The above ahistorical, moronic and infuriating cartoon was posted by a long-time friend and—believe it or not!—a tenured history professor at Georgetown. I am reaching the end of my patience with once smart people deliberately making less-educated people stupid, and for the second time this week (the first was prompted by this Facebook meme) I couldn’t wrestle my fingers to the floor fast enough and responded to my Trump Deranged freind, “Now, you KNOW this is untrue. I know it’s untrue, and I know you know it’s untrue.”
And this is Trump Derangement! People who actually have the education, wit and critical thinking skills to reject false framing and imaginary facts, yet who nonetheless betray their own principles and integrity in order to attack the President. I’m hoping Steve-O-in NJ will gift us with one of his excellent historical retrospectives about how the United States was, at great risk to FDR, aiding Europe in fighting the Germans well before Pearl Harbor, and what the U.S. sacrificed in lives and treasure to indeed rescue Europe as well as that civilization thingy. We also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan and have been bolstering European military defenses ever since.
It’s bad enough for a UK cartoonist to issue that crap, but for a U.S. historian to endorse it? Truly despicable. OK, for me, long friendship plus Trump Derangement and aging brain cells equals forgiveness.
Barely.
UPDATE: There is hope! My old friend the professor reacted to my mild rebuke with a “thumbs up.”
Ethics Alarms 
Whoever drew this cartoon probably looked up one fact only, which is how much time passed between the actual start of World War II and the United States officially joining the war on December 8th 1941 after the assault on Pearl Harbor. Yes, the United States was officially neutral until December 8th. That’s because isolationism was strong and the United States was wary of being drawn into another war in Europe.
However, much earlier in 1941, the United States transferred 50 World War 1 era destroyers to the UK to fight the battle of the Atlantic. It wasn’t too long after that that the US Navy started covering convoys and eventually adopted a shoot on sight policy against Nazi U-boats. It was early October when a German submarine sank the United States destroyer USS Reuben James. The United States was fighting a de facto Shadow War in the Atlantic long before Pearl Harbor.
This is before we even talk about the Flying Tigers in China or the less well-intentioned Eagle Squadrons in the UK, both composed of American volunteer pilots trying to aid the beleaguered allies.
Politically this was a big risk for FDR who was facing some strong opposition at home. The idea that the United States was just sitting on its hands until Pearl Harbor is a complete untruth. Pearl Harbor killed the political debate and at that point it was decided it was time for America to rise as one man and fight.
You know the rest. It took a while for American production to gear up to full wartime needs, but once it did, we were banging out aircraft, tanks, and ships faster than the axis could destroy them. Before 1942 was over the United States was advancing past Guadalcanal headed to the Japanese empire and had swept the Germans from North Africa . A year after that the Italian campaign was on, and in 1944 came the invasion at Normandy .
The US production machine won the war, albeit not without some help. This cartoon is simply insulting .
Thanks, Steve. England would have crumbled without Lend-Lease. Even the Soviet war machine, oft credited by gleeful anti-American liberals for being the country that actually won the war, was supplemented by American supplies.
Without the convoys they would have been nowhere. And it’s as much the German’s fault that they failed, they stuck their tongue into a meat grinder at Stalingrad.
And Hitler’s silly decision to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. The isolationists argued that Japan should be prioritized since it had attacked us but otherwise dropped opposition to U.S. involvement. If Hitler hadn’t declared war, there could have been a case made that our manpower and industrial might was only appropriate against Japan which could have affected Lend-Lease significantly enough to knock the others out of the war before we could be involved. Roosevelt’s determination to fight a proxy war might very well have brought us into the European conflict eventually but, perhaps, not soon enough. Then the criticism of a delayed entry would have maybe been more appropriate.
Also, it’s a plausible way for Edith Keeler’s peace movement to give Gernany time to win in the alternate history seen in Star Trek‘s “The City on the Edge of Forever”
But, again, it required Hitler to make that move first.
“City on the Edge of Forever” was one of the better episodes of Star Trek: TOS, but in the end, it’s just a dream and a question. Is it ethical to let a good and kind person who is trying to do good things die because if she lives, many more will suffer? When we put it that way, an answer is possible, but that assumes we know the future, and in effect that’s playing God.
BTW, even if someone like Edith Keeler did really exist, I do not think she would have been the person to delay the American entry into World War II long enough for the Axis to complete the atomic bomb first. Charismatic or not, she was one missionary in one mission in one city, helping a few people every day. She was not somehow unique. There were many others doing that at the time.
I have to add that FDR was interested in getting the US into the war, not keeping it out. He’d seen what happened last time when the US chose not to get involved. Some “slum angel” was not going to move him away from that. I also would submit that once the Japanese made the attack on Pearl Harbor, all bets were off and no one would have listened to her anymore.
