NY Times columnist Bret Stephens joins to discuss the Iranian threat (to Israel and the US), the amazing Israeli penetrations of Hezbollah and Iran, and the fate of NATO, Ukraine, etc in a Trump 2.0 world.
Bret Stephens seems way too attached to what he perceives is a good attention getting tactic, that is, withholding his support for VP Harris. As we confront the undeniable danger of a return of Trump to the presidency, this is dangerously irresponsible of Stephens.
Fi just don’t understand how Bret or anyone doesn’t understand how that the American people want nothing to do with a conflict with Iran. The idea that telling them that they are bad means nothing after the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes you can blab on and on about their nuclear program. The issue is fundamentally: America will not go to war to stop it that’s why Obama was right to negotiate a deal. The fact that we weren’t willing do shit about Syria and chemical weapons shows just how unpopular having American boots on the ground in the Middle East is a no go.
Let’s be clear, the Lebanon attack was an absolute tactical success. No doubt. But that game isn’t done yet. Get ready for a LONG GRINDING process. It’s going to be ugly and it ain’t going to be good for Israel.
If we’re trying to be “in service of intellectual honesty”, Trump unequivocally disqualified himself when he sat watching his mob overrun the Capitol on TV, tweeting encouragement as they chanted Hang Mike Pence. Right now is the exact opposite moment to be weighing debatable standard policy approaches when one major party has nominated a deranged enemy of the U.S. constitution who purposefully directed violence at another branch of the government he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Have an intellectual comparison of what Trump administration policy in a vacuum would bring compared to a Harris administration at any other time in history, not now.
Bret Stephens is someone I respect, but he has been driving me bananas recently with his temporizing about what Harris needs to do/say to get his support. If he does more of that in this ep, it may cause me to throw my phone against a wall and run down the street screaming into the void. Could someone please comment here to tell me if Stephens has reacquired a sense of proportion and reality? I just can not begin to even today, so I would be grateful if others who listen before me can let me know if my fragile sanity can withstand listening to what is usually one of my favorite podcasts today.
This! Exactly this! Except for the part about having respect for Bret Stephens, which I absolutely do not. But I just can’t get myself to listen to this - too much trauma available these days to volunteer for more.
Back in the late 1980s at the CIA, whenever there was interference on our secure phone lines, we used to joke that Mossad was listening in. While the KGB was the usual target of our in-jokes, we knew Mossad was the only intelligence service capable of doing the impossible.
I agree with Bret on this point: "I don't see a Biden administration that has any kind of plan for victory in Ukraine either, other than to prevent defeat. And I would love to hear from Kamala Harris, as we used to hear from candidates in the past."
Unfortunately, Kamala is constrained by her position as VP under Biden, so she is not able to stake out her own position. (I fear this is a more general problem that is constraining her with regard to policy statements.) But I see no reason to believe she would be much different from the Obama-Trump-Biden consensus that favors timid, non-assertive US foreign policy. For example, they all had/have a tendency to draw red lines and then not enforce them.
Even though the USSR has been defunct for more than three decades, one element of its propaganda is still influential in the US: the lie that dictators are provoked by a rival's strength, so that the best way to handle them is through weakness and appeasement. This way of thinking has always dominated the Democratic left wing, and it is now influential with the Trump cult, as well. Until the US recovers from this Soviet propaganda hangover, the Axis of Autocracy will continue its string of successes.
I can't stomach Bret Stephens. He just comes off as a fool-- to admit how horrible Trump 2.0 would be while refusing to vote for Kamala. He's a great example of an intellectual who can spin florid "idea salad" while completely lacking the basic common sense most mammals use for survival. An idiot.
it's not clear to me at all why they want to unilaterally shirk off being the hegemon of the world. what's in it for us? they don't like chipotle in paris? what?
Bret Stephens seems way too attached to what he perceives is a good attention getting tactic, that is, withholding his support for VP Harris. As we confront the undeniable danger of a return of Trump to the presidency, this is dangerously irresponsible of Stephens.
Fi just don’t understand how Bret or anyone doesn’t understand how that the American people want nothing to do with a conflict with Iran. The idea that telling them that they are bad means nothing after the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes you can blab on and on about their nuclear program. The issue is fundamentally: America will not go to war to stop it that’s why Obama was right to negotiate a deal. The fact that we weren’t willing do shit about Syria and chemical weapons shows just how unpopular having American boots on the ground in the Middle East is a no go.
Let’s be clear, the Lebanon attack was an absolute tactical success. No doubt. But that game isn’t done yet. Get ready for a LONG GRINDING process. It’s going to be ugly and it ain’t going to be good for Israel.
If we’re trying to be “in service of intellectual honesty”, Trump unequivocally disqualified himself when he sat watching his mob overrun the Capitol on TV, tweeting encouragement as they chanted Hang Mike Pence. Right now is the exact opposite moment to be weighing debatable standard policy approaches when one major party has nominated a deranged enemy of the U.S. constitution who purposefully directed violence at another branch of the government he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Have an intellectual comparison of what Trump administration policy in a vacuum would bring compared to a Harris administration at any other time in history, not now.
Bret Stephens is someone I respect, but he has been driving me bananas recently with his temporizing about what Harris needs to do/say to get his support. If he does more of that in this ep, it may cause me to throw my phone against a wall and run down the street screaming into the void. Could someone please comment here to tell me if Stephens has reacquired a sense of proportion and reality? I just can not begin to even today, so I would be grateful if others who listen before me can let me know if my fragile sanity can withstand listening to what is usually one of my favorite podcasts today.
This! Exactly this! Except for the part about having respect for Bret Stephens, which I absolutely do not. But I just can’t get myself to listen to this - too much trauma available these days to volunteer for more.
Back in the late 1980s at the CIA, whenever there was interference on our secure phone lines, we used to joke that Mossad was listening in. While the KGB was the usual target of our in-jokes, we knew Mossad was the only intelligence service capable of doing the impossible.
I agree with Bret on this point: "I don't see a Biden administration that has any kind of plan for victory in Ukraine either, other than to prevent defeat. And I would love to hear from Kamala Harris, as we used to hear from candidates in the past."
Unfortunately, Kamala is constrained by her position as VP under Biden, so she is not able to stake out her own position. (I fear this is a more general problem that is constraining her with regard to policy statements.) But I see no reason to believe she would be much different from the Obama-Trump-Biden consensus that favors timid, non-assertive US foreign policy. For example, they all had/have a tendency to draw red lines and then not enforce them.
Even though the USSR has been defunct for more than three decades, one element of its propaganda is still influential in the US: the lie that dictators are provoked by a rival's strength, so that the best way to handle them is through weakness and appeasement. This way of thinking has always dominated the Democratic left wing, and it is now influential with the Trump cult, as well. Until the US recovers from this Soviet propaganda hangover, the Axis of Autocracy will continue its string of successes.
I can't stomach Bret Stephens. He just comes off as a fool-- to admit how horrible Trump 2.0 would be while refusing to vote for Kamala. He's a great example of an intellectual who can spin florid "idea salad" while completely lacking the basic common sense most mammals use for survival. An idiot.
I think I finally understand Bret Stephens: he thinks a 100 articles of slapdash mediocrity is especially impressive
Ding ding ding
Brett’s position is indefensible and I’m pretty sure he knows it. Stop playing games.
Laughing about Iran/Israel fight? not funny.
it's not clear to me at all why they want to unilaterally shirk off being the hegemon of the world. what's in it for us? they don't like chipotle in paris? what?