Latest news with #YaLibnan
Ya Libnan
7 days ago
- Business
- Ya Libnan
Time for America to Start Making iPhones — And Stop Making Excuses
By: Ya Libnan, Op-ED President Donald Trump has said it clearly: 'America doesn't want to make T-shirts and sneakers; it wants to build technology.' And he's right. America must stop making excuses and start making things again — especially the very devices we use every day, like the iPhone. For years, critics have claimed that moving iPhone production to the U.S. would be impractical, even economically disastrous. Some analysts went so far as to suggest a U.S.-made iPhone would cost $3,000 or more. This is not just wrong — it's deliberately misleading. The reality? Assembling an iPhone takes about 30 to 60 minutes . Even if that hour of labor were paid at U.S. wages — say $30–$40 an hour — the additional cost per device would be no more than $40 . That's a rounding error for Apple, which sells more than 200 million iPhones annually and boasts over $150 billion in cash reserves . In 2023, Apple earned $383 billion in revenue and nearly $100 billion in net income . The company has the resources, expertise, and influence to lead a domestic tech manufacturing revival. The labor cost gap is not a legitimate barrier — it's a convenient excuse for avoiding the short-term challenges of restructuring. Yes, manufacturing infrastructure costs billions. But Apple has the capital. The U.S. has the workforce. And Foxconn, Apple's main assembler, has already proven it can move production lines quickly and efficiently — it has done so in India, Vietnam, and Mexico , often at the request of Apple itself. If India and Vietnam can import subassemblies and handle final iPhone assembly, why can't the United States? This notion that the U.S. must rebuild the entire supply chain from scratch is disingenuous. The truth is that America can — and should — enter the supply chain strategically, focusing on final assembly, testing, and packaging to start. Reshoring advanced manufacturing isn't just about jobs — although those would be significant. It's about strategic autonomy , technological independence , and economic leadership . It's about protecting core industries from foreign leverage. It's about building regional economies in places like Ohio, Michigan, Texas , and other states with deep manufacturing roots. It's about restoring a culture of making — not just consuming. This isn't a matter of possibility. It's a matter of political will and corporate leadership . If President Trump's administration is serious about bringing back American manufacturing, the first place to start is with the iconic product stamped 'Designed by Apple in California.' Let's make it assembled in America , too. This isn't just about an iPhone. It's about making a national statement: America is back in business .
Ya Libnan
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
The Rebirth of a New Middle East
By: Ya Libnan Before the creation of Israel, Arabs and Muslims lived as brothers alongside Jews. History shows that prior to the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism, Jews and Palestinians coexisted peacefully throughout the region. In fact, Jews experienced a golden age under Muslim rule in Al-Andalus (present-day Andalusia, Spain) between the 10th and 12th centuries—a time marked by relative tolerance, prosperity, and rich intellectual life. Muslims and Jews both worship the same monotheistic God. And while Jews, Christians, and Muslims each believe they are God's chosen people, the Jews of the Middle East were never under existential threat from their Muslim, Arab, or Christian neighbors. The fracture in this relationship emerged only with the imposition of political agendas, particularly surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel. The Middle East's fate changed dramatically after 1945, when the region became the focal point of global power struggles—not because of religion or ethnicity, but because of oil. Holding nearly 70% of the world's known oil reserves, the Middle East became indispensable to the global economy. Oil fuels industry, powers transportation, drives agriculture, and supports the military machines of advanced economies. It is no exaggeration to say that without oil, modern capitalism would grind to a halt. After World War II, as the U.S. rapidly expanded its economy, its domestic oil production couldn't keep pace. In the 1950s, America imported only 10% of its oil; by the late 1980s, that number had surged to over 50%. Control of oil became a strategic imperative—and so did control of the Middle East. Israel's creation in 1948 was not simply about providing Jews with a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust. It also served as a strategic foothold in the region. The U.S. State Department called Middle East oil 'a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.' To secure it, Washington needed reliable allies on the ground—militarily strong and politically aligned. Israel proved its value to the U.S. in the 1967 war when it simultaneously defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, curbing the rise of Arab nationalism. Since then, Israel has received massive U.S. military aid to ensure it maintains superiority over its neighbors. As Haaretz wrote in 1951, 'Israel is to become the watchdog' of Western interests in the region. From the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the Middle East between Britain and France, to the U.S.