I think too many writers of the time were still stuck on the Gandhi myth: that one peaceful man defeated the most powerful empire in the world without striking a blow or firing a shot (it isn’t that simple, and Gandhi wasn’t as important as many make him out to be), therefore one peaceful person could do the same to any other empire. Most empires that have been defeated have either been beaten on the battlefield, have collapsed from within, or some combination of both, often with overreaching involved as well. I can’t think of any other empire in history which simply faded away because someone with opposing ideology appeared and proclaimed a different way.
” Is it ethical to let a good and kind person who is trying to do good things die because if she lives, many more will suffer?”
The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.
The Indians also benefited in that the British were not interested in wiping out the indigenous population of their subcontinent. They weren’t the Germans, regardless of whatever other faults they had.
Really, “City” is also affected by a flawed understanding of FDR’s commitment to helping the Allies and the role Lend-Lease played in Hitler’s decision to declare war on us. So much more is understood about the events that led us to war in 1941 than was understood in 1966.
Still the best episode of any Trek.
Without Lend Lease, it’s quite possible the Soviets would have starved in 1942.
We provided food, trucks beyond counting, tanks, planes, aviation fuel (I believe), just vast quantities of everything one can imagine.
They suffered immense casualties, almost beyond comprehension – and I have heard arguments that Russia still has not recovered from WWII.
You are not taking into consideration quite a few things. If Europe is hesitant to join Israel’s and the US’s not exactly wise attack of Iran, with many possible downsides that may result in a strategic blunder on many different levels, holding back is a wise choice.
To see all history, and present history, through one lens — that of WWll — looks like a perspective and interpretive defect. What if that lens does not, cannot, offer real clarity? It is an interpretive model that may well no longer apply.
On what shall people base their willingness to engage in extremely dangerous war under dubious circumstances? The success of America’s last 30 years of war? It has not been a success and it has been a disaster on every level. It is part of a process of tipping the nation into open decline.
The present adventure may better be interpreted as one of those historical disasters that bring empires down. What about that historical analysis?
Along comes a belligerent, dictatorial, not terribly thoughtful man who is simply put untrustworthy, careless, arrogant and a ridiculous braggart who rushed into a war whose “unintended consequences” are becoming manifest.
I get the impression that even sensing that failure is possible is seen as “unpatriotic”.
I don’t think that it’s unpatriotic to consider that it could fail; however, it is certainly unpatriotic to hope it fails because you don’t like the guy in charge. It does help if the administration articulates achievable goals because the success of actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on some participation by the peoples there in favor of regime change.
Nevertheless, you are correct in that not every military action is tantamount to WWII in which the U.S. served as Doctor Win-The-War. Invasion seems unlikely, regime change is hopeful (but, again, will be largely dependent on the Iranian people to support and sustain it) but the goal seems to be to stop Iran’s war-making capabilities on its neighbors, particularly its nuclear program. How far that goes toward preventing the funding of terrorism is up in the air. This is closer to the Barbary Pirates situation that our host referenced recently or, perhaps, the incursion into Mexico to stop Pancho Villa. It’s not a full-scale war in the traditional sense.
Let me amplify your comment, which is spot on, with a less diplomatic response. I am truly nauseated by the chorus of so many weenies, too many of them women, whose argument breaks down into, “Ewwww, fighting and violence! Can’t we all get along? Just leave everyone alone and they might leave us alone! Give peace a chance! If we fight, we might lose! It’s scary.” Of course no war is a sure thing. But this is the United States of America, it is the one nation capable of taking big risks and doing the right thing when everyone else is hiding under the covers. Yeah, wars are terrible and need to avoided when possible but not at all costs. When I was a kid, young assholes in my various schools thought “Better Red than Dead” was a persuasive argument. It’s not, and never was. When the people making this kind of “War and guns are icky!” argument get control of the nation, the result is disastrous every time. Every time. Trump is 100% right about Iran, which is why un-mentally-crippled Trump opponents like Fetterman, David Bois, John Bolton and George Will have come out and said so. Yup, it’s a risk. So was the Revolution, the Civil War and WWII. Wars are always unpredictable, expensive, dangerous and risky, but the only way to realistically avoid them is to make it clear that you are ready and willing to fight them, and have sufficient will and weaponry that nobody thinks you are bluffing.
But this is the United States of America, it is the one nation capable of taking big risks and doing the right thing when everyone else is hiding under the covers.
Like in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now in Iran. That is where your narrative thrust encounters trouble.
The right thing? I agree that this should be the measure. Personally I am not (yet) convinced that this was or is “right” but less for moral reasons snd more for strategic ones.
And romanticism is more feminine than realism (like Sachs and Mearsheiner). 😉
Bad argument. All of those conflicts could have gone the other way too. Moral luck; the 1% confluence of bad management and bad luck. Consequentialism.
No, they failed for internal reasons, for lack of understanding, for arrogance, for other factors. To say “they could have gone some other way” is bad argument. They sll went terribly and did great harm to people there and our own nation.
