I am inclined to think that Trump really wanted to make a deal with Iran (for which, in his mind, he would have deserved a Nobel prize) but as Khamenei would not go along, he agreed to go along with Netanyahu’s plans. I think Bibi has so far played this masterfully- in anybody
in this affair is a chess player - it’s him. Winning over Trump was not easy as Trump is actually very risk averse but Netanyahu persuaded him that he would take all the risk of things going wrong and Trump would get the credit for success. I am inclined to believe that Trump’s
reluctance to support Israel’s action was real, but its effect was to lull Iran into a false sense of security. The evidence that Trump was hedging his bets is Rubio’s early statement, already after Israeli strikes began, that the U.S. had nothing to do with them and was not
going to help Israel in any way. Those who want to credit Trump claim that this was part of the brilliant strategy of deception but this claim only makes sense for statements made before the start of the operation.
So, in my opinion, the “deception” was Bibi’s work and Trump
was only a not entirely willing participant. Only when it became clear that Israel was succeeding, Trump became more supportive and, naturally, began to take credit. Netanyahu, who contrary to what his many enemies say, is not very vain or at least, always put effectiveness above
public applause, will certainly let Trump keep as much credit as he wants (Zelensky also tried this approach but less skillfully & Trump has not been tempted, at least so far).
I suspect that Trump is still thinking of making a deal with Khamenei but Bibi will probably succeed
selling regime change to him, if it looks very likely and Israel does all the heavy lifting. Trump may be persuaded that if the Mullah regime, which survived 8 U.S. presidents + Trump’s first term, is brought down on his watch, he will be able to present it as an even greater
achievement than the Abraham Accords. They won’t give him the Nobel, but they won’t be able to say TACO this time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Paradoxically, the stinginess and slowness of the U.S. military air to Ukraine under Biden, has had several good consequences. 1. It forced Ukraine, in spite of many obstacles due to corruption, bureaucracy and incompetence of its politicians, to start developing its own
weapons industry. On some areas, especially cheap drones it is now way ahead of what the U.S. can deliver (American drones have been one of the greatest disappointments). Moreover, in spite of all the obstacles put in their way by Ukrainian monopolies owned by powerful oligarchs,
most of the drones are now produced by small private enterprise, which is displaying far greater capacity for innovation than the Russians. 2. Because American aid was relatively small and unsophisticated, Europe is now capable of replacing most of it.
You can really tell a lot about people on X by using the Sherlock Holmes’s principle of “the odd that did not bark”. All you need to do is to observe what topics people are silent about.
When Biden was POTUS, it was not uncommon for conservative Never-Trumpers to keep silent on
topics that showed the Biden administration in a bad light. In some cases that included even the wave of antisemitism that swept over the Democratic Party after October 7.
Now, it’s the turn of Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives to keep silent.
One of the favorite topics to keep silent about is the release of the Tate brothers and the role the Trump administration played in it. This is particularly noteworthy because they not only violently sexual predators but antisemite islamists.
(Here one should note the brave and
If I record correctly, it was king Hassan of Morocco (of course, there were others before him) who expressed his disappointment after reading Machiavelli, because he found nothing there that he hadn’t known already.
And, of course, he was right: Machiavelli’s real importance was
historical: he was the first major thinker to explicitly state that all the principles proclaimed and preached by the Church as well as philosophers, were contrary to what actually succeeded in real world politics.
By doing so he opened the way to modern secular ideologies,
including liberalism, socialism, fascism etc. He also laid the foundations for political science, sociology etc.
But to say that in all those rules and examples (mostly from the practice of Cesare Borgia) a modern politician or political analyst will find much to learn is to
Some thoughts on the Trump-Vance -Zelensky public spat.
It was certainly the most unusual public event involving heads of state I can remember and, in fact, I can't even think of a comparable event in history.
Such acrimonious outcomes & meetings between leaders of states do not happen because one of the purposes of diplomacy is to avoid them.
As a rule, leaders are never supposed to meet unless all the main points of contention have been resolved by lower ranking officials and a successful outcome is almost assured.
The biggest winner of America’s abandonment of Ukraine could be Erdogan. European leaders are genuinely concerned and want to help Ukraine but their capabilities are limited. They certainly can’t provide money and some weapons, but they their military industries will take
take years to reach the production levels of the Cold War era. Most importantly, they lack enough young men who are willing to fight, especially for the kind of things that Europe now claims to stand for. Erdogan, on the other hand, has everything that Putin has (except nukes
but their role is hugely overstated) and more. In particular, he has well trained experienced troops, and many young men who have shown the will to fight for the same kind of neo-imperial motives as the Russians. He has also a significant arms industry which is rapidly growing in
Trump, by character, intellect and experience is totally unsuited to be a modern politician. Even ignoring his other qualities (most of were correctly described by Rubio, Cruz, Graham and others during the 2016 campaign), he cannot control his emotions, which are completely
dominated by purely personal issues. Sometimes it is actually a good thing. It is hard to explain in any other way why he has been so much better on matters concerning Jews and Israel than not only his Democrat opponents but also probably all previous U.S. presidents.
And that in spite of the fact that among his most devoted supporters there are quite many open antisemites and probably even more hidden ones. But just as much as he has been exceptionally good on the Jews and Israel, he has been awful on Russia and Ukraine.