-backed coup in Iran (1953), the invasion of Iraq (1991 and 2003), and arming of regional powers to manipulate conflicts, the West's record in the Middle East is marked by exploitation. Oil was largely controlled by Western firms—the 'Seven Sisters'—until the rise of OPEC in 1973, when countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq nationalized their resources. Despite this shift, U.S. involvement didn't wane. Military interventions, sanctions, regime changes, and the constant fueling of conflicts have left behind a region scarred by war and instability. Donald Trump, during a speech in Riyadh, made a notable statement: 'I DON'T LIKE PERMANENT ENEMIES.' He envisioned a Middle East of peace and prosperity, driven not by foreign lectures or interventions, but by a new generation of regional leaders shaping their own future. He called for a Middle East defined by commerce, not chaos—one that exports technology, not terrorism. Trump's words may surprise many of his critics, but on this point, he was right. Peace will come not from outsiders imposing solutions, but from within—from leaders who understand their culture, history, and people. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia has taken bold steps to modernize his country and lead the region toward a new era. His vision of the Middle East as the 'new Europe' reflects an aspiration shared by others, like UAE's Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) and Dubai's Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (MBR). These leaders represent a generation willing to break from the cycles of division and war. The Middle East paid in blood for the crimes committed against Jews in Europe. Let's be honest: the creation of Israel wasn't just about offering Jews a sanctuary—it was also a geopolitical strategy, and the Jews were used to serve the West's interests. But Israel has matured. It's time to treat it not as a pawn, but as a sovereign nation that must also take responsibility for peace. It's also time to acknowledge the rights of the Palestinian people. They too deserve a home—a land they can call their own, with dignity, safety, and freedom. The arbitrary borders created by colonial powers must no longer divide and rule the region. The people of the Middle East—Arab, Jew, Christian, Muslim—deserve to live in peace. A peaceful and prosperous Middle East should be the goal of the entire world. The intersection of visions—Trump's anti-interventionist rhetoric and MBS's ambitious reform—offers a path forward. But it will require courage. It will require new leadership. And it will require saying goodbye to those whose politics are rooted in fear and division. The time has come to turn the page. Let the Middle East be reborn—not as a battlefield, but as a beacon of cooperation, innovation, and hope.
Ya Libnan
15-05-2025
- Business
- Ya Libnan
Time to Bring iPhone Manufacturing Back to America, Op-Ed
Photo: Steve Jobs the champion of the iPhone concept By : Ya Libnan – Op-Ed series : 'Bring It Home: Rebuilding America's Manufacturing Power' Key Points : Apple — the symbolic heart of American innovation that builds abroad. President Donald Trump is once again raising the right question: Why isn't Apple — one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world — making its iPhones in the United States? Apple has long claimed that moving iPhone manufacturing to the U.S. is impractical or too costly. But that argument doesn't hold water. What's really at stake is profit margins — not practicality. And if America is serious about rebuilding its economic backbone, it's time to stop making excuses and start making things again. Some quoted Apple as saying that it takes around 20 hours to assemble an iPhone — but that number includes automated processes. The real manual labor? It takes less than one hour of human hands to put together an iPhone. Even at American wages, that labor would only add $20 to $40 to the cost of each device. That's a small price to pay for rebuilding an industry, restoring pride in American craftsmanship, and giving jobs to American workers. For decades, the U.S. sent its manufacturing overseas, chasing cheap labor and bigger profits. In the process, we lost factories, skills, and the dignity of building things with our own hands. Whole towns were hollowed out. Generations grew up without ever seeing what a thriving local factory looks like. Apple is a symbol of American innovation. But what good is innovation if it's always built somewhere else? It's time to match great ideas with great American manufacturing — and to bring back the jobs, training, and supply chains that made the U.S. an industrial powerhouse. This isn't just about Apple — it's about the country's long-term economic strength. A nation that can't make its own goods will always be at the mercy of those who can. The more we outsource, the more we lose our leverage, our independence, and our ability to shape our future. America should not just be a consumer of high-tech products — it should be the maker of them. If we don't control the production, we don't control the future. Apple benefits enormously from being an American company. It enjoys strong legal protections, tax advantages, and a massive U.S. customer base. Yet it gives very little back in terms of jobs or industrial investment at home. That's not just a missed opportunity — it's a moral failure. If Apple sells iPhones to American consumers, it should build them with American workers. The company can afford it. The country needs it. And the message it would send — that America can make world-class products again — is priceless. President Trump is right to push for American-made iPhones. This is about more than one company — it's about rebuilding a national culture of production, pride, and independence. Let Apple lead by example. Let America remember how to build. It's time to turn 'Designed in California' into 'Designed and Made in the USA.'
