With clear eyes, hard facts, critical thinking, new political strategy, empathy, and a soupçon of Schadenfreude
Category: Situational Awareness
Posts about the situation we are in–the good facts, the bad facts, and the terrible facts. Facts that, if taken on board, will let us “know ourselves, know the other side” and go on to win those hundred battles.
I have posted several times about the two-pronged dilemma Trump faces in the Iran War that he started: either try to finish it off with a ground invasion of Iran, and thus royally piss off his base, by starting another endless land war in the Middle East, or supinely acquiesce to Iran’s strategic victory.
Some think the ground invasion may be inevitable, and of course they might be right. I say that supine acquiescence will probably be Trump’s final choice, because he really, really does not a land war in the Middle East; because he fears his base; and because he has a naïve faith in his ability to bullshit his way out of any problem that he creates for himself.
For completeness, I should have added that his final choice between these two alternative courses will be down the road a little bit. In the meantime, he will bluff and bluster and try to find some better third alternative. That is what’s happening right now.
He still thinks that bluster and bullshit will make whoever is in charge of Iran bend to his will. That will not happen. He is deathly afraid of a ground invasion of Iran. I actually think the Iranian leadership would welcome a ground invasion.
For several reasons, a big one being that Shi’a Islam is all about martyrdom.
The Australian Broadcast Corporation interviews Richard Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats. Prof. Pape’s discussion illuminates the two—and only two—alternatives for the Iran War.
Prof. Pape is a very smart man, and he knows ten times as much as I know about international security. I believe he’s right about the two, and only two, alternatives: (1) acquiescence in Iran’s regional hegemony, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and continued nuclear program or (2) a much wider war, including a ground invasion.
However, despite his impressive credentials and wisdom, I think Pape is wrong to predict that Trump will pick Door Number 2, a massive land war. I think Trump will pick Door Number 1, acquiescence in defeat, which he will try, clumsily and unpersuasively, to disguise with his usual hallucinatory bullshit. That’s mainly because, (a) he knows his base will desert him if there is another land war in the Middle East and (b) he has a childlike faith in his ability to con the rubes.
The part that isn’t bullshit is the claim that the Iranians are trying to assassinate Trump.
If you have been planning your financial affairs on the assumption that the war with the Islamic Republic of Japan will soon be over, then you are a gullible fool, and you deserve what you are going to get.
I wrote this post in order to reproduce an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that argues—based, apparently, on European sources—that Putin may attack on of his Eastern European neighbors as a way to undermine NATO.
I think it’s an interesting question. I go further. There is, in my view, abundant evidence that Trump is a Putin tool. Consider, among many other things, the stories that the idiotic acting Director of National Intelligence is busy gutting the intelligence community.
Be all that as it may, Mr. Baker of the WSJ, writes,
Putin May See an Opportunity to Destroy NATO: Even a small incursion could doom the alliance if it lacks the political will to respond with force.
He is mired in a struggle against a country with a population and a military a fractionthe size of his own. Since the decision to launch that war has worked out so well, are we seriously being asked to believe that he would attack an alliance with an economy and military many times the size of his own?
A month ago I would have scoffed at the idea. But conversations with multiple senior European political, military and intelligence figures in the past few weeks suggest to me the possibility is real and rising.
For some Americans, including perhaps the president, the idea that Russia may take a shot at some feckless Europeans who have been notably unhelpful with America’s military preoccupations in recent months might induce a yawn of indifference or even a smirk of schadenfreude. But the risks of any Russian provocation in Europe for America’s global security are profound. Ukraine, a non-NATO member, is one thing. If we failed to respond to Russian aggression against a member of the alliance, NATO would become a dead letter.
Which is why Mr. Putin might attack. As one intelligence analyst put it to me last week: His inspiration may be Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the general who commanded French forces at the Battle of the Marne in 1914. He famously reported: “My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking.”
