“There is an internal coherence here, to be sure. From within this worldview, anything less than an all-out defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression is a dereliction of duty that risks untold (and, admittedly, unspecified) calamities.”
Another error. We must defend Ukraine because we said we would in exchange for them giving up the nuclear weapons they got when the Soviet Union collapsed. We made a commitment. You do understand commitment, right?
Its astonishing that this guy actually thought typing the words "unspecified calamities" when describing Russian atrocities to Ukraine was something that would strengthen his argument. They are anything but "unspecified." Its women and children being bombed in their apartment complexes in Kiev. Its Ukrainian children being kidnapped and brought into Russia. Its death and destruction at the hands of an aggressor who illegally invaded a neighboring country.
“ Other countries, believing they could not rely upon the U.S., would begin rebuilding their own capabilities.”
I think that this is different in the case of China and the nations around the South China Sea. The risk isn’t that they will build their own capabilities. Rather, what their leaders are going to do are to weigh the costs and benefits of rebuilding their own capabilities so as to be able to maintain some level of independence from China, and the costs and benefits of becoming clients of China. The danger is that too many countries choose to become clients of China, and then the US becomes the pariah state, as opposed to the other way around.
The non-nuclear countries of Asia are already in a position where they cannot defend themselves against China on their own, and it is questionable that they could win against China even with the US’ full support. The US has a very compelling interest in keeping together a US led alliance in South and East Asia, because the demise of such a system will either result in Chinese hegemony or the proliferation of nuclear weapons and substantially increased risk that someone attempts a nuclear strike on the US.
Totally agree with this - drawing parallels between Israel/Iran and China in east Asia is a bit too much in my view. There's a clear forward-looking interest in the US keeping a large stake in the latter and balancing strongly against Chinese attempts to dominate the region. And Japan is a much stronger and more committed military partner than Germany is (having let its military degrade massively in almost all respects since the end of the cold war) so it doesn't make much sense to put them in the same basket.
I find you to be a very honest actor when it comes to economic policy but you have an obvious blindspot for Israel. You are 100% correct that Israel wants to fight their own wars. But they do this with the threat of US intervention looming and seemingly unlimited US support. Political, economic and military. Our military has gone to war due in part to fight wars Israel pushed (Iraq 2 - see Bibi testimony to Congress as an “expert”). There is a clear line from likudniks to US neocons. MAGA does not support this pre-emptive war. Americans don’t support US intervention or putting service members at risk.
Israel - a country roughly the size of New Hampshire - has received the most cumulative military aid from the U.S since 1948. Yet somehow Oren thinks this makes Israel the textbook example of an "America First" foreign policy. NATO allies, like Germany on the other hand, which have received less cumulative aid over the same post-war period, are not "America First."
Oren never bothers to tackle the question of what it would actually look like to "scale out" the "America First" policy we've apparently adopted with Israel to other allies. The U.S funds about 20-25% of Israel's annual military spending. Shouldn't other countries, with far larger land-masses than Israel, benefit from the same largesse? If its "America First" for Israel, then why not extend this to other countries?
I would point out that Israel did target and kill individual leaders including the lead in negotiations with the US. I get the generals and the scientists, but Israel did just undermine our efforts to reach a peaceful end to nuclear issue. Pretty clearly a F*** You to DJT. The claim that Israel defends itself is specious, it uses a lot of US supplied weapons. We also engaged actively in their defense by shooting down incoming missles. At what point does the anti-blob just become another elite blob?
A rational, and realist (in the political sense) piece on foreign policy. However, I would remind Oren that there was a nuclear deal in place before the Trump administration tore it up in 2018. This unilateral withdrawal out of a multilateral agreement has, amongst other things, lead us to today’s full blown war.
“This is when I called my gracious host a racist for suggesting that Germans could not help but behave like Nazis, and he tried to explain “this is not me saying Germans will do it… I didn’t say they’ll become that,” which is of course exactly what he had just said. A good time was had by all.”
Yeah. No. You got that one wrong, Orin, Stewart was quoting a book. You should know better.
Poor poor Oren. How desperately he wants a real policy making job like Jason and Larry:). After Bibi, like Vlad and Xi before him, cucks Don again, Oren is quick with the excuses. Meanwhile Don, the founder of Oren's "new" right and the leader of the modern political establishment, deploys Marines and masked thugs on American streets. Oh yeah, he's also staging a military parade in honor of himself:). All while pocketing hundreds of millions in corrupt loot from his meme coin scam. And let's recall, Oren's leader staged an armed insurrection and perpetuates the big lie, the worst acts ever committed by a US president. I'd feel sorry for Oren if he wasn't yet another obsequious right fringe elite that's brought us to this point. Shame on him. He's just another Mitch McConnell, an establishment elite afraid to tell the truth. It's time for a new "new" right. The current one, ten years on, is merely a cult of Don.
Cass creating a carve out for Israel while lumping other recipients of U.S military aid - namely Germany and Japan - into the "foreign policy blob" is about as elitist as it gets. No country in my lifetime comes anywhere close to Israel in terms of influence over U.S foreign policy and military spending. The Pro-Israel lobby has had a stranglehold on U.S politics for 80 years.
