Is this the Epstein War, or the Netanyahu War? Dan Drezner thinks it is the Netanyahu War. Dan’s heading: "Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Administration does not know what it is doing in Iran...
I don't subscribe to Dan Drezner and thus can't read his opinion, but I'd point out a perpetually chaotic, weak, but hostile Iran is likely Netanyahu's preferred outcome. Just because Trump has no plausible theory of victory doesn't mean that Netanyahu has no plausible theory of victory. A few but not too many casualties in Israel also serve his interests.
It looks to me like Netanyahu's theory of victory is this: join the confrontation front against Israel, and sooner or later Israel will make you into a failed state—Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran. Everyone in the area take note. It is, I think, the final victory of Jabotinsky over Ben-Gurion: Israel's policy since Begin has been that since neither the Palestinians nor the wider Arab community would ever accept a Jewish state as a refuge, hence Israel had to build an unassailable "iron wall" military position as job #1, with as much land as military force could grab and defend.
Today 2/3 of Israel's Jewish population were or have some ancestors who were ethnically cleansed from the Maghreb and the Mashriq after 1947, and who have the lives they had because they had some place to run to. Today 1/2 of Israel's Jewish population have some Ashkenazim ancestors who saw the bulk of their relatives die in the holocaust because before 1947 they had no place to run to. Today 1/6 of Israel's Jewish population are or have some ancestors who came in the post-1970 Russian emigration. (Categories overlap via intermarriage.) All of these have family stories about existential threat.
Thus it is an easy sell in Israeli Jewish politics to note that the Islamic Republic, Hamas, Hizbollah, and others dearly wish they could be an existential threat to Israel. That Israel has a natural right to defend itself now against their gaining strength. And that all others have a moral responsibility to help, or at least get out of the way.
I think this is likely to be disastrous in the long term. The weak do suffer what they must, but the strong do what they can only up to the point where they trigger a counter-grand alliance to them that is even stronger and more destructive.
> Philip Koop: I don't subscribe to Dan Drezner and thus can't read his opinion, but I'd point out a perpetually chaotic, weak, but hostile Iran is likely Netanyahu's preferred outcome. Just because Trump has no plausible theory of victory doesn't mean that Netanyahu has no plausible theory of victory. A few but not too many casualties in Israel also serve his interests.
The war does not have to be fought in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or Iran. The Diaspora is world wide. I ask again how has this made citizens of Israel or the US safer????
Eric Berne’s website is busted rn but years ago I captured its 1-page summary of “Let’s You and Him Fight”—
This may be a maneuver, a ritual or a game. In each case the psychology is essentially feminine. Because of its dramatic qualities, LYAHF is the basis of much of the world's literature, both good and bad.
1. As a maneuver it is romantic. The woman maneuvers or challenges two men into fighting, with the implication or promise that she will surrender herself to the winner. After the competition is decided, she fulfils her bargain. This is an honest transaction, and the presumption is that her and her mate live happily ever after.
2. As a ritual, it tends to be tragic. Custom demands that the two men fight for her, even if she does not want them to, and even if she has already made her choice. If the wrong man wins, she must nevertheless take him. In this case it is society and not the woman who sets up LYAHF. If she is willing, the transaction is an honest one. If she is unwilling or disappointed, the outcome may offer her considerable scope for playing games, such as 'Let's Pull A Fast one on Joey'.
3. As a game it is comic. The woman sets up the competition, and while the two men are fighting, she decamps with a third. The internal and external psychological advantages for her and her mate are derived from the position that honest competition is for suckers, and the comic story they have lived through forms the basis for the internal and external social advantages.
Here, I would say it’s the American Public who gets roped into war with Iran, while Netanyahu and Trump run off with our democracies
I don't subscribe to Dan Drezner and thus can't read his opinion, but I'd point out a perpetually chaotic, weak, but hostile Iran is likely Netanyahu's preferred outcome. Just because Trump has no plausible theory of victory doesn't mean that Netanyahu has no plausible theory of victory. A few but not too many casualties in Israel also serve his interests.
It looks to me like Netanyahu's theory of victory is this: join the confrontation front against Israel, and sooner or later Israel will make you into a failed state—Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran. Everyone in the area take note. It is, I think, the final victory of Jabotinsky over Ben-Gurion: Israel's policy since Begin has been that since neither the Palestinians nor the wider Arab community would ever accept a Jewish state as a refuge, hence Israel had to build an unassailable "iron wall" military position as job #1, with as much land as military force could grab and defend.
Today 2/3 of Israel's Jewish population were or have some ancestors who were ethnically cleansed from the Maghreb and the Mashriq after 1947, and who have the lives they had because they had some place to run to. Today 1/2 of Israel's Jewish population have some Ashkenazim ancestors who saw the bulk of their relatives die in the holocaust because before 1947 they had no place to run to. Today 1/6 of Israel's Jewish population are or have some ancestors who came in the post-1970 Russian emigration. (Categories overlap via intermarriage.) All of these have family stories about existential threat.
Thus it is an easy sell in Israeli Jewish politics to note that the Islamic Republic, Hamas, Hizbollah, and others dearly wish they could be an existential threat to Israel. That Israel has a natural right to defend itself now against their gaining strength. And that all others have a moral responsibility to help, or at least get out of the way.
I think this is likely to be disastrous in the long term. The weak do suffer what they must, but the strong do what they can only up to the point where they trigger a counter-grand alliance to them that is even stronger and more destructive.
> Philip Koop: I don't subscribe to Dan Drezner and thus can't read his opinion, but I'd point out a perpetually chaotic, weak, but hostile Iran is likely Netanyahu's preferred outcome. Just because Trump has no plausible theory of victory doesn't mean that Netanyahu has no plausible theory of victory. A few but not too many casualties in Israel also serve his interests.
The war does not have to be fought in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or Iran. The Diaspora is world wide. I ask again how has this made citizens of Israel or the US safer????
Eric Berne’s website is busted rn but years ago I captured its 1-page summary of “Let’s You and Him Fight”—
This may be a maneuver, a ritual or a game. In each case the psychology is essentially feminine. Because of its dramatic qualities, LYAHF is the basis of much of the world's literature, both good and bad.
1. As a maneuver it is romantic. The woman maneuvers or challenges two men into fighting, with the implication or promise that she will surrender herself to the winner. After the competition is decided, she fulfils her bargain. This is an honest transaction, and the presumption is that her and her mate live happily ever after.
2. As a ritual, it tends to be tragic. Custom demands that the two men fight for her, even if she does not want them to, and even if she has already made her choice. If the wrong man wins, she must nevertheless take him. In this case it is society and not the woman who sets up LYAHF. If she is willing, the transaction is an honest one. If she is unwilling or disappointed, the outcome may offer her considerable scope for playing games, such as 'Let's Pull A Fast one on Joey'.
3. As a game it is comic. The woman sets up the competition, and while the two men are fighting, she decamps with a third. The internal and external psychological advantages for her and her mate are derived from the position that honest competition is for suckers, and the comic story they have lived through forms the basis for the internal and external social advantages.
Here, I would say it’s the American Public who gets roped into war with Iran, while Netanyahu and Trump run off with our democracies