The Trump Fiasco

The Trump Fiasco

    There are many different ways in which Trump's war against Iran is lamentable. 

    1. It is not clear that there was sufficient cause. 

    Israel and the United States argued that Iran, with the declared aim of wiping Israel off the map, should not be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Most states in the United Nations would probably agree. Though it does seem arrogant and hypocritical for two Nuclear powers to declare that other powers should be denied such weapons. 

    Iran has always claimed that their objective was only to develop nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. They were in the process of negotiating. Foolishly, perhaps. Maybe there was a lack of good faith, certainly the Islamic Republic harboured much anger. The leadership might be divided on the issue of Nuclear weapons; after all, if Israel has them so why not Iran, a proud country with a history that stretches back to the origins of civilization. And they have a largely disaffected population, as their economy and quality of life has been ruined by decades of hostile sanctions. 

    2. The United States was not the appropriate enforcer. 

    The international community spent most of the previous century setting up a mechanism for handling exactly this sort of problem, namely the United Nations and the International Court. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an autonomous organization within the United Nations system, was set up in 1957 to supervise and monitor the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology. 

    3. The US team seem un-diplomatic, almost puerile in their approach. 

    It is not clear what the problem was in the negotiations. Why could the Iranians not be persuaded to prove their good faith? Were the IAEA or US negotiators as distastefully arrogant as the President of the USA, and his unspeakable Peter Hegseth, the self-styled 'US Secretary for War'?  Whichever other country has a secretary for 'war', as one of the foremost offices of the state!  Accusing the victims of US bombing of "cowering like rats, for that is what rats do."  Bragging  that "This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be." Uch!  And the puerile codename for this assault: "Operation Epic Fury." Adult Americans must cringe.

    Why did the United States go to war without the authority of Congress, if that is the constitutionally correct procedure? Did President Trump consult with the US ambassador to the Iranian Republic? It would seem not. That is to say, it would seem that Trump's team mis-judged the psychology of the Iranian regime and the willingness of Iranian people to revolt. 

    Trump spent a week or two from 15th January clustering weaponry and making threats, apparently hoping that the Iranian leadership would lose its nerve, or collapse. He was apparently oblivious of the fact that threatening to use force to settle disputes is as explicitly forbidden by the UN charter as the use of force [See my posts]. Apparently ignorant also of the high status accorded to martyrs in the mindset of Islamic ideologues.

    I suggest someone offers to restart negotiations; perhaps António Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations; or Emmanuel Macron, or Mark Carney. Perhaps Iran would forego nuclear weapons if Israel did the same. 

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text  
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/03/united-nations-dissolved-and-reformed-i.html  
  

 United Nations: Dissolved and Reformed?

I observed on 3rd Jan 2026, [1] that the United States has flagrantly broken its committment to the Charter of the United Nations [2] articles 2.3 and 2.4;  I quote:

Article 2 paragraph 3.  All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 2 paragraph 4.  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

So, of course, did the Russian Federation when it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. I concluded in January [1]:

"The answer has to be that they leave the Club, the consortium of civilised nations. Nobody can force the US; all we can do is isolate them, ignore them."

I supposed that one reason why no one can force the exclusion of the USA or Russia, following UN protocol, was 'the veto' (which first came into play in 1946, used by The Soviet Union, and used 29 time over the years by Great Britain). However, when I scoured the Charter for the word 'veto' I found only this:

Article 27

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. (My emphasis.)

Note that there is no veto in the General Assembly, nor in the Security Council on procedural matters and matters concerning action under Chapter VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes"). That chapter requires that states shall "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."). And must recuse themselves if they are party to the dispute. (See the excellent Wikipedia article on United Nations Security Council veto power [3])

Unfortunately there is no coercive powers in Chapter VI; those are covered in Chapter VII: "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression." Under that chapter, action requires the "concurring votes of the permanent members."

So, it turns out to be not just a question of: "Who will bell-the-cat?" Who will venture to tell the United State/Russian Federation to stop their bombing?  The Veto is a deliberate escape clause inserted by the five Great Powers of the time (1945) to protect their sovereignty and self interests.  As it turns out, the "Great Powers" are precisely those that most need to be curbed. What is to be done?

