John, Exquisite title for this discussion. It's excruciatingly painful to observe the repeated errors stemming from flawed thinking, and actions despite prior experiences. We need to neutralize this neoconservative vampire once and for all...John, do your best! We are all behind you.
Thank you for this much needed and clarifying substack! My hope here lies in the polling and Trump’s proven instinct to side with the most popular position on any given issue (popular in the literal sense of the people, not the elites).
My only concern is Trump is tempted to “only” bomb Fardow and let the Israelis manage the rest, given the likely risk as you have said before of retaliation on US troops in the region and a subsequent tit or tat escalation, dragging the US in once again.
Here’s cautious optimism - I am certainly glad we don’t have Biden or Harris in the White House right now.
Yes with the Wilsonian Dems William, we’d surely be in. At least we have realists making our case at present. Many thanks for the stalwart support and here’s to this passing
Absolutely spot on, John. The polling is troubling. A majority of Americans don't want to go to war, having experienced Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 20 years. But a majority of Americans also want to prevent Iran from getting a nuke by "any means necessary". What most Americans unfortunately don't understand is that targeting Fordow would not simply be a single decisive military action to finish the job. That would eventually lead to the US getting drawn into a war with boots on the ground, one way or another. I would bet my 401k on that. You likely can't do one without the other... why do so many people think that? Because people like Sean Hannity and his band of merrymen (Lyndsay Graham, Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, etc.) assure whoever is listening that decisive bombing action is needed, and no war is necessary. I never thought I'd be nodding in agreement with people like Tim Kaine (!) as the voice of reason, but alas here we are... Mr. President, please get over your ego and show some restraint.
Couldn’t agree more JJ; frankly it’s all on a knife’s edge. The longer it takes the better for the realist cause. I’ll keep the good fight but it’s 50-50
I agree with your notion that the longer it takes, the more likely cooler heads will prevail. Fingers crossed... my wife just sent a bunch of videos from our club in NJ right now (Trump Bedminster - his summer residence); they are doing emergency evacuation drills with giant military helicopters. Hopefully it's just a drill!
The realist plan is to play for time, and to give the president the space to make a deal (it was almost there) based on the increased leverage, fudging the low grade enrichment question for domestic power (very doable in policy terms)
Hi Terri, as I have said they remain a coherent, fanatical, third or so of the party, definitely in a minority but hardly non-existent. This crisis is their opportunity to come back, much as their failures brought me back to relevance. Now is the time to go after them based on all the terrible decisions they have made over the past generation; to keep them from power once again
Yes, I thought the neocons were caged, if not quite dead, Terri. But they are very disciplined, very motivated and they are expert at taking advantage of any global crisis to suit their ends. So back to battle
But the State Department are Israel First! Nearly all the names you quoted are... (and I have to stop here). So for serving their actual goal, they haven't done that badly. The more destruction in the Middle East, the more space there is for Israel. They have adopted the USA as their toolbox and so far, no one is retreating from that. Mix from media control to campaign finance are effective.
Lindsey Graham covers up his personal preferences by trying to project himself as the Ueber-Hawk which he thinks most perfectly deflects from his personal issue in a GOP where that isn't exactly popular (and again I cannot say more).
The Pentagon is steered by the long term residents at State more so than the tenant in the Oval Office, unless the Oval Office is occupied by a very strong personality.
Totally agree, Erik; Graham should have been primaried cycles again for his facile cheerleading over Iraq. I once sat on a flight next to him; the drinks tray didn’t come fast enough
Fascinating stuff, John. Really appreciate the open and honest review of the republic. Unfortunately, it all appears to be rhyming.
I think we are staring at a B2 delivered MOP strike at any moment. If it succeeds, perhaps the United States can withdraw cleanly and quickly. A mission failure, however, would be an entirely different and far messier affair.
Hoping with everything I have that the message of ethical realism gets through, and preferably through you, John.
Yes, Kieran, they are in a position to strike, but not sign off as of yet. The president is rightly hesitating over the efficacy of a Fordow strike versus diplomacy. At least blessedly no talk of boots on the ground. But its as dangerous a time as I can remember, I’m doing my level best, rest assured! Thanks for your kind words of support and that of the whole community; it really matters
They all succeeded because they had local political legitimacy (per my Lawrence book) and were part of the local political constellation….unlike Israel and the US
Yep, Islam as practiced by Khomeini was a mix of nationalism and religion. The mix did it. The revolutionaries wanted nationalism and accepted religion as the rallying flag to kick the foreigners out.
Too right; again they are both Persians and Muslims. To ignore either is to get it wrong in terms of political legitimacy. Meanwhile Ted Cruz, neocon, doesn’t know how many Iranians there are (90 million). Once again neocons want to invade a country of which they know next to nothing!
Funny that Israel never lets IAEA inspect their Negev nuclear facilities (and those are entirely military, Israel has no civil nuclear program). Where else could you find weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East? But nope, no inspections.
I do think that the Israel nuke is mostly hot air.
John, Exquisite title for this discussion. It's excruciatingly painful to observe the repeated errors stemming from flawed thinking, and actions despite prior experiences. We need to neutralize this neoconservative vampire once and for all...John, do your best! We are all behind you.
Thanks Dianne, I rely on the support of our community, a very great deal. I am trying and will try as best I can. Promise.
We know:) It's exhausting. John you must be drained by the relentless bloodsuckers. Stay strong
I hope someone is listening. Right on the money. Keep going, John!
