When People To Picture To Delay Orgasm To Magazine stole the idea from Time and had that strip of aluminum foil on the cover under the headline "YOU" - I gotta say, it stung.
Sorry, no. What it did was mortally damage times reputation as a best in class orgasm delay publication. They never recovered from that fumble. I only know this because we just read it for an HBS case study.
Not only does Trump play Mr. Opposite so he can say “You suck!” and not only does he enjoy playing games of dominance: he is also very susceptible to flattery, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Netanyahu is continually telling him “Oh, Mr. President, you are the manliest man who has ever held the office of President. But do you know what would make you the manliest man who ever lived? That’s right, if you unleash a bunker buster bomb or two on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.”
While I agree with most of this post's sentiments, I would argue that Iran today is a bigger world threat today than the targets of other failed interventions since WW2 (Iraq, Afghanistan, even Iran itself back in the 50s). If we do bomb Iran's nuke facilities, it won't be to get cheaper oil or to bestow freedom and democracy on the populace. It will be to prevent the regime whose proxies have already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths across the middle east from obtaining a weapon to do exponentially more damage. And it's not like a dubious suspicion that they have or are close to acquiring WMD's like it was with Iraq. So an intervention here could arguably be more justifiable than the others. But I admit it's still possible that a resultant regime change could go horribly wrong, and I will look like a complete idiot for having supported it.
Do we really want to encourage people to bomb countries with nuclear weapons? I do not think that is a smart idea, even if it does discourage nuclear proliferation....it also encourages nuclear weapon havers to keep their weapons functional and ready to shoot... at the nearest flock of birds. 5 minute reaction time between India and Pakistan, remember? (US v Russia has 30 minutes, which is plenty of time to call and ask "those are birds, right?")
Trump has never faced any real consequences for anything he's done. Attack Iran? What could possibly go wrong? I'm sure Dear Leader will not lose any sleep over dead Americans ie: losers and suckers.
Trump went bankrupt. He lost a lot of friends, and was flat broke for a while. You should listen to his interviews after that... it's not "Mr. Bombastic Colbert 2.0" that's for sure.
Additionally, he's faced bullets for what he's done. There, I said it.
The chances of Trump ordering US involvement in Iran will be directly proportional to his need to distract his base from some scandal. We got Liberation Day after Signalgate and the LA immigrant roundup after the Elon Musk breakup. So basically those worried about the US joining the war should hope that the admin doesn't fuck up again in some way that MAGA might care about. The Epstein files being released would be the obvious example.
- I had to push back on this. It’s unfair to Bismarck and misunderstands his foreign policy. While Bismarcks engineered 2 wars in order to expand Prussian power/create the German Empire (there is a fair question what was his actual goal), after the Franco-Prussian war, his foreign policy was decidedly non interventionist, pragmatic, and realistic. He recognized that Germany was a medium/large power, sandwiched in a center of the continent, sharing borders with other medium/large powers, and was a land power. While Germany might outmatch each of these powers on their own, any attempt to change the balance of power on the continent would trigger a multilateral response. He sought good relations with the other great powers - the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the Habsburg Empire, Italy (which was kind of a great power power) - and the isolation of France on the continent/encourage France to focus on its overseas Empire and French things. He created overlapping alliances/non aggression pacts in furtherance of those goals, and acted as an intermediary among the powers, such as over imperial concerns. He did not seek to involve the Kaiserreich in imperial expansion- Germany’s small* imperial holdings outside of Europe were the result of domestic political pressure which Bismarck acquiesced to but never really wanted.
The bellicose foreign policy and naval arms race occurred under Wilhelm II, who dismissed Bismarck soon after ascending the throne and took a far more active role than Wilhelm I. Emperor Friedrich II
had ambitious goals, and by all accounts wanted to move the monarchy toward a more British model, but lasted a short time on the throne, as he ascended the throne with terminal cancer. Bismarck died in 1899.
*small and less valuable relative to the British and French Empires. German Southwest Africa was massive geographically, but far less populated or wealthy in resources compared to the larger empires, or even Belgium’s. Even had Germany wanted a big empire, it was late to the game, along with Italy. There simply wasn’t much territory left on Earth that European powers hadn’t already carved, or was de facto off limits (the Western hemisphere).
Vicky Nuland, Dick Cheney's protegee, was given carte blanche over the Ukrainian War, which was a very bad idea. (she thought sanctions would end the war in 2 months, for example).