And the same is predicted to occur again.
History does not support that analysis. Vietnam was a bad decision based on a flawed theory, but the US could have won that war if it chose to, or it should have gotten out much earlier. The regime it was protecting was corrupt: it’s a bit like supporting Ukraine now, but at least we aren’t actively fighting. Iraq was botched, but again, the US had the thing won. Even with the messy results, getting rid of Saddam was a valid objective The US had no choice but to attack Afghanistan. The mistake there was attempting to engage in nation-building.
I do not think the result — killing Husein — was worth the cost to Iraq’s people: hundreds of thousands killed. So on the plane of commonly understood morals I do not see how merely killing Hussein could be justified. However, and again, it has been *suggested* that the US engaged in that war for other reasons, not the ones it claimed.
To say the Vietnam war ‘could have been won’ does not change the fact that it was lost. And at (again) extraordinary cost to life and well-being in that region. That is one reason why the US began to achieve a bad reputation. In no sense was the result good or positive. And additionally it cost the US huge amounts and did great harm to those who fought it (many of who said it was an *unjust war*).
As to Ukraine, I have been influenced by the opinions of some who say that the US participated in a terrible blunder through a provocation. And that, if it is true (it sounds true), resulted in a *consequence* of also many hundreds of thousands who died. If it is true that the US acted irresponsibly and provoked a response from Russia, the US shares a moral consequence and moral blame.
So in each of these situations, when the totality is considered, they resulted disastrously for those nations and the same for the US.
If Iran goes a similar way (I have been made to understand that a pull-out is possible though it would leave the region in a mess) then it will be one more failure. And that is certainly no gain at all.
“I do not think the result — killing Husein — was worth the cost to Iraq’s people: hundreds of thousands killed.”
That’s not the cost. A population is responsible and accountable for the leadership it permits. The cost to the US was wroth removing a Middle East wrongdoer and enforcing a cease fire that was being violated from the previous war. Iraq’s civilians were used as human shields, which is tragic, but Hussein was the nation’s leader. The myth that the idea in war is just to defeat military objectives is exactly how you get “forever wars.” WWII was the last war where we paid no attention to that. Same issue with the “genocide” in Gaza: the Gazans put Hamas in charge: they pay the bill for the damage. Yes, their kids too.
“But this is the United States of America, it is the one nation capable of taking big risks and doing the right thing when everyone else is hiding under the covers.”
“Risk is part of our business” – Captain James T. Kirk.
It’s a Star Trek day for me, I guess.
Or . . . to perhaps put it more succinctly:
War is a terrible thing, but there are other things even MORE terrible.
–Dwayne
The ethical issue here is not the merits of the current war with Iran, but the false framing of World War II.
That too.
Aliza, you wrote “To see all history, and present history, through one lens — that of WWll — looks like a perspective and interpretive defect. What if that lens does not, cannot, offer real clarity? It is an interpretive model that may well no longer apply.“
You may be correct that if we look at this through the lens of the last thirty years – hell I’ll go back to 1951 in terms of our ability to secure a victory like that which was obtained at the end of WW2. Because that lens see the rules of engagement quite differently than what those who fought the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese military. Since 1951 our politicians have tied the hands of those we send to do eliminate threats to our population. Even now we are going out of our way to prevent civilian casualties but that is not practiced by Iran. They are indiscriminately firing missiles into known civilian populations. Would you consider the idea that looking through the lens of the last 30 years is the actual interpretive defect.
During WW2 we bombed the crap out out every German and Japanese city until they gave up. Not since has there been an all out effort to eradicate the bad actors who want global hegemony. Not since WW2 has the public been willing to forego anything to ensure final victory. Many who lack foresight or are willing to believe lies told by our adversaries so that their comfortable lives are not the least bit disrupted are willing to critique decisions made by those who have to make the hard decisions that put our people in harm’s way.
Chuck Schumer said that if the people knew that they would have to suffer high gas prices because of this “ill advised” military operation they would be against it. But lets frame the question a bit differently. Would we support a much broader military operation in terms of years and lives lost if it resulted in some lower gas prices now for a short period of time, or one of shorter duration now and far fewer lives lost for higher gas prices now. I know my answer is I’ll take the latter
Over the weekend a ballistic missile was launched toward our base in Diego Garcia. That is 2000 miles away and is part of the NATO alliance. The NATO alliance does not say that an attack on a separate member nation that is not part of another nation’s military operation exempts them from participating when asked.
