Way too long, Oren. You are late to the party, and there is really nothing new in anything you say. Even if I agree, don't make me wade through long, wordy essays. In general, if there were one tip I could give Commonplace, it would be tighten up the editing and deliver shorter, much more crisply focused pieces, especially given the frequency of your emails.
How entertaining to watch the America First (Alone) wing of the party split with the MAGA wing. It's just beginning, so I'm stockin up on popcorn:). Imagine the dance as JD and his flock seek to separate themselves from Don. Why don't these guys learn, in the end Don humiliates and betrays all his followers, no matter their level of obsequiousness. Paging Mike Pence as but one example...
Sadly, America has also been humiliated, and Iran strengthened, from Don's latest incoherent flailing. Not exactly a shocking outcome.
When it comes to Iran, Too many people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either we deal with the growing threats, sometimes that means rolling the dice and seeing what can be achieved, or we pull all of our military back to our own territory and territorial waters. Then let the rest of the world sort out their own affairs. Ignoring the rising threats of terrorist proxies, drones, ballistic missiles, and a fast approaching nuclear armed Iran is just a recipe for American forces in the region getting massacred.
The problem in Iran is the same as in Ukraine. We have gone way too long allowing our "allies" to free ride off our defenses and shirk their own responsibilities. If the Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris spent a bit less on vanity projects and more on building out a network of pipelines, railroads, highways, and ports around the region. Then at a minimum, they would have turned the Straight of Hormuz from a weapon that could be used against them, to one that they could use against Iran. Add in that if they had put some of the network of infrastructure into and through places like Yemen and Lebanon, then they would have also undermined Iranian clout in those populations.
So quit blaming Trump for changing the rules of a games that we have been loosing for the last thirty years.
Not all wars are WW2. In fact, no other wars are WW2. It's pretty conventional wisdom that none of our wars since are like that in terms of aims or popularity. How about the ones before. WW1 was a strange one, started by a President who campaigned to keep us out. War aims were always a muddle. Spanish American war was whipped up by the yellow press with little Presidential involvement and at the end we found ourselves with an empire that didn't have much support and a quagmire in the Philippines. CW1 by definition didn't have support from the secessionists and there were large elements in the North that were opposed. Draft riots in NYC had to be suppressed with Federal troops. The Mexican War was opposed by those who didn't want TX as another slave state. War of 1812, had it gone on much longer would have seen secession by New England which was being strangled by the British blockade. In the Revolution, only about a third supported independence, a third supported the British and the rest just wanted it to go wasaway. So why was WW2 different. Big boost by the Japanese, of course. FDR sprung unconditional surrender on everyone including his military advisors and Churchill. Such was his mystical power from solving the Depression, as was commonly thought at the time, that he got away with it. In fact, the Japanese were able to extract one condition and the Italians lots of them. We were also in alliance with the Soviets which neutralized a lot of potential opposition.
It is terrifying to see otherwise intelligent people confidently reveal that they know nothing about Iran. Oren's writing this week was excellent and necessary, and it will probably never be read by its most appropriate audience.
I think "cut line," meaning abandon your hook and fishing line if it's snagged, would be a better metaphor in the title than "cut bait," or taking a secondary role to the person fishing. Just saying.
This is the first of his articles I’ve read. There won’t be more. Too long, making invalid points.
Cass assumes that the war started with the US campaign against Iran, kicked off by a bombing raid. Dead wrong, but the blind idea supports his overall thesis, so he uses it nevertheless.
The war started with the occupation of the US Embassy in 1976. That’s fifty years ago and it has been prosecuted by Iran and its minions ever since. And for Cass and his adherents to declare that we have lost is both premature and wrong.
Reading time was not wasted. It’s always worthwhile to discover that a writer is a dismissible source.
You may be correct that the American people will not politically support an extended war. But the U.S. has the military capability use precision guided bombs to progressively degrade Iran’s infrastructure to a degree that it will not be able to produce sophisticated offensive weapons or develop nuclear weapons. And a continued shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would shut down Iran’s economy that is based almost entirely on oil exports.
These should be credible threats in the negotiations with the Iranians (or whoever is negotiating for them at the moment) but the credibility is reduced by the unwillingness to make the relatively modest sacrifices that you advocate, with the objective of eliminating much greater long term threats.
