As several commentators have noted, Trump simply doesn’t accept the Pottery Barn rule; he thinks he can wreck things all over the globe without accepting the consequences. Is he right?
No. Wrecking causes second-tier effects that will be felt on American soil whether Trump acknowledges them or not. Soaring gas prices even at a time of impressive domestic production levels are a vivid example of this.
A few days ago, Trump told us we shouldn’t fear high gas prices because we are the world’s largest exporter of oil; therefore, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz makes us rich. What does this statement tell us?
High gas prices only benefit you if you have a large amount of stock in an oil company, which most of us don’t. As with the stock market, Trump identifies national wealth and well-being with the condition of the extremely affluent, not average workers.
Rand Paul’s negative vote on the Mullin nomination gave the Democrats an opening. If they remained united and voted against the nomination, they could delay it indefinitely. That in turn would give them some leverage in the negotiations over ICE procedures.
But Fetterman voted yes, and that was that. Maybe he thinks having ICE goons dominating the streets of blue cities is a good thing. Hey, he supported killing thousands of civilians in Gaza for no obviously good reason, so why not?
The cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker depicts Trump as Douglas MacArthur on a golf cart driven by Pete Hegseth. It is a visual representation of one of my favorite nicknames for the great man—the man on golf cart.
But in light of his record in his second term, is it accurate? As applied to the war and his retribution campaign, yes. As applied to his other efforts at authoritarianism, no, thanks to the efforts of his like-minded advisers. That’s what should really worry you.
Hegseth says the administration will ask for that sum to fund the war, which flies in the face of promises it will be over soon. Would it be a good idea to comply?
I will rephrase the question to make it answer itself. Is it a good idea to give a wannabe authoritarian a huge pot of discretionary money to spend as he pleases as long as it has some sort of bogus connection with national security?
Trump typically backs down when his risk-taking runs into serious resistance from the markets or the Chinese—hence the acronym “TACO.” In all other spheres, however, he usually doubles down. You could call it “TADD.”
What will he do with Iran? Will he declare victory and stop the war to deal with the markets, or will he double down with nukes or a ground action? TBD.
He’s driving up the price of gas, so that has to be the reason. What? You don’t agree?
Yes, yes, and no. Yes, it is true that the Iranian weapons programs represented a meaningful threat to Israel, but not to the United States. Yes, in that Bibi openly admits that his goal was to use all of the resources at his disposal to force us to go to war for Israel’s benefit. But no, Trump had plenty of agency here, and the evidence suggests he didn’t need much persuading. The man with the golden gut was convinced that Iran was another Venezuela and that victory would be easy and painless. The rest is history.
From the perspective of the Iranian people.
We don’t need no ayatollahs.
We don’t need no thought police.
No weapons programs that lead to bombing.
Leaders, leave us folks alone.
Hey, leaders, leave us folks alone!
All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall.
All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall.
Xi will have been impressed by the tactical skill of the American military, if not by the strategic instincts of its commander. What does that mean for Taiwan?
It means he should focus on creating leverage and diplomacy rather than starting a war with an uncertain outcome. Snowing Trump is a lot easier than mounting an invasion.
Unsuccessful wars, assassination plots, and regime change—it should all feel depressingly familiar to MBS, because it is what he did as a rookie ruler. He’s older and wiser now, unlike Trump.
The Iran war will be a success for him only if it results in permanent and positive regime change, which is unlikely. The most plausible outcome, an American commitment to cut the grass indefinitely, is ok with the Israelis, but a disaster for him, because it just prolongs the instability and the Iranian threat to him without providing him with any tangible benefits. Look for him to move away from Trump a bit if my prediction comes true.
Bibi believes—probably correctly—that the Iranian government will never give up its goal of destroying Israel as long as it remains a theocracy. As a result, his preferred option for the end of the war is regime change. Unfortunately for him, that would require an invasion and an occupation. There is little chance of persuading Trump to do that.
The backup plan, therefore, is to compel America to cut the grass in Iran on a regular basis, just as Israel did in Gaza before 2024. There are two problems with this approach, however. First, the next American president is much less likely to do Israel’s bidding than Trump. Second, the Gaza template doesn’t provide a whole lot of assurances.
Early in Trump’s first term, Bibi persuaded him that Iran would fold if he tore up the nuclear agreement and imposed sanctions. Bad move. The Iranians, predictably enough, accelerated the nuclear program.
During the June war, Bibi told Trump he had an unprecedented opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump took advantage of it and bragged that the program had been “obliterated.” As we suspected at the time, this was a gross overstatement.
Earlier this month, Bibi advised Trump that a sustained American air campaign against Iran would result in regime change. That hasn’t worked, either.
Now what? Can Bibi talk him into a ground assault? What about the use of nukes? TBD.
If you’re determined to prove that you’re the boss of everyone and everything, you have no one else to blame when things go wrong. What are your options at that point?
Either pull back and admit your failures or become even more authoritarian. Any guesses on what Trump will do?
George W. Bush’s domestic and foreign policy failures caused the GOP electorate to lose faith in its leadership. This led first to the rise of the Tea Party, and then to Trump. There is plenty of evidence that Democratic voters are now dissatisfied with the blue team’s leadership. Could this result in the creation of a left-wing version of the Tea Party?
Yes, and if it does, it will only increase the temperature in this country, which is hardly a development to be welcomed.