his highest obligation: to protect the safety and security of the American people.
• The Iranian regime only grew more aggressive under the cover of the JCPOA and was given access to more resources to pursue its malign activities.
• The regime continues to threaten the United States and our allies, exploit the international financial system, and support terrorism and foreign proxies.
• The Administration is working with allies to bring pressure on the Iranian regime to achieve an agreement that denies all paths to a nuclear weapon and addresses other malign activities.

Read the Statement from President Trump HERE

Read the full Text of the Executive Order HERE

The big-eared British guy wearing Linus’s T-Shirt does have a point; and asks the same question CTH has pondered before: Why do foreign governments need lobbyists?

If there was a five-click dial available as a severity meter between the U.S. and China, something happened internally in Beijing, over the last 72 hours, because that dial just triggered movement from 3 to 4… Keep watching everything in the world of geopolitics with a mental 360° radar sweep looking for Chinese influence/interests.

Nuance and subtlety is everything in China. Culturally harsh tones are seen as a sign of weakness and considered intensely impolite in public displays between officials; especially within approved and released statements by officials representing the government.

Therefore, when we see China publicly use strong language – it indicates a level of internal disposition beyond the defined western angst. Big Panda becomes Red Dragon; there is no mid-status or evolutionary phase.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s state media on Monday lashed out at the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump in an usually direct attack, accusing him of “starring in his own carefully orchestrated street fighter-style deceitful drama”.

Trump’s wish for others to play along with his drama is “wishful thinking,” the ruling Communist Party’s People’s Daily newspaper said in an editorial.

The editorial said the United States had escalated trade friction with China, and turned international trade into “zero-sum game”.

“Governing a country is not like doing business,” the editorial said, arguing that Trump’s actions imperiled the national credibility of the United States.  (link)

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.

It is specifically because Trump understands Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.

In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity.  They see peace and war as coexisting with each other.

China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.  Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed.

Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome.  If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war.  In politics or economics the same perspective is true.  It is a zero-sum outlook.

The only way to change the behavior of Red Dragon is to control the outcomes; to position an economic benefit for China IF a change in direction is taken.  There must be a visible upside, a highly visible upside, to initiate any Chinese contemplation for a change in direction.

If the confrontation only includes the avoidance of economic pain, China does not have the capability to negotiate from that reference point.  If the terms are only avoidance, Beijing will fight, even to their own economic extinction if needed, to retain their current position.

In the Eastern mindset there must be an upside for China where they can reconcile, mentally, logically and intellectually, the change in course.  No upside equals no change.

Because the framework for these negotiations are based on the zero-sum disposition, President Trump also will not back down from his position.  The U.S. holds most of the trade leverage and the economic issue must be addressed.  President Trump has waited three decades for this moment.  President Trump will also not delay this confrontation for the political comfort of those around him.

This specific President entered office without any IOU’s for the multinational business community, and his entire team are entirely prepared for this.  The question is: are we?

The United States is  finally confronting the geopolitical Red Dragon, China!

The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace and war. The symbol in any figure’s right hand has more significance than one in its left hand. Also important is the direction faced by the symbols central figure. The emphasis on the eagles stare signifies the preferred disposition. An eagle holding an arrow also symbolizes the war for freedom, and its use is commonly referred to the liberation fight of righteous people from abusive influence. The eagle on the original seal created for the Office of the President showed the gaze upon the arrows.

The Eagle and the Arrow – An Aesop’s Fable

An Eagle was soaring through the air. Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast. Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out. Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

Moral: We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and a delegation of out-going and in-coming Mexican trade officials have been conducting intensive NAFTA negotiation talks for the past several weeks.  The out-going Mexican officials, led by Ildefonso Guajardo, are optimistic terms of agreement can be reached with the U.S; the incoming Mexican officials led by AMLO’s Jesus Seade, not so much.

The key issue is still the NAFTA fatal flaw that allows both Canada and Mexico to exploit their access to the U.S. market as brokers for imported Asian parts, assembled in Mexico/Canada, and the finished goods shipped into the U.S.  That structural issue remains unresolved; hence the impasse.

Meanwhile, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland wants to reenter the trade discussion after being shut out since the beginning of May.

(Reuters) – Canada is “very keen” on concluding negotiations to renew the North American Free Trade Agreement as soon as possible, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said on Saturday, amid signs of progress after months of delays.

Talks to modernize the 1994 trade pact started in August 2017 but have dragged on much longer than expected as Canada and Mexico pushed back against far-reaching U.S. demands for reform. President Donald Trump has said he will walk away from NAFTA unless major changes are made.

In a renewed push, Mexican and U.S. cabinet ministers held a series of meetings in Washington over the past week in a bid to work out their differences. One Mexican official expressed optimism that some kind of agreement could be reached by the end of the month.

“I and Canada are very, very keen to get it done as quickly as possible,” Freeland told reporters on a conference call. She did not answer directly when asked whether the end of August was a realistic deadline.

Mexican and U.S. officials are due to meet again next week to work on contentious issues such as wages and rules governing how much North American produced content an automobile must contain to qualify for duty-free status.

Freeland said she was ready to join the talks at any time but did not give details. Canadian officials dismiss speculation that she is being sidelined.  (read more)

Ever since the end of Round #6 (January 2018) USTR Robert Lighthizer has not cared for the Canadian team, and who can blame him.  Princess Rainbow Sparkles Chrystia Freeland has demanded the addition of trans-gender native equity rights, climate issues and the ability to exploit access to the U.S. markets in all Canadian bi-lateral trade constructs.

Previously Lighthizer responded:

“Free trade agreements are essentially grants of preferential treatment to other countries in exchange for an approximately equal grant of preferential treatment in their economy. Thus, it is reasonable from time to time to assess whether the bargain has turned out to be equitable.”

[…] “I would like to comment on two proposals by the Canadians, one of which has been in the press quite a bit, and that is a presumed compromise on rules of origin.

We find that the automobile rules of origin idea that was presented, when analyzed, may actually lead to less regional content than we have now and fewer jobs in the United States, Canada, and likely Mexico. So this is the opposite of what we are trying to do.

In another proposal, Canada reserved the right to treat the United States and Mexico even worse than other countries if they enter into future agreements. Those other countries may, in fact, even include China, if there is an agreement between China and [Canada].

This proposal, I think if the United States had made it, would be dubbed a “poison pill.” We did not make it, though. Obviously, this is unacceptable to us, and my guess is it is to the Mexican side also.

Finally, I would like to refer, because I think it fits into this context to an unprecedented trade action that Canada brought against the United States very recently. It constitutes a massive attack on all of our trade laws. If it were successful, it would lead to more Chinese imports into the United States and likely fewer Canadian goods being sold in our market.

Now we understand that countries often challenge specific actions taken by another country in the context of trade laws. This is normal and what we expect. But this litigation essentially claims that 24 years ago, the United States effectively gave away its entire trade regime in the Uruguay Round. Of course, we view this case as frivolous, but it does make one wonder if all parties are truly committed to mutually beneficial trade. It also underscores why so many of us are concerned about binding dispute arbitration. What sovereign nation would trust to arbitrators or the flip of a coin their entire defense against unfair trade?  (more from the end of round #6)

When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the intensely short-sighted JCPOA (Iran deal), there was a period of preparation for our allies and partners prior to the re-institution of the first round of U.S. sanctions against Iran.   The transition period ends tomorrow as the sanctions begin August 6th, 2018.

Europe and NATO allies are under pressure to discontinue any trade action/terms with Iran as the U.S. sanctions will also apply toward any nation that engages in economic transactions with the Iranian regime.