I strongly suspect, though I do not know, that much of the ordinance used to attack Iran was paid for by the U.S. Even if we don’t put boots on the ground, we provide enormous sums of money and support for Israel’s military. This morning we read that U.S. fighters and missiles are being used to thwart Iran’s counterattack. If Iran decides to target U.S. military assets, it will be tragic but it is understandable. I’m with you that the U.S. needs to stay out of foreign wars. I differ from you on believing we are doing so under Trump. The U.S. response would have been no different under Biden, and that is my concern.
I found you through your interview with Stewart, where I generally found you interesting and made points I had not considered. But I didn't follow your "you're racist for suggesting a fully armed Germany increases the chances of a World War" barb, and I still don't get it. Is that something you actually believe, or do you just think it's a clever reversal when sparring with a left wing pundit?
"If you believe those things, then you will also be enthusiastic about the United States assuming the burden of security for its allies. You don’t just tolerate that Germany and Japan refuse to invest in maintaining their own militaries capable of deterring Russia and China in their respective regional theaters. You celebrate it."
Why do you continually try to speak for everyone and others. That statement above disqualifies the entire "article". The assumptions are ridiculous and the "opinions" based on those assumptions are nonsensical.
Let's see what you write when the backing of Israel through its slaughter as an excuse for "retaliation" and "protection" turn the entire region into a festering pit of terrorists for decades to come.
The US has systematically and historically infantalized junior NATO Partners, insisting they purchase US weaponry, which has in turn kept the EU Military industry immature. It’s a codependent relationship (though slowly changing) and you should be honest about that.
Suppose Israel cannot destroy Iran's underground nuclear weapons program with the conventional 2000 pound bombs in her possession, which we have supplied her with. Assuming our 30,000 pound bunker-busting bombs might do the trick (I have no idea on this point), in Oren's opinion would it be better to: (a) supply Israel with these particular munitions along with the means to deliver them (ie, heavy bombers; (b) do the job ourselves; or (c) force Israel to resort to very small tactical nuclear weapons as the only practical means at her disposal to solve the problem? This is an honest question. I don't know the answer.
“There is an internal coherence here, to be sure. From within this worldview, anything less than an all-out defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression is a dereliction of duty that risks untold (and, admittedly, unspecified) calamities.”
Another error. We must defend Ukraine because we said we would in exchange for them giving up the nuclear weapons they got when the Soviet Union collapsed. We made a commitment. You do understand commitment, right?
Its astonishing that this guy actually thought typing the words "unspecified calamities" when describing Russian atrocities to Ukraine was something that would strengthen his argument. They are anything but "unspecified." Its women and children being bombed in their apartment complexes in Kiev. Its Ukrainian children being kidnapped and brought into Russia. Its death and destruction at the hands of an aggressor who illegally invaded a neighboring country.
“ Other countries, believing they could not rely upon the U.S., would begin rebuilding their own capabilities.”
I think that this is different in the case of China and the nations around the South China Sea. The risk isn’t that they will build their own capabilities. Rather, what their leaders are going to do are to weigh the costs and benefits of rebuilding their own capabilities so as to be able to maintain some level of independence from China, and the costs and benefits of becoming clients of China. The danger is that too many countries choose to become clients of China, and then the US becomes the pariah state, as opposed to the other way around.
The non-nuclear countries of Asia are already in a position where they cannot defend themselves against China on their own, and it is questionable that they could win against China even with the US’ full support. The US has a very compelling interest in keeping together a US led alliance in South and East Asia, because the demise of such a system will either result in Chinese hegemony or the proliferation of nuclear weapons and substantially increased risk that someone attempts a nuclear strike on the US.
Totally agree with this - drawing parallels between Israel/Iran and China in east Asia is a bit too much in my view. There's a clear forward-looking interest in the US keeping a large stake in the latter and balancing strongly against Chinese attempts to dominate the region. And Japan is a much stronger and more committed military partner than Germany is (having let its military degrade massively in almost all respects since the end of the cold war) so it doesn't make much sense to put them in the same basket.
I find you to be a very honest actor when it comes to economic policy but you have an obvious blindspot for Israel. You are 100% correct that Israel wants to fight their own wars. But they do this with the threat of US intervention looming and seemingly unlimited US support. Political, economic and military. Our military has gone to war due in part to fight wars Israel pushed (Iraq 2 - see Bibi testimony to Congress as an “expert”). There is a clear line from likudniks to US neocons. MAGA does not support this pre-emptive war. Americans don’t support US intervention or putting service members at risk.
Israel - a country roughly the size of New Hampshire - has received the most cumulative military aid from the U.S since 1948. Yet somehow Oren thinks this makes Israel the textbook example of an "America First" foreign policy. NATO allies, like Germany on the other hand, which have received less cumulative aid over the same post-war period, are not "America First."