Way too long, Oren. You are late to the party, and there is really nothing new in anything you say. Even if I agree, don't make me wade through long, wordy essays. In general, if there were one tip I could give Commonplace, it would be tighten up the editing and deliver shorter, much more crisply focused pieces, especially given the frequency of your emails.
How entertaining to watch the America First (Alone) wing of the party split with the MAGA wing. It's just beginning, so I'm stockin up on popcorn:). Imagine the dance as JD and his flock seek to separate themselves from Don. Why don't these guys learn, in the end Don humiliates and betrays all his followers, no matter their level of obsequiousness. Paging Mike Pence as but one example...
Sadly, America has also been humiliated, and Iran strengthened, from Don's latest incoherent flailing. Not exactly a shocking outcome.
Good luck America.
When it comes to Iran, Too many people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either we deal with the growing threats, sometimes that means rolling the dice and seeing what can be achieved, or we pull all of our military back to our own territory and territorial waters. Then let the rest of the world sort out their own affairs. Ignoring the rising threats of terrorist proxies, drones, ballistic missiles, and a fast approaching nuclear armed Iran is just a recipe for American forces in the region getting massacred.
The problem in Iran is the same as in Ukraine. We have gone way too long allowing our "allies" to free ride off our defenses and shirk their own responsibilities. If the Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris spent a bit less on vanity projects and more on building out a network of pipelines, railroads, highways, and ports around the region. Then at a minimum, they would have turned the Straight of Hormuz from a weapon that could be used against them, to one that they could use against Iran. Add in that if they had put some of the network of infrastructure into and through places like Yemen and Lebanon, then they would have also undermined Iranian clout in those populations.
So quit blaming Trump for changing the rules of a games that we have been loosing for the last thirty years.
Not all wars are WW2. In fact, no other wars are WW2. It's pretty conventional wisdom that none of our wars since are like that in terms of aims or popularity. How about the ones before. WW1 was a strange one, started by a President who campaigned to keep us out. War aims were always a muddle. Spanish American war was whipped up by the yellow press with little Presidential involvement and at the end we found ourselves with an empire that didn't have much support and a quagmire in the Philippines. CW1 by definition didn't have support from the secessionists and there were large elements in the North that were opposed. Draft riots in NYC had to be suppressed with Federal troops. The Mexican War was opposed by those who didn't want TX as another slave state. War of 1812, had it gone on much longer would have seen secession by New England which was being strangled by the British blockade. In the Revolution, only about a third supported independence, a third supported the British and the rest just wanted it to go wasaway. So why was WW2 different. Big boost by the Japanese, of course. FDR sprung unconditional surrender on everyone including his military advisors and Churchill. Such was his mystical power from solving the Depression, as was commonly thought at the time, that he got away with it. In fact, the Japanese were able to extract one condition and the Italians lots of them. We were also in alliance with the Soviets which neutralized a lot of potential opposition.
It is terrifying to see otherwise intelligent people confidently reveal that they know nothing about Iran. Oren's writing this week was excellent and necessary, and it will probably never be read by its most appropriate audience.
I think "cut line," meaning abandon your hook and fishing line if it's snagged, would be a better metaphor in the title than "cut bait," or taking a secondary role to the person fishing. Just saying.
This is the first of his articles I’ve read. There won’t be more. Too long, making invalid points.
Cass assumes that the war started with the US campaign against Iran, kicked off by a bombing raid. Dead wrong, but the blind idea supports his overall thesis, so he uses it nevertheless.
The war started with the occupation of the US Embassy in 1976. That’s fifty years ago and it has been prosecuted by Iran and its minions ever since. And for Cass and his adherents to declare that we have lost is both premature and wrong.
Reading time was not wasted. It’s always worthwhile to discover that a writer is a dismissible source.
You may be correct that the American people will not politically support an extended war. But the U.S. has the military capability use precision guided bombs to progressively degrade Iran’s infrastructure to a degree that it will not be able to produce sophisticated offensive weapons or develop nuclear weapons. And a continued shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would shut down Iran’s economy that is based almost entirely on oil exports.
These should be credible threats in the negotiations with the Iranians (or whoever is negotiating for them at the moment) but the credibility is reduced by the unwillingness to make the relatively modest sacrifices that you advocate, with the objective of eliminating much greater long term threats.
Oren, you poor poor sap:
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iranian-attack-on-cargo-ship-was-violation-of-ceasefire-deal-884c617c?mod=hp_lead_pos1