I know Joe Kent said there was no imminent threat from Iran. I challenge people to define imminent in terms of time an expected costs. We know from the IAEA that the regime had enriched its uranium to a 60% level which is far beyond that needed for civilian energy production. We also know the Iranian regime seeks to protect its production of weapons grade uranium deep beneath the surface to avoid detection or destruction. Further, given that the regime has sent assassins to kill American politicians – Office of Public Affairs | Iranian Intelligence Agent Convicted of Terrorism and Murder for Hire in Connection with Foiled Plot to Assassinate U.S. Politicians and Government Officials | United States Department of Justice – and has for forty seven years called for the fall of western civilization and the imposition of Islamic theocratic rule, when they say “death to America” I believe that threat. The conviction of the Iranian Agent is enough to consider that there is an imminent threat. Finally, we know that terrorist regime in Iran has no difficulty slaughtering tens of thousands of its citizens who want a more liberal constitutional government. When the IRG shots wounded people lying in hospital beds and denies its entire population from getting information other than its AI generated propaganda. I consider them to be global menace.
You then said “Along comes a belligerent, dictatorial, not terribly thoughtful man who is simply put untrustworthy, careless, arrogant and a ridiculous braggart who rushed into a war whose “unintended consequences” are becoming manifest.“
You are not specific but I infer that you are speaking of Trump and Hegseth in the above statement. That entire statement is easily rebuttable. Trump has sought to reduce government control over citizen lives whereas his political adversaries are the ones enacting more restriction on what you can eat, what you must inject yourself with, what social ideas children must be taught and what ideas children may not be exposed that are critical of their particular POV. That is the opposite of a dictator. Neither you nor I are not privy the thought that went into the planning of this operation and to suggest that they never considered Iran’s attempts to close the strait is just propaganda used to buttress an opinion that lacks any evidence. Let me return for a moment to paragraph 4 above. Should we risk a temporary closing of the Strait of Hormuz to shipping that would probably result in higher global fuel prices and some economic losses or should we allow Iran to continue to build and improve upon its missile arsenal along with continued work toward a nuclear weapon that could reach Europe now and North America in the near future. Given that they violate all international norms of civilized behavior toward anyone who in their eyes has not submitted to their rule. Lets be honest they use their religion to retain power, prestige and and an affluent living standards. That is a hallmark of theocratic rule since time immemorial. There is no democracy with theocracy.
As for Hegseth, he knows far better that so many past Secretaries Of War or Defense because most never served or saw actual combat. Moreover, you neither defined any unintended consequences or provide any evidence that such potential consequences were weighed in a cost/benefit analysis. I want confident military men and women. I also don’t want mealy mouthed generals who want to focus on the popular leftist talking point of white rage or ferreting out white supremacy and increasing distrust in the ranks when eliminating threats from our real adversaries is what we pay them for. That is the mission.
When you pontificate about people and motives the use of terms like dictatorial, belligerent, or even ascribing behaviors such as not thoughtful without any first hand knowledge of their actions and rely on talking points that are also unsubstantiated there is little reason to accept your assessments. I read your work many times and the anti-Israel anti-colonial themes are routinely present. I wonder why you never decry the desire of Iran and the radical Islamists who wish global domination. While I don’t think you agree with that ideology it seems like you engage in sophistry to give your self a feeling of being a deep thinker as an anti-Zionist.
Moreover, you neither defined any unintended consequences or provide any evidence that such potential consequences were weighed in a cost/benefit analysis.
Thanks for your interesting post. I’ve responded so much in other places.
Unintended consequences are being defined by Sachs, Mearsheimer and many others.
Trump’s initial request for assistance was to get NATO allies to help provide defensive escort to tankers and other shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, not for our benefit but for theirs.
The cartoon suggests we are asking for help to protect our interests which is also a flaw in the sentiment. I do wonder what value our Involvement in NATO accrues to the U.S. I am increasingly finding the arguments about keeping our European allies happy with us from progressives and others rather silly when Europe has little desire to defend its own interests but criticize the current administration when it does that which is necessary to prevent those who are developing and implementing the means of Europe’s destruction
Except “the man in charge” has quite literal the personality of a tyrant. And if you-plural refuse to take into consideration the profoundly psychologic and demagogic aspect of his personality and his entire public-relations molded campaigns which “grabbed” and “enchanted” his mass of followers, you will (in my opinion) make a mistake. You seem to have willed yourselves to fail to see how this man is perceived and reacted to nearly universally. He is not seen as ‘normal’. You seem to want the world to simply accept in him that which you view through a selective lens and which you fail to fully address.
I feel I am forced to make conscious what you-plural refuse to consider. What a bizarre and unwanted role!
There are mythic and unconscious undercurrents that operate in Trump. As a historical figure he is ‘larger than life’ in this sense. He is also (obviously) a strangely wounded man. That is, wounded by the insults and by a life of continual shunning by those intellectually and morally *superior* (the NY intellectual class). He covers over his lack of self-confidence with an arrogant aire. He therefore embodies a general American ‘woundedness’ which oddly his followers ‘relate’ to, even though he technically is from a class to which they have no relationship at all. But they are wounded by impoverishment, their post-industrial condition, by family break-up, divorce, loss — and lack of a knowledge-base through which they can accurately see their selves and their condition. They are perfect therefore for demagogic manipulation.