Before considering the drastic step of forming a new United Nations which explicitly excludes all powers from using the veto if they are party to a dispute (Britain's position in 1945), let us look at Chapter VII. Its Article 41 lists some non-violent but coercive measures, while its Article 42, considers the use of force.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

  Action of the Security under either Article 41 or 42  can (at present) be blocked by a negative vote from any one of the permanent members. (Absence or abstention is not regarded as a negative vote.)    

    Others have pointed out that the discussion of breaches of the Charter can not be vetoed. I think that would put some pressure on one of the Great Powers that had gone rogue. Bullies do not like to be thwarted, but they do not like thinking of themselves as "the baddies".

        And I think we have yet to see how much pressure can be applied by nations acting together under Article 41. Currently, that can be vetoed, but not if the Charter is amended.

References:
[1]  https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
[2]  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

What are Universities for?

What are Universities for?

Dear LH,

That is a very good topic for discussion. One that should be deeply interesting to the academic community (not to mention the politicians). However, I cannot see myself attending; and if I did go down to London, I doubt I would contribute.  

I am on the threshold of the academic community, but heading out rather than in. I entered academia as a student in 1961, learned until 1976, taught and researched until 2006. Then retired, and continued my researches privately, into topics that interested me. I have occasionally formulated my views on fees vs. grants (that seems to me where academia suffered a catastrophic change of status.)

You summarise: "What should a university be in the 21st century –  a launchpad for careers, a hub for innovation, a guardian of 'truth', or a force for social change? "

All those, I suppose, to different degrees in different decades and in different institutions. And more than these, for I think one of the core functions of a university is as a focal point for the preservation of our culture, indeed our civilisation. (A university versus a technical college. I think Newcastle University has done rather well in this role, fighting to retain and support a music department, an art gallery, a Roman museum, and an excellent series of open lectures. Newcastle knows it is a university town.)

The academic is an ambiguous creature. Depending on one's viewpoint he can seem a sandal-wearing dreamer in an ivory tower, or alternatively can be seen as studying a vast universe, which the non-academic can barely glimpse. His (hers) is a universe that extends 11 km below the surface of the sea, that looks out into space with a radius of 93 billion light-years, and minutely into the sub-atomic structure of matter; that looks backwards 4.5 billion years into the past, that preserves and studies the art, poetry, and music of our predecessors. The academic may be a touch ridiculous, yet he can see over the heads and shoulders of the crowd. His/hers is a privileged position. 

Some students may go to university to get away from home, some to meet future contacts or partners, some to develope social and political skills.  I went to university to 'learn a trade', and so did my children and so, I hope, will my grandchildren.  I think we need some of our graduates to the point where we should pay them to attend; as was done in my day. (Do not worry; society will get the money back if the students become successful professionals, or business people.) Some courses are not so needed. Perhaps businesses, or other end-users such as the government, could sponsor students (earning themselves exemption from business-tax).

Yours sincerely, Ian West

(Comments are welcome, direct to: cawstein@gmail.com)

Equal vs. Meantone Temperaments

 Equal vs. Meantone Temperaments 

For many years I have puzzled over the best way to explain the dilemmas posed by Equal Temperament. I discovered some of them for myself in 1986 when I put together the Spinet kit I bought from John Storrs of Chichester (https://www.friendsofsquarepianos.co.uk/spinets-harpsichords-and-clavichords-for-sale/john-storrs-spinet/). These problems barely show on a piano and, in any case, I think one gets used to equal temperament. There is something about the twang of a spinet/harpsichord that shows up the shimmering 'beats' of the discordant thirds. 

By equal temperament I refer to the practice of (a) defining an octave as an exact doubling of the frequency of a note, and of (b) dividing the octave into twelve equal semitones. 

    The A above middle C has a frequency of 440 vibrations per second or 440 Hertz; the A below has a frequency of 220 Hz. When a violinist tunes his E string he strives for a frequency of 440 x 3/2 = 660 Hz. However, on the equal tempered piano that E is set at 659.252 Hz., hoping you will not object to the discrepancy. 

