After Assad’s chemical weapons attack in Douma in 2018, John Bolton wanted Trump to bomb Syria’s military and governing infrastructure. Jim Mattis, concerned about inadvertently getting into a conflict with Russia, advocated a narrower list of targets. Mattis won out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The pattern over the last year is well established.
The United States tries to modify Israel's behavior. Israel says thanks but no thanks and does what it wants, ignoring U.S. concerns. And the U.S. eventually falls back in line and supports whatever Israel decides to do. 🧵
There are too many examples to cite, but here are a few.👇
Early on, the U.S. implored the Israeli government to open up the aid taps into Gaza to alleviate a humanitarian disaster. Israel agrees but then puts in place procedures and security measures that stifle the flow of aid and lead to a backlog of trucks at the border.
If NATO isn’t willing to go to war with Russia to save Ukraine now, why would it be willing to go to war with Russia to save Ukraine later? Thats a very straightforward question proponents of NATO membership for Kyiv need to ask. I think the answer is obvious: it wouldn’t.
Also, McFaul gets it backwards. Bringing Ukraine into NATO is a great way to keep the war going because Putin would have zero incentive—zip—to wind it down. Why stop if he knows membership is around the corner after the fighting ends?
The folks who think NATO membership is some panacea to all of Ukraine’s security problems are woefully naive.
First, some context. According to DoD, there have been 27 Houthi attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea area since Nov 19. U.S. and U.K. warships have successfully shot down many of these drones, anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles before reaching their targets. No casualties or major damage have been reported so far.
Yet despite the establishment of a U.S.-led maritime task force and last week's ominous ultimatum, the Houthis continue to attack Red Sea shipping lanes. UK PM Rishi Sunak is reportedly set to hold a full cabinet meeting tonight on possible military options. The Pentagon has already drawn up a list of targets.
An Israeli invasion of Gaza is going to be hell. It’s already hell. But what comes after could be just as worse, particularly if the Israelis find themselves sucked into re-occupying and administering a territory with 2.3m Palestinians. What’s the plan for the day after? 🧵
Hamas is a terrorist organization. But it has also served as the de-facto Palestinian government in Gaza for the last 16 years. Eradicate Hamas and you eradicate the Hamas government. Presumably Israel would want to find a replacement before their troops pull out.
There aren’t any good options. Nobody wants to touch Gaza, which has long been synonymous with poverty, underdevelopment, violence, and hopelessness.
I'm agnostic on Modi. But I do envy India's foreign policy and the way it looks at the world. India is a selfish country—but in an anarchic world system (sorry, the U.N. doesn't count) where there is no global government enforcing global rules, countries need to be selfish.
Whereas the U.S. tends to view the world in black-and-white, India sees a complicated world with various shades of gray. Whereas the U.S. views alliances in positive-sum terms, India views alliances as detriments to maximum flexibility. The word "alliance" is anathema.
Maximum flexibility is where it's at, and India practices it quite well. It tries to retain positive relationships with as many powers as it can. It shrewdly exploits situations to its own advantage (see: buying cheap Russian oil in bulk). And it leverages its weight in...
Wrong. “Working to hasten” NATO membership for Ukraine won’t shorten the war—It will do the opposite. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why: if Putin knows Kyiv will be a NATO member after a Ukrainian victory, he will fight that much harder (and longer) to prevent it.
I would also be careful before assuming NATO membership would prevent any Russian military action against Kyiv for eternity. Why on earth would the Russians believe we are willing to fight and die for Ukraine in the future if we clearly aren’t willing to do so in the present?
Then there’s the question of whether bringing Ukraine into NATO is even necessary for Europe’s security. Kyiv obviously thinks it is, and you can’t blame them for thinking so. But for the rest of NATO, it really isn’t; Russia wasn’t going to invade and colonize the Baltics.