Why Did He Do It?

 

So, given just how much of a humiliating surrender we have taken in the war with Iran, the obvious question is why Trump agreed to it.  I can think of several possibilities.

They hope sanction relief will moderate Iran

One possibility is that our overall sanctions relief may be seen as a bet that if we stop treating Iran as a pariah, it will stop acting like a pariah and rejoin the community of nations and act like just another country.  Stranger things have happened, after all.  Nixon going to China and all that.  And let's face it, China really did, over time, stop acting like a pariah and become more like any other country.  But its moderation has had its limits and China remains an adversary.  

My main reason for doubting that this is Trump's motive is simple enough.  It just seems more far-sighted and better thought out than he seems capable of.  

Trump has fallen "in love" again

Trump does seem to have a chronic attraction to authoritarians of all kinds, from Putin to Xi to Kim Jong Un.  Why should Iran be any exception?  It did cross my mind that we had better not let him talk to the ayatollahs or he might end up following the usual pattern.  He is sure acting like he has fallen under their spell, and this without even any in-person meetings.  Presumably he has gotten regular reports going both ways and possibly phone conversations.

It is all about oil prices

The high oil and gas prices resulting from the war were scaring Trump and hurting him in domestic politics.  He may be calculating that if he can just bring down gas prices, his popularity will recover and no one outside of a few news junkies will care about our humiliating defeat.  My guess is that this is his primary motivation, and that the calculation will probably prove to be correct.

Trump just got bored and wanted to move on.

Also a possibility we cannot rule out.

Also on the MOU

I will also comment that, of course, I think it was stupid to negotiate a settlement that depending on Israel's compliance without consulting Israel.  However, when you get to be my age, you recognize it as not an extraordinary, unprecedented sort of stupidity, but as a perfectly ordinary, routine stupidity that we have fallen into all too often.

Back in Cold War times it was an absolute dogma that we must learn the lessons of Munich.  Diplomacy did not work in dealing with Hitler and therefore would not work in dealing with [fill in the blank].  Some actors were deemed morally unworthy of talking to lest it convey some sort of legitimacy on them.  This meant that diplomacy had not place in our toolkit in dealing with certain actor, but was deemed "appeasement," which didn't work at Munich as therefore must never be attempted again.

Of course, some bad actors were so big there was just no getting away from negotiating with them.  The Soviet Union was the prime example.  We included diplomacy in our toolkit in dealing with the Soviet Union at least since Stalin died in 1953.  For a long time Communist China was deemed morally unworthy to talk to, so we firmly insisted on turning our backs on the world's most populous country, waiting for it to go away.  It did not oblige, and after Nixon went to China in 1972, we opened ourselves to talking to China.  Certain remnants of this outlook remained when Obana undertook negotiations with Iran.  To many people, the details of the agreement were not the point; the point was the act of talking to the Iranian government at all.

This sometimes had absurd results in our foreign policy -- attempting to negotiate the end of a war but refusing to talk to an important belligerent because we deemed them morally unworthy of negotiations.  Unsurprisingly, it didn't work.  Realistic options would have included either talking to bad guys, or else admitting you were not trying to end the war, but only to form an alliance by all other factions to defeat the bad guys.  But we regularly claimed to be negotiating to end a war without talking to one of the sides and failing. 

A prime example to my mind also involved Israel and Lebanon when Ronald Reagan was President and George Schultz -- an eminently serious and highly respected figure -- was Secretary of State.  Lebanon has been wracked by civil war since 1975.  Syria (ruled by a hard left, pro-Soviet government) intervened and occupied large portions of Lebanon.  In 1982 Israel invaded to rout out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, forebear to today's Fatah).  The US (always acting through intermediaries because the PLO was one of the groups we could not talk to) negotiated the PLO's withdrawal.  The State Department, under command of George Schultz and acting through a first-rate, highly respected Arab American diplomat, negotiated Israel's withdrawal and a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon.  Unfortunately, they made the peace settlement contingent on the Syrian forces also withdrawing and neglected to consult the Syrians on the matter, since they were another of the parties who were unworthy of our negotiating with.  It worked about as well as you would expect, with civil war continuing to rage until 1990, Israel remaining in the country until 2000 and Syria until 2005.  (Hezbollah arose out of resistance to the Israeli occupation).

An obvious objection presents itself.  Granting this to be true, clearly Israel has never been one of the countries we refuse to speak to, so the situation is not comparable. In this case, though, we should see the Iranian government as the one that refuses to see Israel as legitimate and therefore refuses to talk to it.

But another phenomenon was also common at the time.  When we were unwilling to talk to a small country or faction, we might instead talk to its sponsor (typically the Soviet Union) and put pressure on the sponsor to put pressure on their client to end the war.  In the Cold War, we might put pressure on the Soviet Union to put pressure on an Arab country, while possibly putting pressure ourselves on Israel.  Here, the equivalent would be us putting pressure on Israel and Iran putting pressure on Hezbollah.  Except I have no idea whether Iran is actually putting pressure on Hezbollah at all.

In short, trying to end Israel's invasion of Lebanon without talking to Israel about it was stupid.  But that, at least, was not stupid in an extraordinary, unprecedented way.  I was just normal stupidity.

Preliminary Thoughts on the MOU

 

So, the text of the Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran is out.  What can I say?  I was prepared to say that really, it is better to have a President who makes disastrously bad decisions and backs off when they don't work out so well than one who keeps doubling down.