A sudden show of unexpected force just as he appears to be reeling from his ill-advised Ukraine war could be to Mr. Putin’s advantage. Although Mr. Trump’s verbal shock treatment has jolted European NATO members into finally doing more in their own defense, they are still nowhere near ready for a defensive war. Government officials say it will be at least five years before their militaries are close to being capable of replacing U.S. capabilities in Europe.
Mr. Trump has 2½ years left in office. There is no guarantee his successor will have as skeptical an approach to NATO. If Mr. Putin chose the right targets, European leaders suspect Mr. Trump’s administration wouldn’t come to a NATO country’s aid, fatally undermining the credibility of the alliance’s collective-defense commitment—and with it, NATO’s existence—a dream outcome for Mr. Putin.
His political needs might also be suited by an attack on NATO. A former British defense official said to me last week, “After four years of failure and rising popular discontent at home, he desperately needs a military victory.” What better way to lift morale than to plant the Russian flag in some NATO field?
All this suggests we are now in a narrow window of opportunity for Russia to make a move. If Mr. Trump goes ahead with plans to cut European deployments, that window gets wider.
Sure enough, intelligence reports point to rising risks of Russian action. Last week a Polish news report said U.S. officials had warned Warsaw that Russia may attack the country. In an interview last month, a senior military figure from a NATO nation identified multiple risks, including a Russian seizure of islands in the Baltic and an incursion to “assist” the Russian minority in Estonia. None of these would amount to a full-scale invasion, but each would be enough of a provocation that if NATO failed to respond, its credibility would be in tatters.
Is Europe really worth defending with U.S. blood and treasure? Is NATO still an essential strategic interest? I’ve long sympathized with the argument that a large U.S. commitment to the European theater is an anachronism in our security posture, a throwback to 20th-century geopolitics. China is obviously the biggest threat to U.S. security and leadership; managing that relationship requires a shift of strategic resources and attention toward the Pacific. The Europeans can and should take care of their own freedom and security.
But whether we want it or not, we are in a cold-to-simmering war with an axis of resistance that runs from Beijing through Tehran to Moscow. The U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of an inconclusive war with Iran that has left us militarily depleted. As we scramble to manage potential opportunistic moves by China’s Xi Jinping in the Asia-Pacific, Mr. Putin could deal a timely and fatal blow to an already weakened trans-Atlantic alliance. That would be another hammer to the head of Western security and hegemony, and a dramatic enhancement of the power of Russia’s alliance with China and our other adversaries.
Perhaps all the talk of an imminent Russian attack is merely disinformation from European officials, trying to keep President Trump from further weakening NATO. But if you were the American president, would you want to take that risk?
In my opinion, this story from today’s Wall Street Journal is significant for three reasons:
Because it’s from the Wall Street Journal—not, say, from The New Republic;
Because of what it says: essentially, that recent election outcomes, especially in New York, show that the old plutocratic political playbook is not working anymore; and
Because of what it does not say, namely, that the plutocrats who think this is only a “messaging problem” are whistling past the graveyard.
No, ladies and germs, you can’t message your way out of the fact that the top 1% hold 32% of all household wealth, while low and middle income families fall further and further behind.
No, messaging your way out of this will not cut the mustard.
Instead, you need to begin by remembering that pigs get fed while hogs get slaughtered.
In any event, the WSJ writes,
Wall Street Realizes It Needs More Than Money to Counter Mamdani: After big primary wins by the mayor’s progressive allies, New York’s business elites are rewriting their political strategy
New York City became Mamdani’s town on Tuesday night, after his preferred slate of far-left candidates for congressional House seats beat incumbents backed by the business community and political institutions. The Democratic Socialists of America picked up even more victories for local races, signaling that an anticapitalist and anti-Israel message was winning over voters in much of the city.
“It’s actually a very, very scary outcome, and I think it serves as an awakening for people,” said Steven Fulop, chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, a business group that advocates for companies such as Pfizer and JPMorgan Chase.
In an election where money was a central issue—namely, who has it and who is spending it—the wealthy business elites are now confronted with a city whose voters doubled down on the Democrats’ hard-left flank.
In calls among donors and political strategists, the postmortem analysis was stark: Money alone can’t save candidates with a weak ground game and a muddled message. Where to go next, though, is unclear.