So yes, the choice was "Choose Neocons at State" or "Choose Trump". With two years of Dead Ukrainians and nothing to show for it from the Neocons (including an admission of biolabs in the Ukraine to Congress, which everyone nearly fell over about, as that was to a softball of a question designed to say Ukraine was clean).
I’m pretty sure we’d still be in this situation whether we kept JCPOA or not. Not that it was a bad idea. It was completely worth the effort. But Iran was going to attempt to get nuclear missiles, regardless.
Key point though, is regardless of our level of involvement, don’t get bogged down, and keep your eye on China. 2027
I completely agree that we should stay out of this war and cheer on Iranian regime change from the sidelines. However this piece doesn't really engage with the "peace through strength" ideology on the mainstream (eg National Review) right.
Idk if I agree with that view but I don't think it should be fully discounted; looking at Israel's adventures over the last two years it really does seem like the ME respects military might and sees diplomacy efforts as weakness. The Europeans offered the Ayatollah a pretty attractive deal over the weekend and he scoffed at them and kept beating his chest. Maybe there is a middle ground here where Trump wanted to do a Top Gun Maverick (but without any downside since the Israelis disabled their air defenses) but not get involved otherwise. I guess time will tell.
I completely agree that we should stay out of this war and cheer on Iranian regime change from the sidelines. However this piece doesn't really engage with the "peace through strength" ideology on the mainstream (eg National Review) right.
Idk if I agree with that view but I don't think it should be fully discounted; looking at Israel's adventures over the last two years it really does seem like the ME respects military might and sees diplomacy efforts as weakness. The Europeans offered the Ayatollah a pretty attractive deal over the weekend and he scoffed at them and kept beating his chest. Maybe there is a middle ground here where Trump wanted to do a Top Gun Maverick (but without any downside since the Israelis disabled their air defenses) but not get involved otherwise. I guess time will tell.
When People To Picture To Delay Orgasm To Magazine stole the idea from Time and had that strip of aluminum foil on the cover under the headline "YOU" - I gotta say, it stung.
Sorry, no. What it did was mortally damage times reputation as a best in class orgasm delay publication. They never recovered from that fumble. I only know this because we just read it for an HBS case study.
Not only does Trump play Mr. Opposite so he can say “You suck!” and not only does he enjoy playing games of dominance: he is also very susceptible to flattery, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Netanyahu is continually telling him “Oh, Mr. President, you are the manliest man who has ever held the office of President. But do you know what would make you the manliest man who ever lived? That’s right, if you unleash a bunker buster bomb or two on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.”
A hagfish SECRETES a cloud of slime.
While I agree with most of this post's sentiments, I would argue that Iran today is a bigger world threat today than the targets of other failed interventions since WW2 (Iraq, Afghanistan, even Iran itself back in the 50s). If we do bomb Iran's nuke facilities, it won't be to get cheaper oil or to bestow freedom and democracy on the populace. It will be to prevent the regime whose proxies have already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths across the middle east from obtaining a weapon to do exponentially more damage. And it's not like a dubious suspicion that they have or are close to acquiring WMD's like it was with Iraq. So an intervention here could arguably be more justifiable than the others. But I admit it's still possible that a resultant regime change could go horribly wrong, and I will look like a complete idiot for having supported it.
Do we really want to encourage people to bomb countries with nuclear weapons? I do not think that is a smart idea, even if it does discourage nuclear proliferation....it also encourages nuclear weapon havers to keep their weapons functional and ready to shoot... at the nearest flock of birds. 5 minute reaction time between India and Pakistan, remember? (US v Russia has 30 minutes, which is plenty of time to call and ask "those are birds, right?")
This is Israel's war. Insofar that Israel is a US ally and Iran is not, we will provide moral and material support, but that is about it.
Irrespective of Israel, the US seriously doesn't want Iran getting a nuke, maybe serious enough to use military force.
That said, I think Israel taking care of the problem is much better than us doing it, for a zillion reasons.
100%.
FWIW, since the US is energy independent, I think the countries most reliant on ME oil should be in charge of babysitting the place.
Wakanda greatly valued scientific and technical research. So whatever they're going for isn't that.
Trump has never faced any real consequences for anything he's done. Attack Iran? What could possibly go wrong? I'm sure Dear Leader will not lose any sleep over dead Americans ie: losers and suckers.
Trump went bankrupt. He lost a lot of friends, and was flat broke for a while. You should listen to his interviews after that... it's not "Mr. Bombastic Colbert 2.0" that's for sure.
Additionally, he's faced bullets for what he's done. There, I said it.