But honestly, I never thought we would be taken to the cleaners this badly.  Anyone criticizing Obama for not getting the Iranians to agree to halt all enrichment, send all enriched uranium out of the country, scrap its ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring armed proxies, and get nothing in return can just shut up.  I don't see how even Trump can sell this as a win.

Preliminary thoughts below.

MOU	Comment
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.	Blah (Also, attempts to bind Israel without asking Israel about that.  We will see if that works)
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.	Blah
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.	Blah
Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.	OK, that is something of substance.  The US is lifting its blockade.   But what does “remove its forces from the proximity of the Islam Republic of Iran” mean?  Only that we withdraw the ships involved in the blockade?  Or does not mean withdrawing from bases in the Gulf states?  My guess is this is deliberately vague and the parties will fight about what it means later.
Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.	The Straits of Hormuz will reopen.  Shipping may take 30 days to fully resume.  Iran agrees to refrain from collecting tolls for 60 days.  After that, all bets are off.
The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.	If that does not mean reparations, it is a pretty good imitation of it.  Of course, Trump stiffs everyone else.  Do the Iranians really think they will be any exception?
The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.	Holy mackerel!  This is insane!  Of course, Trump stiffs everyone else, so I wouldn’t bet the rent money on this one.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.	Blah
Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.	Blah
The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.	The Ayatollah will hold Donald Trump’s testicles in a small box on his desk but promises to give them back once sanctions are lifted.  Seriously, this is presumably backed by the threat to close the straits if terms are not met, which is sort of the same thing, except for the world economy.
The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.	Ditto
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.	Somehow, I don’t think this is addressed to nuclear enrichment
After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.	Blah
The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.	Blah

Some Obvious Points About Donald Trump

 

Trump famously embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby people who know very little about a field think they know much more than they actually do.  He is also the walking embodiment of H.L. Mencken's maxim that complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.

That is, of course, a major source of his appeal.  He appeals to people who don't know any more about policy questions than he does and assume that there are simple solutions out there that politicians have not adopted because they are too stupid, corrupt, or weak-willed.  Trump claims that he will cut through the red tape and fix everything by not being half-hearted about it.  Of course, when his profoundly ignorant claims run up against reality, things tend not to go so well.

In his first term, Trump appealed to people's complaints about Obamacare.  "We'll have great health care at a fraction of the cost and it will be so easy."  It was, after all, what people wanted to hear.  After working on it a while, Trump complained, "Who knew health policy was so complicated."  Not many people, Donald, just anyone who knows anything at all about health policy.  Admittedly, this is a fairly small portion of the total population.  He ended up with a plan to repeal Obamacare with no replacement and thereby strip 20 million people of their health insurance.  I think even the least informed members of the pubic would have noticed that.

Much the same applied when Trump agreed to a summit with the North Koreans.  He only cared about the pomp and pageantry and was not interested in trivial details like what agreement they might reach.

For his second term, Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine in one day.  Presumably he believed that his friend Pooty, would happily end the war as a personal favor.  To the extent the Ukrainians were unwilling to agree to Putin's terms, a little arm twisting should bring them into line.  Well, this failed for much the same reason -- Trump thinks of foreign policy solely in terms of personal relationships and has no idea that countries have interests that transcend the individuals in charge.  

So too with the Iran war.  The Iranians' clear wish up until February 28 to avoid war with a much stronger country made Trump think they were pushovers and easily intimidated.  What he didn't understand was that the regime was never going to agree to its own destruction, or that it would fight fiercely when cornered, although both points should have been obvious.  He appears to have believed that Iran would be intimidated into submission by the mere presence of US forces or, failing that, that he would have been able to swap out the name at the top for someone more compliant, just the way it has worked in Venezuela.

When that failed, Trump's advisors apparently convinced him that if he blockaded the straits, pressure would build up in Iran's oil storage and threaten to blow up in a matter of days, which would presumably force their capitulation.  Well, spoiler alert, that didn't happen either.  Trump now seems to believe that if he threatens and cajoles enough the Iranians will agree to his terms in a matter of days.  He has no patience for the long, drawn-out process of diplomacy.  

In the case of Obamacare, the dying John McCain made one last appearance in the Senate to save his party from itself and vote down repeal.  No deal was reached in either Korea or Ukraine, so the situation continued -- bad, but ultimately something most Americans could live with.

Well, the war in Iran is looking to be the most intractable problem yet.  Continuing that status quo is clearly not acceptable and bound to get worse, but there is no easy out.

Maybe next time don't elect President Dunning-Kruger.

Everyone Makes Mistakes

 

Me oh my!  Looking back at my November 30, 2025 post on which would be a worse President, Trump or Vance, I gave the advantage to Vance in most categories, but not all.*

The main categories that I saw as advantage Trump were weaponization of government (Trump has been too personal and petty; Vance would be more competent), immigration (Trump might be willing to carve out exceptions; Vance will not), and foreign policy.  Obviously, I was wrong about foreign policy.

My assumption was that Trump's foreign policy was based mostly on impulse rather than any ideological principles.  If his foreign policy has the practical effect of favoring authoritarianism over democracy, it is not because Trump has any principled preference for authoritarians, but just because they bribe and flatter him better.  Vance, by contrast, seemed to have a firmly principled opposition to liberal democracy and a principled preference for rightwing dictatorships.