One longtime strategist has floated a kind of political-giving organization that functions like the Robin Hood Foundation—the poverty-focused nonprofit whose board is stacked with finance luminaries—and gathers money to support moderate causes and candidates. Others described a desire to fund the otherwise unglamorous work of get-out-the-vote campaigns and candidate development. The name of at least one CEO was raised as a future challenger, as if just mentioning him could will a mayoral campaign into existence.
Whether any of it will make a difference remains to be seen.
The shift in power was palpable Thursday afternoon. The mayor gave a speech at a fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan for the Police Athletic League, which is chaired by John Catsimatidis, the billionaire businessman whose New York City radio station 77 WABC has become an outpost for antisocialist sentiment.
After Mamdani’s talk, Catsimatidis took to the lectern to address the rankled crowd.
“The mayor is an important component of New York City right now,” Catsimatidis said, “and he’s become a very popular person.”
For over a decade until 2013, there was practically a mind meld between New York City government and the finance industry under the reign of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who even rearranged government offices to more closely resemble trading floors.
Now, those on Wall Street and in the business community worry they are seeing the twilight of their influence.
It doesn’t help them that the mayor has been everywhere during a buoyant June. Mamdani attended a World Cup match in New Jersey and followed the New YorkKnicks as the team won its first National Basketball Association championship in 53 years, boosting his popularity among younger, more educated voters.
But those voters have struggled to make ends meet. Support for Israel, which remains strong in the finance industry, has proved either toxic or irrelevant to voters outside rarefied circles.
Rep. Dan Goldman, who holds a House seat in a district that includes lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, was defeated by Mamdani ally Brad Lander, who criticized Goldman’s acceptance of donations through a website run by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“The DSA’s message was pretty simple: Aipac is bad, Israel is committing genocide and we need to throw the bums out,” said Chris Coffey, CEO of Tusk Strategies, who has advised more-moderate Democrats. “The establishment’s message was harder to galvanize around.”
Establishment Democrats and their financial backers have, in effect, become the target. Darializa Avila Chevalier, one of Mamdani’s picks, drew criticism for speaking harshly of former Vice President Kamala Harris—whose presidential campaign maintained close ties to Wall Street and Big Law.
Donors and strategists say the party’s moderate wing is struggling to articulate a message that isn’t just “we’re not Trump.” They add that Democrats’ lack of a ground game allowed the DSA, with its promises to freeze the rent and expand city-run child care, to outflank traditional candidates.
Optimists say it wasn’t a total loss. Micah Lasher, an establishment Democrat who most recently worked for Gov. Kathy Hochul, beat more liberal candidates, including a Kennedy scion, to represent the Upper East and Upper West Sides of Manhattan.
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries both occupy party leadership positions and still enjoy broad support from wealthy moderate Democrats. Operatives see several potential challengers to the mayor, including Jessica Tisch, the police commissioner; Julie Menin, the City Council speaker; and U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, who represents New York’s 15th Congressional District in the Bronx.
Fulop said establishment Democrats should pivot to an optimistic message that emphasizes more jobs and better opportunities.
Some institutions have already tried. Earlier this year, Citigroup pledged $60 billion in financing for more affordable housing over five years.
“While a socialist agenda expanding its reach in the capital of capital may be a bit ironic, it’s another example of how front and center the issue of affordability is,” said Edward Skyler, a former deputy mayor under Bloomberg, who is now an executive at Citigroup. “But there are opportunities for the public and private sectors to work together as banks do when they finance affordable housing in New York and throughout the country.”
Appropriately, this post ends with future Senator Murphy doing one of classic song and dance routines.
Today’s Statement by the Iranian Joint Military Command
“In light of the United States’ clear breach of its commitments regarding the first article of the memorandum of understanding to end the war, and the Zionist regime’s continuous violations of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, the command hereby that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to all vessel passage.”
Today’s Statement by Malignant Narcissist Spreading Delusions About the Reflecting Pool
Facing MAGA 