And this is what has taken place directly: Every promise made is seeming to be broken as this man does exactly what he said he would not do: to laugh a battle that would result in potentially a forever war. (And everyone should pray that this does not happen).
And he is quite plainly “captured” by what maybe can be described as an Archetypal figure or energy (spirit?): it is bound up in both Christian and Jewish psychology and mythology. But this mythology is seen (by some on this blog) not as mythic but as actually becoming manifest in history, today. This is ‘prophecy’ taking physical shape.
For Israeli Jews, Yahweh is an attitude toward the Gentile world — of superiority, condescension and deep suspicion. Listen the Avraham Burg, he clearly explains it. Yahweh will manifest as a maelstrom of righteous violence. He (this Archetype) does not have many other options available to him.
And then the element of a strange, quite literally post-Christian evocation of “God” by Hegseth with all the visuals of missiles, cataclysmic explosions, and that unique and brazen way that Americans visualize themselves: As soldiers conquering the world under the aegis of literal godliness. Are you so blind that you cannot see any of this? Or is it intoxication?
You simply have to see that a literal RELIGIOUS WAR is developing. This is how it is being framed. And the players are Yahweh, a strange version of ‘Jesus Christ’ not as Prince of Peace but as Junior Partner to literal Israeli war-aims, and all of this portrayed as Holy War against a Mohammedan-Shia willfulness pictured as a Hitlerian demonism.
The above was in response to AM Golden:
I don’t think that it’s unpatriotic to consider that it could fail; however, it is certainly unpatriotic to hope it fails because you don’t like the guy in charge.
In a word, and with love: nonsense. To begin with, a President’s true “personality” is only relevant to the extent that it affects policy and the welfare of the nation that elected him. Personality is not a “disability” in Trump’s case, not a bug but a feature. I disapprove (generally) that particular personality in a President, but that has zero affect on using it as an excuse to reverse a democratic election, which is what the MSNOW hack is advocating. “Every promise made is seeming to be broken as this man does exactly what he said he would not do” (then you go on to focus on one promise, which is not to involve the US in more wars.) In fact, this President has delivered on more substantive promises more quickly that any President in history, and the promise about wars was impossible on its face, which people paying attention knew and accepted. “I promise never to get the US into a war” is like promises you see in movies when a parent says to his or her child, “I promise I’ll never let anything happen to you” or “Everything is going to be all right.” Nobody wants a leader whose answer to “if we don’t do something soon, a crazy country is going to be a nuclear power” is, “Sorry, I promised that I wouldn’t get into any wars.” One of the very few things I respect President Bush I for was that he broke his stupid “No new taxes” promise because it was the only responsible thing to do. Many promises are more ethical to break than to keep.
You sound Trump Deranged, whih I find surprising. Only those suffering from this emotional malady would write something as silly as
No one can accuse me of being easy on Trump, and it is one claim that I am becoming less tolerant of. My claims criticizing Trump still outnumber the post criticizing his critics
You sound Trump Deranged, which I find surprising.
No, that is not the case exactly. The reason I point to these ‘faults’ is because of the exact degree that you and some others seem to show a will not to see and understand them. I “compensate”.
In this sense it is your-plural hardness or stubbornness that is the other side of the dread TDS. This makes sense because you-plural are much closer to the realities on the ground in the US than I am.
My view is that the entire System (symbolized by the contrast between MSNOW opinion-set and FOX NEWS opinion-set) needs to be examined from a reasonable distance. The ehole system is sick. But this way of looking is not going to help develop war-aims that can become actionable. That is not my chosen role.
My actual hope, right now, is that this present attack results (somehow) in a positive outcome for the nation of America. I am taking into consideration though all the factors that may result in failure.
Pardon: which part of “No one can accuse me of being easy on Trump, and it is one claim that I am becoming less tolerant of. My claims criticizing Trump still outnumber the post criticizing his critics.” That is absolutely accurate, so your statement that “it is your-plural hardness or stubbornness that is the other side of the dread TDS” is unjustified.
Yes, I agree, but I was speaking in a general way. I remember all your posts clearly pointing out the downside of a Trump president. And I am taking into consideration that you point out the positive gains made so far by Trump.
My worry: way too much was risked. And the wager may not result in a “win” at the world Roulette table.
Is there a Red 47? (I do not know if Roulette numbers go that high).
Cálmate, cocodrilo! I am not an opponent of American success.
To be charitable, your posts read like the offspring of James Joyce and Candace Owens.