My focus was on Europe in general and Ukraine in particular.  Given the choice between Vance, who appeared to have the goal of placing Europe under Russian control, either by puppet governments or outright military conquest, and Trump who seemed to be working for a similar outcome more by accident than by design, I preferred Trump, who might accidentally oppose Putin over Vance who was firmly committed against such a thing.  While I generally wanted to see Trump have an incapacitating stroke or wig out so badly that even his Cabinet saw no choice but to invoke the 25th Amendment, I sort of hoped that could wait until things got better for Ukraine.

And things did.  In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether Trump actually did Ukraine a favor in cutting off US aid.  His actions had the result of (1) pressuring Europe to step forward sufficiently that our actions matter much less; (2) forcing the Ukrainians to innovate, and (3) removing whatever restrictions we placed on the Ukrainians.  All of this seems to have rebounded to their favor.  Withdrawing support erratically and inconsistently proved useful because it gave both Ukraine and Europe time to adapt.  So, we just may have reached the point where we can safely turn over European policy to Vance.**

In the meantime, Trump has made a massive blunder starting the war with Iran.  While he has agreed to an indefinite ceasefire and clearly wants out, he also appears to be doing everything he can to make meaningful negotiations impossible.  Vance, in the meantime, had the sense to oppose the war and would be a basically normal negotiating partner who would at least not blow things up with erratic behavior that left no one knowing what his actual negotiating position is.  

So, on foreign policy advantage Vance.  And that alone is reason to say advantage Vance overall.

________________________________________
*To say nothing of the numerous categories where it was really hard to say. 

**Or we may not. If Vance is really determined to see the Russians win, he has a few cards left to play.  He can cut off intelligence sharing with the Ukrainians.  I have no idea whether the Europeans would be able to fill the gap.  It is also my understanding that the clear turning point in Ukraine's favor was Elon Musk denying the Russians access to Starlink, while allowing it to Ukrainians.  Vance's strongest card is probably to pressure Musk to reverse course.

Contempt for Experts/Contempt for Facts

So, negotiations with Iran have failed, purportedly over the nuclear issue -- the US team wanted Iran to give up all uranium enrichment and Iranians refused.  Trump's negotiations with the Iranians have consistently failed, at least in part, because Trump's team lacks the nuclear expertise to know what will and will not actually be an adequate safeguard to keep the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. 

But can we face facts here?  Donald Trump doesn't want a deal that meets the technical standards needed to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  He wants to be able to boast that he held firm and never made any concessions.  Or if we absolutely must come up with a deal, he wants a deal that he can sell to people completely ignorant of the technical details (Trump, say) as something that can ensure Iran will never get a nuclear weapon.  They will never trust anything that rests on technical fine points that Trump and company don't understand.

And this leads to a major failing of Donald Trump and, indeed, of the Republican Party and rightwing politics in general.

I previously wrote about someone who described GW Bush as:

• More egotistical than Johnson
• More vindictive than Nixon
• Stupider than Ford
• Less competent than Carter
• Lazier than Reagan
• Less honest than Clinton.

In the clear light of hindsight, this was grossly unfair to GW Bush, who was not particularly egotistical or vindictive.  (Also to Ford, who was not stupid).  Instead, GW Bush's capital flaw (which was related to laziness and incompetence and made him appear dishonest) was that followed his gut-level instincts and treated facts and evidence as optional.  

And that, in turn, is an extreme version of a longstanding tendency among right-wingers toward anti-intellectualism and distrust of expertise.  And I can sort of understand it.  It is certainly annoying to be told "I know better than you."  When an expert is telling you something based on highly technical knowledge that you are not qualified to evaluate, you are being asked to rely on blind trust because you have no way of telling whether the person is being truthful or not.  Not to mention experts' frustrating tendency to disagree with each other, and not to be as infallible as they claim.  

And yet, in a society as complex as what we have now, there is really no choice but to rely on experts for many things.  

Furthermore, right-wingers let a somewhat understandable distrust of experts and expertise turn into a general distrust of learning, and a distrust of learning turn into a distrust of all knowledge, and a distrust of knowledge turn into a contempt for facts and evidence in favor of gut-level intuition.  And yes, I do understand that experts who focus on an exceedingly narrow specialty can develop a sort of tunnel vision.  Sometimes an outsider perspective and offer new ideas a specialist never thought of.  And (as I understand it), an inspired guess is recognized as a sometimes being a scientifically valid approach.  But the inspired guess is one made by someone familiar with the data, and has to be empirically tested to see its validity.

GW Bush and his supporter missed this critical part and relied on their gut-level intuitions that Saddam Hussein just had to be an intolerable threat, and removing him just had to work out well.  Wrong and wrong!  GW Bush lost all standing in the conservative movement as a result.

Unfortunately, the lesson that right-wingers took away from the Iraq debacle was not that gut-level intuition is no substitute for facts and evidence, but that GW Bush's gut level intuition was not good enough, and that they needed someone with better gut-level intuition.

So they chose Trump.

Trump Has Been Trumped!

 

Well, once again I don't have anything very original or in-depth to say about the war, but I do feel the need to post about it so here goes.

No TACO jokes

Yes, I have made a few myself, but in the end the point of TACO jokes is to goad Trump in persisting in a course of action that hurts him more than it hurts us -- tariffs, for instance.  This war is a different matter altogether.  While it would be good to have a leader with basic common sense, failing that I would rather have a leader who makes disastrously bad decisions and then backs away when they don't work out so well than a leader who makes disastrously bad decisions and keeps doubling down.