Equal Tempered Semitone (ets) = 12√2 =1.059463094359

Multiplier	If fundamental  =440 Hz	True ratios (Pythagorean) intervals frequencies	Error as ratio (or 1/ratio)
1.0000	A440	Fundamental
1.0000 x ets = 1.0595	A♯, B♭	Semitone
1 x ets^2 =  1.1225	B	Pythagorean tone 9/8 = 1.125)
1 x ets^3 = 1.1892	C	Minor third = 6/5 = 1.20000	0.991(1.0091)
1 x ets^4 = 1.2599	C♯, D♭	Major third = 5/4 = 1.25000	1.0079
1 x ets^5 = 1.3348	D	Fourth = 4/3 = 1.33333	1.0011
1 x ets^6 = 1.4142	D♯, E♭
1 x ets^7 =  1.4983	E	Fifth = 3/2 = 1.500000	0.9989 (1.0011)
1 x ets^8 = 1.5874	F
1 x ets^9 = 1.6818	F♯, G♭
1 x ets^10 = 1.7818	G
1 x ets^11 = 1.8877	G♯, A♭
1 x ets^12 = 2.0000	A	Octave = 2/1 = 2.00000

From the table we can see that the only true harmony on the equal tempered piano is the octave. The 'harmony' of the equal tempered fifth and fourth are fairly close to the true harmonies of the Pythagorean scale. Nevertheless, the equal tempered fifth is too small by a small amount, and the equal tempered fourth is too big by a similar and therefore a partially compensating amount. 

However, the equal tempered major third is too big while the equal tempered minor third is too small; and these errors are 8 to 9 times greater than the errors of the fourths and fifths. Once again these errors tend to cancel out, but not completely. Thus, a major plus a minor third equals a fifth, where the error is 8 times smaller than that of the major third.

An interesting question arrises as to how the instrument tuner in 1600 or 1700, or even 1950 tuned without the aid of an electronic tuner. You might naively start (as I did ) by tuning A4 using a tuning fork at A4=440 Hz.  Then, by tuning by ear up a fifth and down a fourth, you get to B. Repeating the process you get to C♯ etc, till you get back to A (jumping an octave when you need or want.)  But you crash into the shattering fact that it is a different A; it is 1.36% too sharp. The gap between the two is called a comma. It you narrow the  fifth slightly, from a true fifth to make it an equal tempered fifth, you can spread the comma round the octave. That takes skill, listening for, and counting, the 'beats' per second that appear and speed up as you depart from perfect harmony. The same thing happens if you simply go up a fifth over, and over, 12 times, for (3/2)12 =129.746 while 7 octaves (27 =128); 129.746/128=1.01364; you get exactly the same discrepancy or comma.

I learned an easier method for tuning to the so-called "quarter comma" meantone temperament, which gives very sweet-sounding harmonies for rennaissance and baroque pieces in 'unadventurous' keys (e.g.  from 2 flats to 2 sharps).  Remember, octaves are always perfect. Tune your A4 to the A440Hz tuning fork (or signal), then A3 (220 Hz) to that.  To A3, tune a perfect third to F3. Go back to A3 , and from it tune D3 almost a pure fifth below but leave it slightly sharp; about 2 'beats' per second. From that tune up a fourth again nearly perfect to get a G3, again a tad sharp; and from that down to C3 again leaving it slightly sharp.  The instructions are to "spread the error evenly" between these 3 intervals: A3 ➞D3, D3, ➞G3, G3 ➞C3 . Check it is tolerable with the chord C3 + F3 + A3. All the other intervals are tuned as pure major thirds (5/4), or octaves (2/1):  C➞E, D➞F♯, D➞B♭,  B♭➞B♭, E➞G♯, G♮➞E♭, A➞C♯,➞C♯, G➞B♮➞B♮.  (See Figure below.)

Having set 'the temperament', use pure octaves to complete the instrument. Electronic tuners are quicker and easier, and are available free for most smart mobile phones. I use a Table of deviations from equal temperament (in cents) given me by a friend 40 years ago. After considerable searching I found a very comprehensive table online at (http://www.instrument-tuner.com/TemperamentTables.html)

        Not many harpsichord player nowadays use the Meantone tuning. Whenever I get the chance I ask; usually I am told they are using Vallotti' temperament, or Vallotti-Young. It has been argued that JS Bach used something close to Werckmeister III.