On the current bombing campaign against Iran, this isn’t new for Trump. To say that it breaks any promise that Trump made is to ignore the actions the first Trump administration took against Iran, and Trump’s promise to blow Iran to smithereens during his 2024 campaign. Trump has made clear before his current admin that he’s willing and able to act against Iran. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
To be charitable is a Christian virtue, so you do good there. But if you were honest you’d admit that charity is not your object, it is insult and to diminish the validity of a perspective.
Here is my prediction just so I am clear: One, you will come to see that this war is “Yahweh’s” war and as a war-premise it is skewed and dangerous. Yes, that is psycho-political prediction (and my reference for it is CG Jung and two essays “Wotan and ‘After the Catastrophe’). I include a perspective as considerable and not absolute. When deranged, possessed Christian Zionists, stoned on bizarre mythic dreams and end-of-world fantasies, team up with an Israeli state possessed by a war-god mentality, it will eventually result in disaster. Do I want that? Absolutely not. I predict it (at 55% of certainty). That leaves 45% of hope that this will not manifest.
May I speak freely to the Boomer contingent and the Boomer mind-set? You do not have as much clarity about anything as much as you assume you do. You need to do more research. Read more. Listen more to the different viewpoints and perspectives not only of USA citizens but of world citizenry. And a few drops of modesty cannot do harm. Just because you recite, rehearse and intone these perspectives does not mean you will conjure them in to reality. I am with that said being *charitable* to you-plural. But it is genuine and I will hold back from mere insult. This is not your world to *game* in. But you act that it is. Do I disagree with the use of power? No. I am concerned about the use of power that is used without real planning about consequences. Tactical gains are easy. Strategic gains are far more difficult.
The “Boomer truth regime” is an interesting concept and I will use it to counter your Joyce-Owens insinuation. First, not one thing I have said about this war, or the times we are in, or psychological factors at play, or collusion between nutjob Christian Zionism and Israeli Zionism is outside of the realm of the reasonable. Yes, it is speculative and unusual (as analysis) but it is that analysis that I feel (speculate) can be of service for greater understanding.
On the current bombing campaign against Iran, this isn’t new for Trump.
What is ‘new’ is that according to the analysis of many different experts and scholars, Trump has blundered into a dangerous situation that may turn into a huge political blunder. That is essentially all that I have been saying here, against the Boomer Movie Version of fantasized reality.
And I apologize for characterizing it that starkly. But this is not 1952 it is 2026. What Donald Trump communicates to the world is like he is replaying in his mind a script that is not workable in the world today.
Now if that turns out to be a wrong assessment of his capabilities and if it turns out that these projects result in national gain, I will celebrate with you. It does not look that way to me.
I assure you, the decision to finally go after Iran couldn’t have less to do with “Yahweh.” Straw man. Come on.
Aliza, is there any evidence that the masses of voters in Israel and the United States are under a psychic phenomenon. Within certain circles, the desire for a national religious revival exists but I’m not convinced it’s widespread.
No doubt conservative religious believers in both countries have some influence, but I do not believe that they hold outsized influence in either country. While I cannot speak for Israel, I highly doubt that President Trump is motivated by any religious beliefs, latent or unconscious or otherwise. Trump benefits from some support among religious believers but there are plenty of reasons for this action to be taken that are independent of any support by the Christian right.
Aliza, is there any evidence that the masses of voters in Israel and the United States are under a psychic phenomenon. Within certain circles, the desire for a national religious revival exists but I’m not convinced it’s widespread.
I am uncertain what you would agree is valid evidence. If I have ‘evidence’ it is only of the same sort that you and anyone has access to: what I read of others; interviews on YouTube that I watch; and newsy articles (and finally the mere opinion of the myriads of commenters).
Do you accept ‘psychic phenomena’ as being real? Do you accept, for example, that the German people were captured by a strange and dangerous hysteria? If it was possible there and then, is it possible anywhere else?
I think there is a large *mood* that desires revival. And it is expressed by Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens (who converted to Catholicism) and also Tucker Carlson who seem to have become (more of) a Christian over time.
The mood or the desire of repairing America, getting it back on track, and saving it from disaster is definitely tied up with religious sentiments.
No doubt conservative religious believers in both countries have some influence, but I do not believe that they hold outsized influence in either country.
I think you overlook that the younger Bush, and many around him, were either Christian Zionists or Jewish Zionists, and I think there is a significant influence ( of religious sentiment) that nourishes America’s general view of itself as an any of Israel.
In Israel, the religious demographic is on the rise and they will out populate the secular population soon. Their influence is only increasing.
I think that American naturally sympathizes with the underdog and Israel is certainly the underdog in that region of the world. That sympathy can and does happen irrespective of any religious belief. For example, we sympathized with the invaded Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War.
George W. Bush left office almost 20 years ago. He was mocked and derided for much of his two terms. He got the preliminary version of what Trump faces now. If Bush were not an opponent of Trump, he would be lumped in with the same so-called Christian Nationalists that are allegedly the predominate danger to America today. Whatever his personal motivations were for action in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were also legitimate reasons to act that were unrelated to religious belief.