I will also say that when I fearfully peeked at the news over Tuesday, I came away with the distinct impression that a whole lot of people expected a TACO.  The markets were unhappy, but by no means panicked.  The top story on AOL was about Samantha Guthrie.  All sorts of normal news was being covered as if no disaster was at hand.  

The JCPO (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)

There has been a lot of talk about Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) -- the nuclear deal he struck with Iran, which reduced Iran's uranium enrichment, shipped most of its enriched uranium out of the country, and allowed intrusive inspections to ensure compliance.  Did it pave the way for war, or did abrogating it make war inevitable.  I don't think either.

Look, I am just going by my memories here and not doing extensive research.  But my clear memory is that the usual suspects -- Netanyahu, John Bolton, and the other warmongers -- were warning that Iran was on the verge of nuclear weapons, making cataclysmic predictions about what would happen, and loudly calling for large-scale bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities as the only option.  Admittedly they did sometimes distinguish between bombing and war by saying they were not calling for ground troops.  I even heard a revival of the old 1979 song, "Bomb Iran."

Then Obama and John Kerry came up with a proposal to actually keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons and they were outraged. I thought then and think now they were angry that their war was thwarted.  Of course, they gave other excuses like that the JCPOA did not make Iran give up missile or support for armed proxies and included some sanctions relief.  And they were outraged when Obama responded to their criticisms by defending the agreement instead of immediately conceding they were right and backing out.  But above all, they were outraged by the suggestion that rejecting the deal made war more likely.  How dare anyone call them warmongers just because they had been demanding war until the deal was struck?  

So, no, I don't think war was inevitable when Trump abrogated the deal.  We managed to get by for quite a few years with neither the deal nor war, and without Iran developing nuclear weapons.  But I do think that critics of the deal wanted war all along. Certainly that was the view of  Netanyahu, who proclaimed that it was Munich 1938 and that avoiding war now would only lead to a worse war later.

A different WWII analogy

Netanyahu may have thought the JCPOA was Munich and WWII must necessarily follow.  His decision to launch this war put me in mind of another WWII analogy -- Japan's actions.

My father likes to say that the Japanese got into a land war with the world's most populous country and found they couldn't win, so they started a naval war with the world's richest country.  Put that way, it sounds crazy.  But the Japanese blamed their inability to subdue China on interference by the US.  They thought that by bombing Pearl Harbor they could knock the US out of the war and finally beat China.  Needless to say, they seriously underestimated the US industrial base!

Well, in case nobody noticed, Netanyahu reduced Gaza to a pile of rubble and killed some 50,000 people out of a population of 2.3 million -- over 2% of the total -- and still couldn't root out Hamas.  Neither their brilliantly executed decapitation of Hezbollah, nor pounding much of southern Lebanon into rubble managed to root out Hezbollah.  Netanyahu blamed this on Iranian backing and thought he would go to the source.  It does not appear to have occurred to him that if he couldn't uproot an entrenched militia in a territory of 2.3 million people right on Israel's border, it might be even harder to root out the entrenched government of a country of 92 million people hundreds of miles away and well outside the reach of Israeli ground or even naval forces.

Trump was trumped

Up till now, Trump has run is foreign policy on the "madman theory."  If you act crazy enough, people will be afraid of you and stay out of your way.  It helps if you really are crazy.  Well, this time Trump ran into someone even crazier than he is.  It didn't go well for anyone.

We don't know why he backed down

It could have been outcry by MAGA influencers like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones.  Or rumored reports of military lawyers pushing back against Trump's plans to focus on civilian targets.  Or rising gas prices and a falling stock market.  Or fear of the cycle of escalation that could follow any attempt to take down the Iranian power grid.  Or maybe he just got bored and wanted to move on.  

Am I the only one who suspects Trump sent Vance out of the country to keep him from invoking the 25th Amendment?

What next?

My guess is that Trump is thoroughly tired of this war and wants out.  And if he wants out, we will get out.  It is also clear that the cease-fire is operating sort of like the Gaza ceasefire or the ICE drawdown in Minneapolis -- extremely slow and incomplete, sometimes more a reduce-fire than a ceasefire, but ultimately a significant decline in violence.  It was also clear even before the ceasefire that Iran was quietly tiptoeing away from blocking the Straits of Hormuz into something more like controlling which ships it allowed access and charging for passage.  I may be over-optimistic here, but I do think all sides are exhausted and this will slowly sputter out into an uneasy truce with only sporadic violations.  I do not share the insane optimism of Wall Street, which thinks everything is back to normal now.  There has been real physical damage to oil infrastructure.  I certainly couldn't predict how long it will take to repair, but it seems safe to assume, not overnight.

In terms of proposals, the two sides seem hopelessly far apart, each making wholly unreasonable demands.  This is not great but not necessarily fatal.  Negotiators can keep fruitless talks as long as they want so long as the shooting stops, or at least substantially diminishes.

In terms of domestic politics, once we get out of the war, I imagine it will be soon forgotten by friend and foe alike, and Trump's approval ratings will improve somewhat.  But probably not by a lot, given that gas prices will probably take some time to come down.

Bad, Bad Leroy Brown

It's a strange thing, but when my fears and anxiety about Trump and our country's future were at their strongest, one of the things that most seemed to calm me down was endlessly watching the video of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown."  I never quite understood what seems so soothing about the song, but now it finally comes to me.  In some corner of my mind, Leroy must have represented Trump, and the song was reassuring because eventually Leroy is defeated.  (Not that the man who beat him was necessarily any better).

