As always Ethan, thanks for cutting through the political rhetoric in the effort of finding a constructive way forward out of so much death and destruction. A side of me thinks it may be for the best that the Trump team has declared "Mission Accomplished" with the "total obliteration" line with respect to Iran's nuclear program. The opposite, or reality, will probably entail much deeper engagement or even direct intervention in Iran. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, H.W. Bush was able to compel Saddam to accept the inspections regime because he held a loaded gun--the credible threat of continuing to the ground advance to Baghdad with half a million US troops and removing the Ba'th from power. As international support for inspections and sanctions waned during the 1990s, the US increasingly resorted to the threat or use of strikes... The Iranians may very well call Trump and even Bibi's bluff and say go ahead with trying to bomb us into compliance, an open ended commitment that likely wouldn't go over well politically in either the US or Israel......
I agree with you Michael. Once the decision was made to bomb Iran's enrichment sites, a series of implicit follow-on responsibilities/ commitments was made. One of them is to make sure the Iranian regime doesn't still have the ability (and added motivation) to cross the nuclear power threshold. I can't see how this doesn't require various forms of ongoing pressure. And any peace deal that doesn't address the inspections regime head on, with a clear assessment of Iran's current capabilities, is highly dangerous. Arguably, there's also moral responsibility to try to use our power to shape Iran's response to its own people, and encourage a deeper and more productive engagement with the region (which of course, carries other, potentially lethal threats to the regime). I love to hear your insight into parallels (or not) with Iraq; Libya certainly offers some lessons, which I'll try to parse in a future post.
Many have indulged in the fantasy that this deeply flawed person is the hero of their dreams. As soon as they do that he does the one thing he always does: pick their pockets (or the other p word). Take heed, my friend, and consider what role you play.
Sara hi -- thanks for this, as always! I see my 'space' not in taking sides, but pointing out potential dangers and opportunities where they exist, in the world we currently live in.
The world we live in is one in which indulging in projection onto Trump as capable of turning over a new leaf has gotten us to where we are: the effective rise of a dictator in America. In the past decade not to mention our lifetimes there is no evidence to suggest that Trump is capable of caring at all about any legacy other than the one he invents in his own mind and then asserts over and over despite its obvious and verifiable falsehood — until enough people buy it that they allow him to manifest that lie into something real that resembles it.
I appreciate that it is almost inconceivable that a human being can be so conscienceless. Doing so might even require specialized in-depth study of human psychology or lived experience directly over years with someone with this particular type of neurodiversity, to comprehend how absent the capability to care about another living being is. It somehow trips a wire in us and we just cannot believe it. But still, if only his very consistent track record could speak.
The only thing I reckon he would see in people raising the possibility of him delivering some grand Middle East Peace is an opportunity to exploit their wish for it to enrich himself— he would have zero interest in actually achieving Middle East peace since he can just pretend he already did that, tell you he did it, and it’s exactly the same to him as if he did it. He just does not care. What further proof do you need than the video they made of an ethnically cleansed, golden Disney Trumplandia on beachfront Gaza?
Sara hi - with much appreciation for your concerns for order, morality and democracy, I think you may be misinterpreting my tone and objectives?
My goal here is not political protest (that would be a very different kind of column) but to consider the bigger picture, and potential consequences of doing, or not doing x or y or z, given what’s happened before — all with a good dose of suspension of disbelief, and with limited moral judgment. If I took a uniformly ‘opposing’ view think I’d have fewer people on both the left and right willing to read — and comment.
If I can highlight a few under examined options, or stumble on a useful idea, or prompt someone to consider another perspective, I’ll be happy, regardless of who is in the White House.
I don’t need, nor would I be competent to psychoanalyze or diagnose Trump or expect he will do anything, one way or other, positive or negative. My perspective is that a bit of creative thinking - backed up by a sense of pragmatic optimism is a worthwhile form of advocacy. Even when I’m wrong. The vast majority of opinions on the Middle East are dismally pessimistic, which breeds inaction — as disillusionment and inaction have in the US.
There are great dangers and real opportunities in the current Middle East dynamics. Pretending neither exists encourages the former, rather than the latter - what the world (and the US) does now with Iran will influence whether Iran is more or less positively integrated with the region, whether there is a future much worse conflict, an accelerated regional arms race — or a communal Gulf enrichment program that creates interdependencies that reduce the chances of conflict. We are living in a very specific reality - whether one agrees with any of the policies that helped create it.
As for Trump’s intent, capacity, and past record - I think there’s a broad misperception that one needs good intent to produce good policy - there are plenty of examples of horrible damage done by well intended politicians. And the opposite.
The Abraham Accords, which emerged a bit by accident, are /were arguably one of the most radical innovations in peace policy of the last 50 years — triggered by another state’s willingness (certainly also self interest) to offer a creative (and according to some crazy) response to an immediate threat to regional security. These emerged into a framework that continues to have potential to fundamentally change the dynamic of Middle East conflict, for the better — a future in which resource swaps and economic and security cooperation could dramatically reduce conflict.
In short, if it seems like I’m expecting reason out of insanity - that’s a fair point — but it’s not out of complete naïveté, but very much on purpose.