Thanks so much James; i’m in way too deep to stop now! I’ll do my very best
Thank you for this much needed and clarifying substack! My hope here lies in the polling and Trump’s proven instinct to side with the most popular position on any given issue (popular in the literal sense of the people, not the elites).
My only concern is Trump is tempted to “only” bomb Fardow and let the Israelis manage the rest, given the likely risk as you have said before of retaliation on US troops in the region and a subsequent tit or tat escalation, dragging the US in once again.
Here’s cautious optimism - I am certainly glad we don’t have Biden or Harris in the White House right now.
Yes with the Wilsonian Dems William, we’d surely be in. At least we have realists making our case at present. Many thanks for the stalwart support and here’s to this passing
Absolutely spot on, John. The polling is troubling. A majority of Americans don't want to go to war, having experienced Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 20 years. But a majority of Americans also want to prevent Iran from getting a nuke by "any means necessary". What most Americans unfortunately don't understand is that targeting Fordow would not simply be a single decisive military action to finish the job. That would eventually lead to the US getting drawn into a war with boots on the ground, one way or another. I would bet my 401k on that. You likely can't do one without the other... why do so many people think that? Because people like Sean Hannity and his band of merrymen (Lyndsay Graham, Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, etc.) assure whoever is listening that decisive bombing action is needed, and no war is necessary. I never thought I'd be nodding in agreement with people like Tim Kaine (!) as the voice of reason, but alas here we are... Mr. President, please get over your ego and show some restraint.
Couldn’t agree more JJ; frankly it’s all on a knife’s edge. The longer it takes the better for the realist cause. I’ll keep the good fight but it’s 50-50
I agree with your notion that the longer it takes, the more likely cooler heads will prevail. Fingers crossed... my wife just sent a bunch of videos from our club in NJ right now (Trump Bedminster - his summer residence); they are doing emergency evacuation drills with giant military helicopters. Hopefully it's just a drill!
The realist plan is to play for time, and to give the president the space to make a deal (it was almost there) based on the increased leverage, fudging the low grade enrichment question for domestic power (very doable in policy terms)
I thought the neocons had less influence.. what happened?
Hi Terri, as I have said they remain a coherent, fanatical, third or so of the party, definitely in a minority but hardly non-existent. This crisis is their opportunity to come back, much as their failures brought me back to relevance. Now is the time to go after them based on all the terrible decisions they have made over the past generation; to keep them from power once again
If the War Powers Clause is circumvented, could an evangelical neocon alliance tip the balance in favour of military intervention?
as has been true since Korea, the war powers clause will be ignored. its the internal administration bureaucratic battles that matter
I could hear the frustration in your voice John
Yes, I thought the neocons were caged, if not quite dead, Terri. But they are very disciplined, very motivated and they are expert at taking advantage of any global crisis to suit their ends. So back to battle
So maybe the White House are America First!
But the State Department are Israel First! Nearly all the names you quoted are... (and I have to stop here). So for serving their actual goal, they haven't done that badly. The more destruction in the Middle East, the more space there is for Israel. They have adopted the USA as their toolbox and so far, no one is retreating from that. Mix from media control to campaign finance are effective.
Lindsey Graham covers up his personal preferences by trying to project himself as the Ueber-Hawk which he thinks most perfectly deflects from his personal issue in a GOP where that isn't exactly popular (and again I cannot say more).
The Pentagon is steered by the long term residents at State more so than the tenant in the Oval Office, unless the Oval Office is occupied by a very strong personality.
Totally agree, Erik; Graham should have been primaried cycles again for his facile cheerleading over Iraq. I once sat on a flight next to him; the drinks tray didn’t come fast enough
Fascinating stuff, John. Really appreciate the open and honest review of the republic. Unfortunately, it all appears to be rhyming.
I think we are staring at a B2 delivered MOP strike at any moment. If it succeeds, perhaps the United States can withdraw cleanly and quickly. A mission failure, however, would be an entirely different and far messier affair.
Hoping with everything I have that the message of ethical realism gets through, and preferably through you, John.
Yes, Kieran, they are in a position to strike, but not sign off as of yet. The president is rightly hesitating over the efficacy of a Fordow strike versus diplomacy. At least blessedly no talk of boots on the ground. But its as dangerous a time as I can remember, I’m doing my level best, rest assured! Thanks for your kind words of support and that of the whole community; it really matters
The last successful regime change in Iran was of course Ayatollah Khomeini. Why did he succeed?
Why did the Taliban in Afghanistan succeed? Because they did!
Why did Viet Nam succeed?
They all succeeded because they had local political legitimacy (per my Lawrence book) and were part of the local political constellation….unlike Israel and the US
Yep, Islam as practiced by Khomeini was a mix of nationalism and religion. The mix did it. The revolutionaries wanted nationalism and accepted religion as the rallying flag to kick the foreigners out.
It was a Faustian pact.
Too right; again they are both Persians and Muslims. To ignore either is to get it wrong in terms of political legitimacy. Meanwhile Ted Cruz, neocon, doesn’t know how many Iranians there are (90 million). Once again neocons want to invade a country of which they know next to nothing!
See, Cruz.
As if in Texas (which sent him) anyone gives a hoot. Let's do a poll in Texas (the fewest will reply even).
But, campaign finance and friendly media move a senator to where they want him.
Funny that Israel never lets IAEA inspect their Negev nuclear facilities (and those are entirely military, Israel has no civil nuclear program). Where else could you find weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East? But nope, no inspections.
I do think that the Israel nuke is mostly hot air.