As for the Germans, I don’t think they were captured by a psychic phenomenon. I think they weren’t all that committed to democracy to begin with, they were told what they wanted to hear, excesses of the regime didn’t negatively affect the vast majority of them and the fear of reprisal took care of the rest. Large portions of the population were motivated by sheer self-interest until there was no going back.
The essay by Jung may, or may not, interest you. He has had influence on how I see things (obviously).
To paraphrase Steinfeld’s soup nazi, “NO OIL FOR YOU!”
The USA needs to do more effort to understand the perspective of the European members of the NATO. The USA and Israel all of a sudden started a war in Iran without consulting any nation except Israel. How is this war to Europe’s benefit? No the argument becomes that if Europe wants to keep the gas prices under control they need to send military escorts to Hormuz. Europe’s response to USA is “you broke it, so it is up to you to fix it”. There is no obligation to assist the USA in this war as the argument can be made that the USA chose this war.
I will skip the fact that this war does not have popular support in Europe; definitely not among the significant Muslim populations in Europe.
There is also the inconvenient fact that it is not clear what the ultimate war aims are and how victory looks like. Is it regime change? Do we need boots on the ground to force regime change, or at least make sure that we capture all the enriched uranium? What happens when the USA runs out of targets to bomb? Will domestic pressure in the USA (e.g. midterm elections) force Trump declare victory early, leaving the Iranian terrorist regime in place. If that happens, will the Iranian regime rebuild, and even put more effort in their nuclear ambitions, if only protect their power? If that happens, will Iran use that nuclear power against it enemies as a matter of revenge?
This cannot all be addressed by a stupid cartoon. However those who are defending the war should be honest about worst case scenarios, and not blithely assume that all the tactical victories will automatically result in a strategic victory. The USA has not decisively won a war since World War II. I am afraid that only a nuclear attack on the USA will create a single-minded fortitude to end this radical Islamist menace in Iran.
There is no obligation to assist the USA in this war as the argument can be made that the USA chose this war.
Then there is no obligation for the US to continue to remain in NATO, and the European nations can pay to defend themselves. The US makes NATO possible. These are supposed to be allies. Trump was right: if we can’t depend on our allies when we need them, why should we help them when they need us? The point is that Europe woes the US in too many ways to count. It was the US, not Europe, that tore down the Iron Curtain. The Europeans don’t have an ethical leg to stand on.
NATO members are bound by the North Atlantic Treaty to collective defense (Article 5), treating an attack on one as an attack on all, requiring assistance deemed necessary.
Article 5 does apply when Russia decides to attach Poland which is a NATO member. It does not apply when Poland or Germany decides to wage war against Russia to assist the Ukraine. As USA was not attacked by Iran there are no agreed upon NATO treaty obligations based on Article 5 to enter the war in Iran.
So we need treat obligations here from a legal perspective based on explicit treaty obligations. Political realism demands that we leave morals and ethics out of this argument.
No, I do not agree with that. The legalisms are swell: the treaty does not require NATO Allies to assist the US in a vital military mission, but it doesn’t stop them from doing it either. It is far more crucial to Europe that the US be ready to defend them than it is to the US to have Europe’s support when it is attacked. True allies act as allies and friends when they are needed, not only when they are legally committed to act.
I think the term “friendship” is hard to define in international politics; I would rather focus on strategic interests and values. My gut feeling is that the mores of the schoolyard do not necessarily translate to international relationships.
I do not want to go into the question whether there still is a justification for the NATO, or whether Western Europe and the USA are still friends with the same values.
However I think that Europe is allowed to have legitimate questions about the USA’s war aims, and the viability of USA strategy. The first responsibility of any government is to its own population; this takes priority over the interests of the USA who starts a war without consulting Europe first.
This is similar to somebody who suddenly decides to get into some beef with a gang (e.g. MS13); with all his friends questioning his sanity. There is no obligation for these friends to start fighting with that gang too; enlisting the help of the police is much smarter than risking to get killed.
There are always diplomacy challenges, even with partners. In order to sell the war to its NATO partners, Trump needs to explain first what victory looks like, in a way that can be unambiguously demonstrated. Operation Midnight Hammer apparently did not accomplish all its goals, hence Epic Fury. What comes after Epic Fury? If the mullah regime survives, will it rebuild its missiles and nuclear program? What are the risks for a Europe in that scenario if it assists the USA with Epic Fury?
“this takes priority over the interests of the USA who starts a war without consulting Europe first.” People have to stop saying this. The more people you tell, the harder it is to have a surprise attack. The Us has done this TWICE under Trump: Bravo. As they have shown, the “allies” can’t be trusted. We could trust Israel, and they kept the secret. Letting any other nation know jeopardized American lives and the success of the operation.
Which “ally” would you trust? France? Germany?
