I notice you accept his loss in the 2020 election. He doesn't.
What are your thoughts on putting someone in the Presidency who has demonstrated he will flout the constitution and foment violence in order to retain power?
I don't approve, but I went in to Trump's term with tempered expectations. I don't think you can vote your way out of the military-industrial complex. To truly reorient American foreign policy would require a more kingly, authoritarian figure than Trump is capable of being. Trump is capable of annoying the permanent bureaucracy, maybe steering it a bit at the margins, but he can't reshape it in a significant way.
In his first term, he also ordered air strikes on Syria, which I disapproved of. But that intervention stayed limited to some chest thumping. I hope this will also stay limited.
It looks to me that Israel is in the driver's seat of our foreign policy, and I don't like it one bit. But I also don't know how to change that, outside of a new agglomeration of political power in America that wasn't on the table in 2024 and doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
I mostly agree, though I believe Trump, not the military leadership or bureaucrats, made the choice to engage, probably because he wanted accolades after his failed parade.
Trump has a habit of wanting to grab a quick military headline for domestic consumption (also see the bombing of the Houthis). I don't like it, but it is not the MOST odious foreign policy instinct compared to other Presidents we've had. Getting bogged down in a direct conflict (Bush) or providing unlimited material backstop in a proxy conflict (Biden) are much worse outcomes.
Today he dropped the F-bomb describing Israel's violation of a ceasefire period he had called for to negotiate an end to hostilities with Iran. He's clearly frustrated with them. This is not a sign that he has things under control. But I think he correctly recognizes that the major weakness of US Middle Eastern policy at the moment is insufficient leverage over Israel. If Israel warhawks get to do whatever they want, then it is hard for America to shape the strategic situation in the Middle East to our benefit.
I think the B-2 run was an attempt to play the media game and get Israel under control. It gives an event that can be spun as decisive (even though it is not) and then used as an excuse to come to the negotiation table. But Israel doesn't seem to be following Trump's lead.
The real blackpill on Trump's foreign policy is that the previous Iran deal that he pulled out of was pretty good. I'm not sure why he did that, but I think part of it was that he wasn't the one to negotiate it. Probably if he won in 2020 he would have worked to negotiate a replacement (probably he will look for that now).
The choice in 2024 was between Trump and Kamala, and by Kamala we mean the Blue Blob, since she obviously was an insultingly dim figurehead and not a serious player by any means. The Blue Blob seems much worse on Ukraine/Russia, where I think war could have been avoided. But it was doing an okay job in Israel and Middle Eastern politics. Certainly I have sympathy for people that overlooked the insult that was Kamala and knowingly voted for the Blue Blob.
Great post. And brave!
I notice you accept his loss in the 2020 election. He doesn't.
What are your thoughts on putting someone in the Presidency who has demonstrated he will flout the constitution and foment violence in order to retain power?
I'm working on a full response to this point in particular.
I’m still keen to read it
What do you think of Trump now that he's actively inciting war?
I don't approve, but I went in to Trump's term with tempered expectations. I don't think you can vote your way out of the military-industrial complex. To truly reorient American foreign policy would require a more kingly, authoritarian figure than Trump is capable of being. Trump is capable of annoying the permanent bureaucracy, maybe steering it a bit at the margins, but he can't reshape it in a significant way.
In his first term, he also ordered air strikes on Syria, which I disapproved of. But that intervention stayed limited to some chest thumping. I hope this will also stay limited.
It looks to me that Israel is in the driver's seat of our foreign policy, and I don't like it one bit. But I also don't know how to change that, outside of a new agglomeration of political power in America that wasn't on the table in 2024 and doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
I mostly agree, though I believe Trump, not the military leadership or bureaucrats, made the choice to engage, probably because he wanted accolades after his failed parade.
Trump has a habit of wanting to grab a quick military headline for domestic consumption (also see the bombing of the Houthis). I don't like it, but it is not the MOST odious foreign policy instinct compared to other Presidents we've had. Getting bogged down in a direct conflict (Bush) or providing unlimited material backstop in a proxy conflict (Biden) are much worse outcomes.
Today he dropped the F-bomb describing Israel's violation of a ceasefire period he had called for to negotiate an end to hostilities with Iran. He's clearly frustrated with them. This is not a sign that he has things under control. But I think he correctly recognizes that the major weakness of US Middle Eastern policy at the moment is insufficient leverage over Israel. If Israel warhawks get to do whatever they want, then it is hard for America to shape the strategic situation in the Middle East to our benefit.
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1937469463106060789
I think the B-2 run was an attempt to play the media game and get Israel under control. It gives an event that can be spun as decisive (even though it is not) and then used as an excuse to come to the negotiation table. But Israel doesn't seem to be following Trump's lead.
The real blackpill on Trump's foreign policy is that the previous Iran deal that he pulled out of was pretty good. I'm not sure why he did that, but I think part of it was that he wasn't the one to negotiate it. Probably if he won in 2020 he would have worked to negotiate a replacement (probably he will look for that now).
The choice in 2024 was between Trump and Kamala, and by Kamala we mean the Blue Blob, since she obviously was an insultingly dim figurehead and not a serious player by any means. The Blue Blob seems much worse on Ukraine/Russia, where I think war could have been avoided. But it was doing an okay job in Israel and Middle Eastern politics. Certainly I have sympathy for people that overlooked the insult that was Kamala and knowingly voted for the Blue Blob.
What's your opinion of this post on the absurdity of contemplating a human settlement on Mars? https://defector.com/neither-elon-musk-nor-anybody-else-will-ever-colonize-mars