PS

 Oh, yes and one other point about the war on Iran.  Not only does the Israel tail appear to be wagging the US dog, but the evidence rather strongly suggests that Trump and Netanyahu are working at cross purposes. 

 Trump's original goal appears to have been something like what we did in Venezuela -- leave the machinery of government in place and just change out the name at the top.  Trump's reasoning is that destroying the state can create a godawful mess.  We fired all of the Baathist Party in Iraq and they ended up turning into ISIS.  And much as I hate the man, he has a good point there.  As such, he would very much like to find someone he can make a deal with.

Netanyahu, by contrast, appears to want to destroy the Iranian state and doesn't care what a mess that creates.  Every time someone comes along who might make a deal, the Israelis kill him.  The goal appears to be to thwart any deal that could end the war until the Iranian state is destroyed altogether.

One would think that sooner or later, this will lead to conflict between the allies.

Not Very Original Thoughts on the Iran War

 

I don't have anything very original to say about the war in Iran, but it is hard to think about anything else these days, so let me offer some unoriginal thoughts.

Beware the cornered animal.

Obviously not an original observation, but Trump did not expect this kind of retaliation.  He did not expect it because he had hit Iran before, fairly hard, and not received a strong response.  In his first term, Trump killed Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iran made only the most token retaliation.  Last year he launched the 12 Days War to wreck Iran's nuclear program and Iran barely even made that.  This led Trump to assume that the Iranian regime was made of pushovers who would not strike back no matter what.  What he failed to take into account was the desperation of a government that truly has nothing to lose.  When you tell an enemy that you want their head on a platter and will not settle for anything less, you can expect an extremely hostile and belligerent response.  

Iran's response may be an extreme example, but the phenomenon is universal.  It is also a thing to keep in mind when we consider the merits of punishing Trump, his inner circle, and ICE.  Yes, they all richly deserve it, and yes, it has value as a deterrent.  But many a dictator has been allowed to escape punishment to avoid triggering the cornered animal response.  A thing to consider.

Harsh measures can strengthen resolve.  This cuts both ways.

By destroying the top leadership and making clear we considered the regime's existence unacceptable, we made it resolve to resist at all costs because there was no alternative.  Maybe the people will rise up if we destroy the Iranian military but spare civilian targets.  But heavy bombing is not normally conducive to domestic rebellion.

The same applies to Iran's opponents.  The Arabian Gulf states warned against war because they feared that they would be targets.  Now that they have been hit, Gulf Arabs are understandably furious at Iran. Iran hitting hotels and apartment buildings was a clear war crime.  Indeed, even the Iranian leadership appears to have recognized such strikes as counterproductive, apologized, and promised to stick to military targets. But even if we make the dubious assumption that the Iranians will keep their word, the Arabs are still in an extraordinarily awkward spot.  They invited US military bases to protect them from Iran.  The bases led them to be targeted.  But what choice do they have now?  If they kick the US out, they will be completely vulnerable to Iranian domination.  And this is to say nothing of Iran's attacks on Arab oil production.  The laws of war are unclear on the matter, and the devastating effect on Arab economies is all too obvious.  Again, Arabs are furious over this.

Israelis are also understandably furious.  And so is much of the rest of the world at seeing its economy attacked.  Which leads to a closely related point.

Wars like this are easier to get into than out of.

Look, given the balance of forces, it seems safe to assume we will eventually emerge with something that could be called victory.  My guess is that if there were a face-saving way for Trump to declare victory and stand down, he would take it.  The problem is that neither Iran nor Israel appears willing to agree to such an arrangement any time soon, and that so long as the opposing party is willing and able to strike back, the war is not ended.

Worse yet, things like this tend to spread.  After all, it is not just our economy that is being affected by this war; it is every oil importing economy across the world.  Given how Trump has been treating our allies, it is entirely understandable that they may not want to join us in forcing open the Straits of Hormuz.  Given the stakes, they may not have the choice.

Even worse -- we have used up so many anti-missile defensive weapons that we are being forced to move them out of South Korea.  It seems likely that the North Koreans will take advantage of the situation.  Suddenly, we are starting to get a WWIII vibe.

Russia

I don't believe that Trump undertook this war as a favor to his friend Pooty to build up Russia's war chest against Ukraine.  There would be easier ways to assist Putin, such as just lifting sanctions, cutting off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, or even directly assisting Russia.  All evidence points to Trump being genuinely caught off guard by spiking oil prices and wanting to bring them down.  That being said, he may very well view any advantage this war gives Putin as a side benefit.

Also, I don't think it is crazy to dismiss Russian intelligence assistance to Iran as an ordinary incident of war -- an expected response to our intelligence assistance to Ukraine.  And yes, the situations are comparable.  Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine.  We are the aggressor in Iran.  Both sides appear to be giving intel on appropriate military targets.  Admittedly, the Iranian regime is much worse than the government of Ukraine and more deserving of being overthrown.  But then again, the Russian homeland has been hit.  Ours has not.

So I understand Trump declining to be outraged over Russia's assistance to Iran.  On the other hand, all of this point to the strategic incoherence of pursuing a policy that is simultaneously pro-Russian and anti-Iran.  Maybe, just maybe, this war will drive home even to Trump the incoherence of such a policy.  That would be a good thing.  Unless it leads to WWIII.

Domestic politics.