Ya Libnan
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Time for Hezbollah to get it clear: No rebuilding before disarming
File photo of a parade by the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group. Hezbollah was the only militia allowed to keep its arms during Syria's occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organization by the US, some Arab and EU countries, and Australia By Ya Libnan A report in the pro-Hezbollah daily Al-Akhbar recently revealed that the relationship between Hezbollah and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is far from ideal. Despite disagreements, the report noted that communication and coordination between the two sides remain ongoing. Last week, Salam reportedly met with Hussein al-Khalil, the political advisor to Hezbollah's Secretary General. Al-Khalil stressed that the reconstruction of war-torn areas in Lebanon—villages and homes devastated by the recent conflict—should be the government's top priority. But who is supposed to pay the bill? According to the World Bank, Lebanon's reconstruction costs may reach $11 billion. This comes at a time when Lebanon is, for all practical purposes, bankrupt. Depositors have been locked out of their bank accounts since 2019. The government has been negotiating for three years with the IMF for a modest $3 billion loan—so far, without success. How then can Hezbollah expect the Lebanese government to rebuild tens of thousands of destroyed homes? The friends of Lebanon—especially the Arab Gulf countries—have expressed willingness to help with reconstruction. But they've made one demand crystal clear: Hezbollah must first hand over its arms to the Lebanese Army. Without disarmament, no aid will be forthcoming. Let's not forget: the destruction was not caused by the Lebanese state. It was the direct result of Hezbollah's unilateral decision to attack Israel, in yet another move to expand Iran's influence in the region. Lebanon had no say in the war. In fact, many have called for Lebanon to sue Iran and Hezbollah for the billions in damages. There are even unconfirmed reports that Hezbollah controls tens of billions of dollars earned through illicit drug smuggling across the region. Its financial arm, Qard al-Hassan , is arguably the most powerful 'bank' in the country—perhaps the only institution in Lebanon currently capable of funding reconstruction. So let's be clear:
Ya Libnan
06-05-2025
- Business
- Ya Libnan
'Listen to Buffett: Tariffs are not the way forward'. Trade should be fair
when misused or weaponized, tariffs become economic poison By Ya Libnan Tariffs, if handled diplomatically and temporarily, can be effective tools to reset unfair trade dynamics. But when misused or weaponized, they become economic poison, and history has shown us what happens when nations shield themselves from global competition under the illusion of strength. The idea that tariffs could help local industries sounds appealing, especially in an election year. It gives the illusion of economic patriotism — of standing up for American jobs. But the long-term damage far outweighs the short-term applause. As Warren Buffett wisely said, 'Tariffs are a tax on products that the tooth fairy won't be paying.' In other words, American consumers foot the bill , not foreign governments, not overseas companies. Worse, he warned just this past Saturday that 'trade should not be used as a weapon.' Yet that is exactly what's being proposed — turning trade from a bridge into a battering ram. Take the recently floated idea of imposing a 100% tariff on foreign-made movies . This is not just bad economics — it's self-sabotage. America is the undisputed global leader in entertainment. Hollywood, streaming platforms, and the broader film industry thrive not only by creating content but by engaging with global markets. Retaliatory tariffs will shrink the audience for American films, drive up production costs, and close off the very markets we depend on. In trying to punish others, we punish ourselves. More broadly, protectionism encourages complacency. If American companies are guaranteed a market, regardless of product quality or innovation, what incentive do they have to evolve? This is the real danger. We risk breeding mediocrity. This is, in part, what caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union — a state-run economy with no competition, no innovation, and no urgency to improve. Is that where America is heading? It's not too late to steer away from that path. True economic strength comes from competing and winning , not from hiding behind walls. Our companies, our workers, and our institutions are most successful when they are challenged, not coddled . Trade should be fair — no doubt about that. But let us not pretend that tariffs are a silver bullet. Used carelessly, they become a ticking time bomb for our economy, our global standing, and our own working families.