Lets draw the conclusion that Trump knew before February the 28th that countries like the UK under Starmer, Spain, France, and Germany are not friends of the USA under Trump. Trump decided therefore to leave them in the dark about his plans for Iran. But then it is not realistic to expect that the European countries turn around and assist the Trump administration in the war effort on the basis of friendship without clear treaty obligations.
Given the divergence of values between the USA and many European countries the question about the future and usefulness of the NATO becomes urgent. The USA needs to look at NATO membership and obligations with cold eyes focused on its strategic interests, and leave musty-eyed notions about friendship behind. This will give the USA full freedom of operation in matters that are of interest of Europe, such as Ukraine.
“I will skip the fact that this war does not have popular support in Europe; definitely not among the significant Muslim populations in Europe.”
How long has it been since any conflict the U.S. has been involved in had popular European support? Caring what Europe thinks of us stymies us in so many ways. If we only did what they approve of, we wouldn’t be the U.S.
As for Europe’s opinion now being influenced by large Muslim populations…
We need to consider that the strategic interests of the USA and Western Europe have diverged since fall of the Berlin wall and breakup of the Soviet Union.
About popular support, at home the Democrats and some Republicans do not support the war either. That is going to be a critical factor on how this war will end, going into the midterm elections. Europe knows that, and does not want to be left holding the bag, if the USA decides to cut and run.
And should all know that the IRGC and Basij are fighting for their dear lives with absolutely nothing to loose, as they know that the Iranian population will kill them if they lose power. They will never concede victory no matter how badly they are beaten. Airstrikes without boots on the ground will not be sufficient to do the job, as the Iranian population is unarmed.
So Europe is not acting in an irrational way by not getting involved.
Will they act rationally after Iran lobs a long-range missile into Rome or Prague? You can’t appease a rattlesnake. Europe is arguable more at risk of physical and cultural oblivion than the US, though the left here is trying hard to remedy the latter.
It will be a strategic mistake of Iran to fire off rockets at European capitals. The Iranians fired off rockets at the Persian Gulf states (UAE and others) and they all want the regime gone and are allied with the USA and Israel for now.
I do not appease rattlesnakes; I just stay away from them. Europe follows the same strategy with Iran.
Iran has demonstrated that Europe can’t stay away from them. Never mind the missiles that they showed can reach European capitals, Islamic agents and supporters regularly commit violence and threaten Europeans in their own countries, and could be directed to do more. Europeans are afraid to even hold large holiday gatherings.
The main reason they won’t strongly support the US is not out of any moral stance but out of fear of drawing the attention and increased ire of the Iranians. They’re cowards, leaving the US to do the heavy lifting, and hoping the Iranian leaders are rational actors and not dead-enders.
I think it should be pointed out that the current price of gasoline or crude oil or Brent crude is a function of what people think will happen to prices 30 days hence and not what the price actually will be. Futures traders buy 30 day contracts per 1000 bbls of oil. Traders only have to put up a fraction of the price at the time they buy the futures contract which means that none of them are actually paying the full cost at the time of sale. To protect their bet on future prices buyers of such contacts often buy options on future which means they can choose to buy a “Call” option that gives them the right to buy oil a a specific price or the may choose to purchase a “Put” option that allows them to sell at a set price. Most traders hedge their bets by buying “insurance which fundamentally allows them to opt in or out of a contract depending on the “Spot price” which is typically different than the futures contract. Most futures investors are just that. They are in a sense gamblers on what they think the roulette ball lands on “expiration day” which is when the accounts must be settled. Very few take actual possession of the oil nor do they use it for any purpose other than arbitrage opportunities.
Today traders are betting that the price of oil 31 days hence will be above the current price of about 104 dollars a barrel. In 31 days if the price of Brent or and light sweet oil produced is selling for more on that day than the Futures option price they will exercise the Call option and buy the the oil at a contract price lower than the current market price and an ignore the put option they bought as a hedge. The reverse is true if the days market price falls below the futures option price. This gives the investor the right to sell their barrels of oil at a price above the days trading price.
So, current pricing of oil is a function of investor sentiment of what the future holds and not what might be considered typical pricing based on actual costs. So if you think, Trump is simply bragging about our successes some is based in fact and some is based on allaying investor fears which are predicated on the information they process from various sources. If investors believe that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed for a significant amount of time then they will be bidding the price up. It is in our best interest not to wallow in fears of being in a quagmire.
People need to stop hyperventilating about oil prices and the stock market as that is is not the most important issue. Will Epic Fury leave this world a safer place, removing the threat from the Iranian mullah regime once and for all?
I agree that worrying about oil prices make no sense. In my opinion removing the Islamist radicals bent on global dominance or seeking Armageddon to fulfill some theocratic destiny will stabilize the region and prevent a much more serious conflagration that could result in a nuclear confrontation.