You brought a lot of reading and thought to these three issues and supplied a lot of value.
One takeaway: Inconstancy in foreign policy is often the worst approach.
I was not a fan of the Iran nuclear deal, but I thought it was an awful mistake to back out of it once made without any evidence that Iran had not lived up to its terms.
The same with Ukraine. While Russia bears all the blame for the invasion, I thought our efforts at diplomacy pre-war were terrible. But once the war started and we committed to supporting Ukraine, we "owned" the war and to drop our support would indeed be an awful "own goal" that would have lasting terrible consequences.
I remember, when the war broke out in Ukraine, how part of me envied the clarity that those men had about fighting for their country. This is an age-old fantasy, that war wakes us up or helps us find ourselves. Instead, war breeds intergenerational trauma. It's a reminder that what doesn't kill us might very well weaken us rather than make us stronger. I still hope we can stay the course in supporting Ukraine, because to allow Putin a victory there would seem to embolden other autocratically-minded powers. (I am not an expert on world affairs, but the broad principle of a Putin victory seems appalling).
I appreciate learning more about Iran. It might be a good time for folks to revisit Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis series. Iranian history -- and the diaspora of people who identified at one time more as Persians -- is diverse. I think there is still some commonality to be found in that ancient past, and in a national identity that is not limited to its Islamic leadership. But that, too, is based on fairly surface-level impressions and a single author.
Great post, Sam. The Iran bit is particularly thorny. The idea that Iran should be treated like a mad dog with a clerical collar, holding heavy weapons is appealing, and yet, some kind of coexistence is necessary. As for Hamas, I thought the quote from Gessen’s Ukraine article fit better than most -- just switch Hamas with Russia and there you have it: “Russia is not fighting for land. It is fighting for its right to live in the past.”
A 4 and a half minute read, right? And you underlined chess pieces I forgot were in play. Can a continent spanning U.S. A. limit the behavior of another petrostate? Seems clear it can, pipelines and concentrated capital in the wonk neighborhoods in Moscow, those are not informational but hard targets for drones on loan. Own best interests? That is the idea of homo economicus that libs can show is an absent integer, so why do my liberated journos keep that balloon in play? Another idea not worth talking about is the Russian bear. Say Kronstadt three times. Now the Russian bear is really an intangible. The Russians' willingness to undergo hard conditions for a few months underline_In the company_of their equals. And then return to the sub-adequate status quo...two things: no 30 year old grown man wants his life to hinge on the political passions of a 20 year old recruit fresh from urkadom. That is professional thuggery. And secondly, the danger of Russia keeping all of the eastern territories is compelling. You govern a territory you necessarily direct hearts and minds, I mean never mind about the abuses of those words by our state department, if you govern you bring the sun up in the morning. The U.S. has done unusual tactical things in the past. We planted nuclear land mines in mountain passes in i donot-know where, on a Nato border with the soviet block. They were dismantled, but anything we do here seems less to be brinksmanship where we can reasonably believe that simply half and more of Russians donot believe the Ukrainians are by nature cannibal Nazis.
This piece was a lot to digest. I admire the way you don’t shy away from consuming it all and processing it into a thoughtful narrative for the rest of us who just remain overwhelmed. Thank you. 🙏
Sam,
You brought a lot of reading and thought to these three issues and supplied a lot of value.
One takeaway: Inconstancy in foreign policy is often the worst approach.
I was not a fan of the Iran nuclear deal, but I thought it was an awful mistake to back out of it once made without any evidence that Iran had not lived up to its terms.
The same with Ukraine. While Russia bears all the blame for the invasion, I thought our efforts at diplomacy pre-war were terrible. But once the war started and we committed to supporting Ukraine, we "owned" the war and to drop our support would indeed be an awful "own goal" that would have lasting terrible consequences.
I remember, when the war broke out in Ukraine, how part of me envied the clarity that those men had about fighting for their country. This is an age-old fantasy, that war wakes us up or helps us find ourselves. Instead, war breeds intergenerational trauma. It's a reminder that what doesn't kill us might very well weaken us rather than make us stronger. I still hope we can stay the course in supporting Ukraine, because to allow Putin a victory there would seem to embolden other autocratically-minded powers. (I am not an expert on world affairs, but the broad principle of a Putin victory seems appalling).
I appreciate learning more about Iran. It might be a good time for folks to revisit Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis series. Iranian history -- and the diaspora of people who identified at one time more as Persians -- is diverse. I think there is still some commonality to be found in that ancient past, and in a national identity that is not limited to its Islamic leadership. But that, too, is based on fairly surface-level impressions and a single author.
Many thanks. Deep breath!
Great post, Sam. The Iran bit is particularly thorny. The idea that Iran should be treated like a mad dog with a clerical collar, holding heavy weapons is appealing, and yet, some kind of coexistence is necessary. As for Hamas, I thought the quote from Gessen’s Ukraine article fit better than most -- just switch Hamas with Russia and there you have it: “Russia is not fighting for land. It is fighting for its right to live in the past.”
A 4 and a half minute read, right? And you underlined chess pieces I forgot were in play. Can a continent spanning U.S. A. limit the behavior of another petrostate? Seems clear it can, pipelines and concentrated capital in the wonk neighborhoods in Moscow, those are not informational but hard targets for drones on loan. Own best interests? That is the idea of homo economicus that libs can show is an absent integer, so why do my liberated journos keep that balloon in play? Another idea not worth talking about is the Russian bear. Say Kronstadt three times. Now the Russian bear is really an intangible. The Russians' willingness to undergo hard conditions for a few months underline_In the company_of their equals. And then return to the sub-adequate status quo...two things: no 30 year old grown man wants his life to hinge on the political passions of a 20 year old recruit fresh from urkadom. That is professional thuggery. And secondly, the danger of Russia keeping all of the eastern territories is compelling. You govern a territory you necessarily direct hearts and minds, I mean never mind about the abuses of those words by our state department, if you govern you bring the sun up in the morning. The U.S. has done unusual tactical things in the past. We planted nuclear land mines in mountain passes in i donot-know where, on a Nato border with the soviet block. They were dismantled, but anything we do here seems less to be brinksmanship where we can reasonably believe that simply half and more of Russians donot believe the Ukrainians are by nature cannibal Nazis.
This piece was a lot to digest. I admire the way you don’t shy away from consuming it all and processing it into a thoughtful narrative for the rest of us who just remain overwhelmed. Thank you. 🙏