Domestic politics clearly are a factor here.  This does not mean that the war is just a ruse to distract from the Epstein files.  The whole obsession with the Epstein files is just a replay of the error we made in Russiagate -- looking for the one silver bullet that will slay the Trump monster.  There is no such silver bullet.  But I do believe that Trump is focusing on foreign policy at least in part because of growing signs that his domestic power is slipping.  The Epstein files are part of that, but by no means all.  Consider:

• More and more material is being released from the Epstein files, including credible evidence that Trump physically and sexually assaulted a girl under 16.
• The House Oversight Committee has issued a bipartisan subpoena to Pam Bondi to testify about the Epstein files.
• High power law firms appear to be prevailing in their suit to keep Team Trump from punishing them for their opposition.
• Universities are also prevailing in their suits against Trump,
• The Supreme Court has largely blocked deployment of the National Guard without the consent of governors.
• The Supreme Court has also blocked Trump's tariffs, at least in their most arbitrary and capricious form.
• Prosecution of political opponents has failed.
• Anthropic is defying the Pentagon and taking it to court.
• Thus far, Senate Republicans are refusing to yield to Trump's pressure to block the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
• Republicans are clearly bracing for large-scale losses in the midterms.
• Opponents of ICE have landed their first Cabinet-level scalp in Kristi Noem.* Admittedly, her proposed replacement is not better, but we have proven that sufficiently intense and sustained outrage can remove a Cabinet Secretary, which may have an effect on her successor.
• ICE appears to be behaving marginally better, at least for now.

This is not to say that all is well.  ICE continues to expand in personnel, budget, prison network, and surveillance capabilities, and to treat opposition as terrorism.  Democracy is not safe until that ends.  And we don't yet know what tricks Trump has up his sleeve for the midterm elections, or how he will respond if he loses.

And let's face it.  This war just might be what Trump needs to revive his domestic fortunes.  Consider:

The war has proven to be expensive and Trump is seeking new funding.  Democrats have pledged to oppose it, but does anyone seriously believe that Congress will deny our troops funding for the munitions they need to defend themselves while they are being shot at?  Particularly if Iran shows no willingness to stop shooting?

The risk of Iranian terrorist attacks will massively increase pressure on Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  There have already been three terrorist attacks -- all apparently isolated instances not backed by the Iranian regime, but alarming nonetheless.

And there is some evidence that support for the war is rising and the rally-round-the-chief effect is taking hold.  And here is the thing.  A long, drawn-out war almost always becomes unpopular, but the effect can take years.  A quick and easy victory can give a leader a boost, but it is rarely more than a short-lived sugar high.  But US bases being attacked, troops being killed, terrorist attacks at home, and the like -- well, see the first point above about initial hardship strengthening resolve.  A serious war may be just what Trump needs to revive his domestic popularity.  Yes, it will eventually decline if the war drags on for years, but that is a remote concern.  And it may not last long after a successful conclusion -- see GHW Bush, Churchill, etc.  But that just gives Trump incentive to prolong the war, at least in the medium term.

Buckle up, folks.  Things could get rough.

______________________________________________

*Really, their second scalp counting Greg Bovino.  And there is a third scalp as well in that ICE Barbie appears to be taking her ICE Ken with her.  But Noem is the only Cabinet-level scalp so far.

Why the Pro-Hamas Crowds Pickets Democrats -- The Same Reason Ultra-Maga Harasses Republicans

 

There has been talk about why the pro-Hamas protesters showed up in force in Chicago and tried to disrupt the Democratic convention while leaving Republicans alone.  After all, Republicans are clearly more obedient to Israel and less friendly to the Palestinian cause than Democrats.  But really this is no different than why ultra-MAGA harasses and threatens Republican, but not Democratic, law makers.

An important caveat is in order here.  We have at least some idea who these pro-Hamas protesters are because they show up in person.  Their leadership appears to be Palestinian, while the rank and file are mostly college students and generic progressive activists seizing onto the cause of the day.  Most of the pressure the far right exerts against Republican officials takes place out of the public eye, by threats by email, phone and the like.  As such, it is not clear who are making the threats -- militia members, such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters, or just the more hard core MAGA "normies."  

But the threats are real.  Many Republican office holders are being intimidated into supporting Trump, not just by the threat of a primary challenge but by actual physical threats as well.  Mitt Romney famously pays $5,000 per day in security because of these threats and can recount other Republicans who don't have that kind of money falling into line.  In 2020, Republican state legislatures expressed similar fears when Trump pressured them to appoint alternate slates of electors.  Rusty Bowers (Arizona Speaker of the House) and Brad Raffensperger.  Democratic law makers have not been targets of this sort of threats, although Democratic election officials have.*  And the reason is clear.  These hard core MAGA members believe that election officials are committing criminal fraud and therefore feel free to threaten them.  They expect Republican law makers to be in the tank for Trump and to vote for his certification regardless of election outcomes.  The do not expect Democratic law makers to be in the tank for Trump and therefore do not regard them as traitors for not voting to certify him.  

Or, put differently, ultra-MAGA are not currently seeking to take over the country.  They are seeking to take over the Republican Party as a prelude to taking over the country.

Something similar applies to the pro-Hamas crowd.  They know Republicans are in the tank for Israel and do not expect to have any sway with them.  Their fury is directed at Democrats, who they do expect to sway.  Or, put differently, they see Republican supporters of Israel as mere enemies and Democratic supporters of Israel as traitors.  And they are attempting to take over the Democratic Party, presumably as a prelude to taking over the country.