Oren never bothers to tackle the question of what it would actually look like to "scale out" the "America First" policy we've apparently adopted with Israel to other allies. The U.S funds about 20-25% of Israel's annual military spending. Shouldn't other countries, with far larger land-masses than Israel, benefit from the same largesse? If its "America First" for Israel, then why not extend this to other countries?
Jews think they’re the chosen ones to whom the rules don’t apply.
I would point out that Israel did target and kill individual leaders including the lead in negotiations with the US. I get the generals and the scientists, but Israel did just undermine our efforts to reach a peaceful end to nuclear issue. Pretty clearly a F*** You to DJT. The claim that Israel defends itself is specious, it uses a lot of US supplied weapons. We also engaged actively in their defense by shooting down incoming missles. At what point does the anti-blob just become another elite blob?
A rational, and realist (in the political sense) piece on foreign policy. However, I would remind Oren that there was a nuclear deal in place before the Trump administration tore it up in 2018. This unilateral withdrawal out of a multilateral agreement has, amongst other things, lead us to today’s full blown war.
“This is when I called my gracious host a racist for suggesting that Germans could not help but behave like Nazis, and he tried to explain “this is not me saying Germans will do it… I didn’t say they’ll become that,” which is of course exactly what he had just said. A good time was had by all.”
Yeah. No. You got that one wrong, Orin, Stewart was quoting a book. You should know better.
Poor poor Oren. How desperately he wants a real policy making job like Jason and Larry:). After Bibi, like Vlad and Xi before him, cucks Don again, Oren is quick with the excuses. Meanwhile Don, the founder of Oren's "new" right and the leader of the modern political establishment, deploys Marines and masked thugs on American streets. Oh yeah, he's also staging a military parade in honor of himself:). All while pocketing hundreds of millions in corrupt loot from his meme coin scam. And let's recall, Oren's leader staged an armed insurrection and perpetuates the big lie, the worst acts ever committed by a US president. I'd feel sorry for Oren if he wasn't yet another obsequious right fringe elite that's brought us to this point. Shame on him. He's just another Mitch McConnell, an establishment elite afraid to tell the truth. It's time for a new "new" right. The current one, ten years on, is merely a cult of Don.
Cass creating a carve out for Israel while lumping other recipients of U.S military aid - namely Germany and Japan - into the "foreign policy blob" is about as elitist as it gets. No country in my lifetime comes anywhere close to Israel in terms of influence over U.S foreign policy and military spending. The Pro-Israel lobby has had a stranglehold on U.S politics for 80 years.
Jewish narcissism at work.
Really really fine line your walking there. It smells more and more of a neocon foreign policy. Only with more lies
I strongly suspect, though I do not know, that much of the ordinance used to attack Iran was paid for by the U.S. Even if we don’t put boots on the ground, we provide enormous sums of money and support for Israel’s military. This morning we read that U.S. fighters and missiles are being used to thwart Iran’s counterattack. If Iran decides to target U.S. military assets, it will be tragic but it is understandable. I’m with you that the U.S. needs to stay out of foreign wars. I differ from you on believing we are doing so under Trump. The U.S. response would have been no different under Biden, and that is my concern.
Don’t bother the little Zionist with facts.
I found you through your interview with Stewart, where I generally found you interesting and made points I had not considered. But I didn't follow your "you're racist for suggesting a fully armed Germany increases the chances of a World War" barb, and I still don't get it. Is that something you actually believe, or do you just think it's a clever reversal when sparring with a left wing pundit?
"If you believe those things, then you will also be enthusiastic about the United States assuming the burden of security for its allies. You don’t just tolerate that Germany and Japan refuse to invest in maintaining their own militaries capable of deterring Russia and China in their respective regional theaters. You celebrate it."
Why do you continually try to speak for everyone and others. That statement above disqualifies the entire "article". The assumptions are ridiculous and the "opinions" based on those assumptions are nonsensical.
Let's see what you write when the backing of Israel through its slaughter as an excuse for "retaliation" and "protection" turn the entire region into a festering pit of terrorists for decades to come.
Allies are different from client states
In this case the client state 🇮🇱 has captured the host so parasite is the better descriptor.
The US has systematically and historically infantalized junior NATO Partners, insisting they purchase US weaponry, which has in turn kept the EU Military industry immature. It’s a codependent relationship (though slowly changing) and you should be honest about that.
Suppose Israel cannot destroy Iran's underground nuclear weapons program with the conventional 2000 pound bombs in her possession, which we have supplied her with. Assuming our 30,000 pound bunker-busting bombs might do the trick (I have no idea on this point), in Oren's opinion would it be better to: (a) supply Israel with these particular munitions along with the means to deliver them (ie, heavy bombers; (b) do the job ourselves; or (c) force Israel to resort to very small tactical nuclear weapons as the only practical means at her disposal to solve the problem? This is an honest question. I don't know the answer.
Another great article, thank you Oren.
Again, your republican party I will join.
Unfortunately, it will take the old neo cons to die off first before we can change. This is how history has shown to work.
The University = The "New Religion" (The religion of nihilism)