The chances of Trump ordering US involvement in Iran will be directly proportional to his need to distract his base from some scandal. We got Liberation Day after Signalgate and the LA immigrant roundup after the Elon Musk breakup. So basically those worried about the US joining the war should hope that the admin doesn't fuck up again in some way that MAGA might care about. The Epstein files being released would be the obvious example.
Where can I get a subscription People to Picture to Delay Orgasm magazine? My local library doesn’t seem to carry that.
The Congressional Leadership brochure is a good substitute.
“The 21st century Otto von Bismarck”
- I had to push back on this. It’s unfair to Bismarck and misunderstands his foreign policy. While Bismarcks engineered 2 wars in order to expand Prussian power/create the German Empire (there is a fair question what was his actual goal), after the Franco-Prussian war, his foreign policy was decidedly non interventionist, pragmatic, and realistic. He recognized that Germany was a medium/large power, sandwiched in a center of the continent, sharing borders with other medium/large powers, and was a land power. While Germany might outmatch each of these powers on their own, any attempt to change the balance of power on the continent would trigger a multilateral response. He sought good relations with the other great powers - the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the Habsburg Empire, Italy (which was kind of a great power power) - and the isolation of France on the continent/encourage France to focus on its overseas Empire and French things. He created overlapping alliances/non aggression pacts in furtherance of those goals, and acted as an intermediary among the powers, such as over imperial concerns. He did not seek to involve the Kaiserreich in imperial expansion- Germany’s small* imperial holdings outside of Europe were the result of domestic political pressure which Bismarck acquiesced to but never really wanted.
The bellicose foreign policy and naval arms race occurred under Wilhelm II, who dismissed Bismarck soon after ascending the throne and took a far more active role than Wilhelm I. Emperor Friedrich II
had ambitious goals, and by all accounts wanted to move the monarchy toward a more British model, but lasted a short time on the throne, as he ascended the throne with terminal cancer. Bismarck died in 1899.
*small and less valuable relative to the British and French Empires. German Southwest Africa was massive geographically, but far less populated or wealthy in resources compared to the larger empires, or even Belgium’s. Even had Germany wanted a big empire, it was late to the game, along with Italy. There simply wasn’t much territory left on Earth that European powers hadn’t already carved, or was de facto off limits (the Western hemisphere).
Ok so who do you side with in that video? Cruz or Carlson? Or did you not watch to avoid your Sophie's choice?
Vicky Nuland, Dick Cheney's protegee, was given carte blanche over the Ukrainian War, which was a very bad idea. (she thought sanctions would end the war in 2 months, for example).
So yes, the choice was "Choose Neocons at State" or "Choose Trump". With two years of Dead Ukrainians and nothing to show for it from the Neocons (including an admission of biolabs in the Ukraine to Congress, which everyone nearly fell over about, as that was to a softball of a question designed to say Ukraine was clean).
Good take, for the most part, Maurer.
I’m pretty sure we’d still be in this situation whether we kept JCPOA or not. Not that it was a bad idea. It was completely worth the effort. But Iran was going to attempt to get nuclear missiles, regardless.
Key point though, is regardless of our level of involvement, don’t get bogged down, and keep your eye on China. 2027
Re: phallic nukes, I can’t not link the classic: https://genderandsecurity.org/sites/default/files/carol_cohn_sex_and_death_in_the_world_of_rational_defense_intellectuals.pdf
I completely agree that we should stay out of this war and cheer on Iranian regime change from the sidelines. However this piece doesn't really engage with the "peace through strength" ideology on the mainstream (eg National Review) right.
Idk if I agree with that view but I don't think it should be fully discounted; looking at Israel's adventures over the last two years it really does seem like the ME respects military might and sees diplomacy efforts as weakness. The Europeans offered the Ayatollah a pretty attractive deal over the weekend and he scoffed at them and kept beating his chest. Maybe there is a middle ground here where Trump wanted to do a Top Gun Maverick (but without any downside since the Israelis disabled their air defenses) but not get involved otherwise. I guess time will tell.
I completely agree that we should stay out of this war and cheer on Iranian regime change from the sidelines. However this piece doesn't really engage with the "peace through strength" ideology on the mainstream (eg National Review) right.
Idk if I agree with that view but I don't think it should be fully discounted; looking at Israel's adventures over the last two years it really does seem like the ME respects military might and sees diplomacy efforts as weakness. The Europeans offered the Ayatollah a pretty attractive deal over the weekend and he scoffed at them and kept beating his chest. Maybe there is a middle ground here where Trump wanted to do a Top Gun Maverick (but without any downside since the Israelis disabled their air defenses) but not get involved otherwise. I guess time will tell.