Of course, there are differences as well.  MAGA has been much more successful at intimidating Republicans into submission than the pro-Hamas crowd has been at intimidating Democrats.  The primary reason for this, I assume is that MAGA is much larger than the pro-Hamas crowd -- large enough to form the majority of a party, versus a minor faction.  

I also suspect that the ultra-MAGA tactic of staying in the shadows -- of making secret anonymous threats or harassing people at their private residence -- is more effective than the highly public and obnoxious actions of pro-Hamas.  If ultra-MAGA took their worst actions in the public eye, I have little doubt they would alienate public opinion enough to undermine their power. But private threats and harassment do not make it onto the public radar screen, and create they impression that there is a violent and authoritarian Left threatening the fabric of our country, with no equivalent on the Right.  The real difference is that the violent and authoritarian Left has been kept marginalized, while the violent and authoritarian Right is integrated into the mainstream.

________________________________________

*Also school board members.  

Hello, Again

 

So, there has been quite a gap since my last post, even as Biden has dropped out of the election and Harris has pulled ahead.  

I will have to say, it has been hard to post about domestic politics even as the Middle East looks ready to blow up any day.  That makes anything in domestic politics look very much like a fragile construction that could be totally upended at any moment -- much like Trump's lead when Biden dropped out.

It also seems self-centered to view the prospect of all-out regional war from the prism of domestic politics, but I can't help it.  What would be the results of all-out war in the Middle East?  Presumably skyrocketing gas prices and mass riots by the pro-Hamas crowd.  That should be enough to put election out of reach by the incumbent party and hand it to Trump.  

Nor are my fears limited to the US.  In Europe as well, and possibly Latin America, two decades of democratic back sliding are finally beginning to show signs of reversing.  And mass riots by Muslims across Europe could very well reverse the reversal and bring the anti-democratic far right to power.  

And yet all the accounts I follow seem to be focusing on our domestic politics and treating that Mideast as, at most, an afterthought.  So let me do a few domestic posts as well.

Memo to Campus Protesters: It Isn't Working

 

Memo to campus protesters:  I am not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but if it is anything more than just draw attention to yourself, it isn't working.  Certainly you are not achieving anything in terms of ending the war.

So far as I can tell, most of the campus protesters have given up on actually ending the war and are focusing on getting their colleges to divest from any companies that do business with Israel.  Needless to say, the impact of such divestment on the immediate humanitarian crisis will be essentially zero. Nor will divestment lead to the destruction of Israel, which appears to be the end game.  So what is the point?  If the point is to avoid being complicit in moral evil -- well there are a whole lot of moral evils left in the world that you will still be complicit in.

The usual response of protesters to any criticism whatever is that whatever conduct you are criticizing is trivial compared to "genocide" in Gaza.  And just for the record, I actually agree that it is not inconsistent or hypocritical to protest this war and not numerous other wars going on in the world today.  Other wars may have a higher total death toll, but that is out of a larger baseline population, and over a longer time span. The damage to housing has been described as "unseen since WWII."  And certainly it is fair and reasonable to focus more effort on a war being fought with US weapons and funding that we have considerable leverage to stop than one where our role and our leverage is minimal.

But these protests are less than worthless and ending the carnage.  Before the student protests, there were numerous stories about the suffering in Gaza, Israel's obstructive inspections of humanitarian aid and the like.  The protests have moved the focus here and taken it off the actual war.

Underlying the whole escalation is a flawed assumption that the more extreme the measure, the more effective.  If marches and demonstrations don't turn public opinion against Israel, try camping out in the quad. If that is not effective, then seize buildings. If that doesn't work, bar access to the school to anyone who does not support your cause and block traffic. The assumption seems to be that being in a miles-long traffic jam will finally alert people that the war is wrong.  Sorry, dudes, it doesn't work that way.  It just makes you, rather than the war, the story and makes people angry about the disruption.

At this point, protesters may ask what do I suggest as an alternative.  What could they have done?  Well, so far as I can tell, while the rank and file protesters are ill-informed newbies who were recently focused on some other cause de juer, the leadership of the movement seems to consist of actual Palestinians -- mostly women.*  This gives the movement a real authenticity and refutes people dismissing it as mere "cosplay."

So here is my suggestion.  Why not hold teach-ins and give these women the chance to tell their stories. Palestinians in the US, whether citizens or students on visas, invariably have family members killed in the war, homes destroyed, people who fled their homes, only to be bombed in supposed safe refuges, and so forth. With today's instant communications, these family members have presumably sent photographs and videos to relatives in the US.  So tell their stories, show the pictures and videos, bring this war home to people., make it real. Make this an exercise in citizen journalism.  Invite the college newspaper to attend and publish the stories.  Invite your local newspapers to do the same.  Publish this on social media -- Twitter, Tik-Tok, Facebook, You-Tube, podcasts, etc.  Set up websites and old-style blogs.  Urge readers/viewers/listeners to contact their members of Congress and call for an end to funding of the war.  Provide a link to find who your member of Congress is.  

These actions may be of limited value.  Evidence suggests that the real secret to reaching a large audience is to tape in to one of the major communications nodes that draws large numbers of viewers.  But that is where being part of an elite institution really matters.  Presumably at least some of these students have the sort of elite connections that give them an inside line to major communications nodes.  Use them to contact these nodes and get your story out.  That is how you build the sort of political pressure that might actually force our government to stop supporting this war.