I appreciate the engagement - and would love to hear from others on this …
As always Ethan, thanks for cutting through the political rhetoric in the effort of finding a constructive way forward out of so much death and destruction. A side of me thinks it may be for the best that the Trump team has declared "Mission Accomplished" with the "total obliteration" line with respect to Iran's nuclear program. The opposite, or reality, will probably entail much deeper engagement or even direct intervention in Iran. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, H.W. Bush was able to compel Saddam to accept the inspections regime because he held a loaded gun--the credible threat of continuing to the ground advance to Baghdad with half a million US troops and removing the Ba'th from power. As international support for inspections and sanctions waned during the 1990s, the US increasingly resorted to the threat or use of strikes... The Iranians may very well call Trump and even Bibi's bluff and say go ahead with trying to bomb us into compliance, an open ended commitment that likely wouldn't go over well politically in either the US or Israel......
I agree with you Michael. Once the decision was made to bomb Iran's enrichment sites, a series of implicit follow-on responsibilities/ commitments was made. One of them is to make sure the Iranian regime doesn't still have the ability (and added motivation) to cross the nuclear power threshold. I can't see how this doesn't require various forms of ongoing pressure. And any peace deal that doesn't address the inspections regime head on, with a clear assessment of Iran's current capabilities, is highly dangerous. Arguably, there's also moral responsibility to try to use our power to shape Iran's response to its own people, and encourage a deeper and more productive engagement with the region (which of course, carries other, potentially lethal threats to the regime). I love to hear your insight into parallels (or not) with Iraq; Libya certainly offers some lessons, which I'll try to parse in a future post.
Many have indulged in the fantasy that this deeply flawed person is the hero of their dreams. As soon as they do that he does the one thing he always does: pick their pockets (or the other p word). Take heed, my friend, and consider what role you play.
Sara hi -- thanks for this, as always! I see my 'space' not in taking sides, but pointing out potential dangers and opportunities where they exist, in the world we currently live in.
The world we live in is one in which indulging in projection onto Trump as capable of turning over a new leaf has gotten us to where we are: the effective rise of a dictator in America. In the past decade not to mention our lifetimes there is no evidence to suggest that Trump is capable of caring at all about any legacy other than the one he invents in his own mind and then asserts over and over despite its obvious and verifiable falsehood — until enough people buy it that they allow him to manifest that lie into something real that resembles it.
I appreciate that it is almost inconceivable that a human being can be so conscienceless. Doing so might even require specialized in-depth study of human psychology or lived experience directly over years with someone with this particular type of neurodiversity, to comprehend how absent the capability to care about another living being is. It somehow trips a wire in us and we just cannot believe it. But still, if only his very consistent track record could speak.
The only thing I reckon he would see in people raising the possibility of him delivering some grand Middle East Peace is an opportunity to exploit their wish for it to enrich himself— he would have zero interest in actually achieving Middle East peace since he can just pretend he already did that, tell you he did it, and it’s exactly the same to him as if he did it. He just does not care. What further proof do you need than the video they made of an ethnically cleansed, golden Disney Trumplandia on beachfront Gaza?
Sara hi - with much appreciation for your concerns for order, morality and democracy, I think you may be misinterpreting my tone and objectives?
My goal here is not political protest (that would be a very different kind of column) but to consider the bigger picture, and potential consequences of doing, or not doing x or y or z, given what’s happened before — all with a good dose of suspension of disbelief, and with limited moral judgment. If I took a uniformly ‘opposing’ view think I’d have fewer people on both the left and right willing to read — and comment.
If I can highlight a few under examined options, or stumble on a useful idea, or prompt someone to consider another perspective, I’ll be happy, regardless of who is in the White House.
I don’t need, nor would I be competent to psychoanalyze or diagnose Trump or expect he will do anything, one way or other, positive or negative. My perspective is that a bit of creative thinking - backed up by a sense of pragmatic optimism is a worthwhile form of advocacy. Even when I’m wrong. The vast majority of opinions on the Middle East are dismally pessimistic, which breeds inaction — as disillusionment and inaction have in the US.
There are great dangers and real opportunities in the current Middle East dynamics. Pretending neither exists encourages the former, rather than the latter - what the world (and the US) does now with Iran will influence whether Iran is more or less positively integrated with the region, whether there is a future much worse conflict, an accelerated regional arms race — or a communal Gulf enrichment program that creates interdependencies that reduce the chances of conflict. We are living in a very specific reality - whether one agrees with any of the policies that helped create it.
As for Trump’s intent, capacity, and past record - I think there’s a broad misperception that one needs good intent to produce good policy - there are plenty of examples of horrible damage done by well intended politicians. And the opposite.
The Abraham Accords, which emerged a bit by accident, are /were arguably one of the most radical innovations in peace policy of the last 50 years — triggered by another state’s willingness (certainly also self interest) to offer a creative (and according to some crazy) response to an immediate threat to regional security. These emerged into a framework that continues to have potential to fundamentally change the dynamic of Middle East conflict, for the better — a future in which resource swaps and economic and security cooperation could dramatically reduce conflict.
In short, if it seems like I’m expecting reason out of insanity - that’s a fair point — but it’s not out of complete naïveté, but very much on purpose.
I appreciate the engagement - and would love to hear from others on this …