Thread by @NGrossman81

Awful @nytimes op-ed on Trump-Saudis-Khashoggi. It's so bad, and so emblematic of the What Trump Really Said Brigade--whataboutism, cherry-picking, false choice, apology--that I'm going to pick it apart. The authors even fail on their own terms.
(THREAD)
nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opi…

Doran and Badran open by dismissing Trump's lies with some weak whataboutism.
Trump said CIA isn't sure if MBS authorized Khashoggi's murder, despite CIA stating that conclusion with "high confidence."
Obama said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
2/x

But Ayatollah Khamenei literally issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Doran and Badran's piece even links to a fact-check showing that Khamenei did just that.
So their first point is Obama saying something literally true cancels out Trump saying something literally false.
3/x

Obama's true statement supposedly makes Trump's lie business as usual because is it "clashed" with intelligence assessments that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, as if Obama was saying they didn't.
But that's explicitly what years of sanctions and negotiations were about.
4/x

Opposition to Iran is the main reason the authors say Trump is right about Saudi Arabia. It's pretty much the only reason, with other rationalizations attached afterwards.
But the authors never explain why giving MBS carte blanche is essential to America's anti-Iran strategy.
5/x

As I point out in my article (published before Doran and Badran's), MBS' recklessness has hurt US anti-Iran strategy.
-Isolating Qatar pushed Qatar closer to Iran
-War in Yemen prompted greater Iranian involvement and, if anything, strengthened the Houthis
arcdigital.media/why-is-trump-s…

The Khashoggi murder further complicates Trump's effort to focus on Iran, creating divisions where he needs unity.
Partnering with Saudi Arabia while also restraining the Saudis' worst impulses is in America's strategic interest. Not "sure, MBS, whatever you want."
7/x

But Doran and Badran say the US can't do anything to restrain MBS' worst impulses. They make the ridiculous assertion that Saudis hold all the cards. Trump makes the same claim, and it's nonsense. The US is the senior partner. Saudi national security depends on American help.
8/x

Two big false choices here:
1) If the US doesn't give Saudis carte blanche, they'll trade America for Russia or China.
Trump said the same--as if weapons systems are interchangeable. In reality, it would take decades for Saudis to transition to Russian or Chinese equipment.
9/x

False Choice 2) The only options are total support for MBS and collapse of the Saudi state.
Do I even have to explain why that's nonsense? Of course America can continue working with the Saudi government while also pressuring the Saudis to act differently in some areas.
10/x

The op-ed makes one good point: Americans calling for US to break off partnership with Saudis aren't fully considering geopolitical realities.
But the authors make the same mistake by arguing that the only alternative is supporting MBS in everything no matter what he does.
11/x

So here's the argument:
1) Ignore what Trump said [an essential step for a Trump apologist].
2) Dismiss criticism of Trump's lies with "whatabout Obama?," citing something Obama said that's actually true.
12/x

3) Ignore concerns about Saudi money flowing to Trump's private interests [Doran and Badran don't mention this at all, for obvious reasons]
4) Insist the US has to give MBS carte blanche because America opposes Iran [ignoring that MBS' actions have hurt that effort]
13/x

Like most efforts by think tankers and other intellectuals to defend Trump's foreign policies, Doran and Badran's op-ed actually defends an imaginary president pursuing a similar main goal, but with different, smarter, more subtle actions. But the authors fail at that too.
(END)