PS:  The latest word on negotiations is that Netanyahu is telling Hamas that if they will release hostages, he will delay a few weeks before he moves in to finish them off.  Needless to say, this is just another way of saying he has no desire for a negotiated end to the war.

__________________________________________
*So where are the Palestinian men?  I don't know, but my guess is they are the ones harassing Jews on the street.

PS

 

One last note to the people (and they are many) who argue that really the authoritarian Left is a bigger danger than the authoritarian Right.  Looking at our college campuses, I can agree that we have an authoritarian Left and it may be a real danger some day.

But right here and now, the influence of the authoritarian Left in the corridors of power is dwarfed by the authoritarian right.  The clear measure is the recent foreign aid bill passed by the House.

Voting against aid to Ukraine -- 112 Republicans, no Democrats.

Voting against aid to Israel -- 37 Democrats, 21 Republicans.

The power of the Hamas Party in Congress is dwarfed by the Putin Party.

Liberalism and Illiberalism

 

Of course, that comment does an injustice to conservatism which, at its best can advocate for an even-handed application of the law.  It is better taken as the definition of authoritarianism.  And, again, the above proposition is actually four propositions:

1. The law protects our in-group
2. The law does not bind our in-group
3. The law binds out-groups
4. The law does not protect outgroups

There is nothing illiberal or authoritarian about 1 and 3, which are completely compatible with even-handed justice.  The problem is with propositions 2 and 4.  And, as I  noted before, proposition 2, the law is not binding on us often gets the most attention.  

This would suggest that an offensive sense of entitlement is a hint of authoritarianism -- laws are for other people. I would also add that an offensive sense of entitlement, a conviction that the rules only apply to someone else, represents authoritarianism in its milder forms.  Who hasn't at least sometimes believed that the rules should bend to accommodate our particular circumstances?  Actual hostile and punitive behavior toward outsiders is the more dangerous manifestation of authoritarianism.  

The alternative is liberalism, which Wilhoit defines in its broadest sense:

A noble sentiment, but then again, let us not forget that liberalism is hard.  It isn't easy to apply the rules even handedly to the people we love and the people we hate.

All of which, of course, leads to the subject of the latest protests on campus.  I recommend this article for a thoughtful, well-balanced description of what is going on with the Columbia protests.  The overall tone of the article is that the protests on Columbia are peaceful.  The protesters are camped out on the lawn and not engaged in violence.  They are at pains to argue they are not anti-Jewish, only anti-Zionist.  They have encouraged Jews to join the protests, have held a Shabbat dinner and are planning a Passover Seder.  

But they reject the existence of Israel as illegitimate and refuse to allow any differing views.  If anyone who disagrees approaches the encampment, the protesters link arm and bar the intruder as a threat to "privacy."  Violence on campus is rare, but the social pressure to conform and not to voice opposing views is intense.  Members of the press are directed to a few official spokespeople.  Other members of the encampment refust to speak to outsiders.  

Outside the campus, things are a lot uglier as protesters, probably Arab, harass Jews and call for the destruction of Israel.  The students on campus disclaim such things, but do not put much energy into denouncing them.  And, above all, the general consensus, even among people who disagree with the protests, is one of opposition to any attempt to forcibly shut down the protests.

So maybe a good place to start is the work more at publicizing the concept of time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.  What this means, in simples terms is that government * may not limit the content of what is said, but it may place restriction on the time, place, and manner of the speech.  A state university,* for instance, could not ban pro-Palestinian, or pro-Hamas rallies while allowing pro-Israel rallies, or vice versa.  But it can limit speech to rallies in the quad that end at a certain hour and ban camping on the lawn.  

And any state can absolutely ban protestors from blocking highways.  That particular technique was pioneered by Black Lives Matter and there were cries of outrage on our side when some states outlawed the technique.  The cries out outrage went the other way when anti-vax truckers in Canada protested vaccine mandates by blocking major trade routes and the Canadian government shut them down (without resorting to violence, it should be noted).  Well, now it is pro-Hamas protestors blocking traffic in multiple locations.

So, let's all take a deep breath and agree that yes, bans on blocking traffic fit well within constitutional "time, place and manner" restrictions, as do bans on camping on the lawn.  And yes, I realize that protestors will say that their cause is more important that such restrictions.  In fact, pro-Hamas protestors are claiming a general exemption from being bound by any rules on the grounds that such rules are less important than "genocide" in Gaza.  To which two responses are obvious.  One is that there is no reason whatever to believe that blocking the Golden Gate Bridge will do anything whatever to end the war in Gaza. 

The other is to point out that this is no different than, say, right-wing parents who disrupted school board meetings and threatened, stalked and harassed school board members. Their response to any sort of law enforcement action was to say that they were being persecuted just for being concerned parents, and that their children's safety was more important that time, place and manner restrictions.  Both groups are claiming that their cause is so important that the rules should not apply to them.

It is also not so different from Bill Barr saying that he considers Trump the lesser evil compared to Biden, even though Trump tried to overturn an election and wanted to execute people who caused him trouble because Biden will impose energy efficiency regulations on appliances.  Or Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which argued that GW Bush's claims of uncheck powers of indefinite detention, "enhanced interrogation," and warrantless surveillance were really less dangerous to liberty than public smoking bans.**  The point in such cases is clear enough.  Unlimited executive power (in the hands of a Republican, of course) is not really bad because it only affects other people.

Regulations affect me.

_________________________________________________

*A private university is not government, but we can ignore that for now.
**To Goldberg's credit, he has been signing a different tune since Donald Trump came to power.