May 9, 2018

"The caution that constrained President Trump for much of his first year in office has been cast aside, and an emboldened commander in chief..."

"... is finally reshaping foreign policy to reflect the 'America First' philosophy he promised during his campaign. Having shed or sidelined some of the top advisers who held him back in the past, Mr. Trump gives the appearance of a leader liberated at last to follow the china-breaking instincts..."



"... that have long animated his approach to the world even as they troubled diplomats and national security veterans of both parties. The president’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday may be only the start of a period of several weeks in which he repositions the United States in the world in a way that could last for years. After breaking with European allies over the Iran agreement, Mr. Trump will break with Arab allies on Monday with the formal opening of an American Embassy in Jerusalem. He has until the end of the month to decide whether to impose punishing steel tariffs on key American trading partners. He has said he hopes to forge a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada within weeks or blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then he will test his theory that he can force the mercurial North Korea to surrender its nuclear arsenal through 'maximum pressure” coupled with threats of military action followed by high-stakes one-on-one diplomacy."

Writes Peter Baker in "No Longer Held Back by His Advisers, Trump Puts His Imprint on Foreign Policy" (NYT).

172 comments:

LincolnTf said...

Bravo, President Trump. Finally shedding the backward, ignorant appeasement policies that have led to so much misery around the world.

John Henry said...

"China breaking instincts"?

President Trump sounds more like a China mender to me.

Look at North Korea and the Middle East for 2 big examples.

Saudi Arabia and Israel in bed together?

Iran all pissed off and blustering like NoKO was last year. Will that turn out to be like NoKo? The US and Iran will wave their dicks at each other for a while and then Whango-Bango, Iran will all of a sudden decide that Israel isn't so bad after all.

Seems to me the world is a more peaceful place these days. Or at least seriously has the prospect of being more peaceful.

Sounds like more fake news.

John Henry

pacwest said...

Evidently breaking China is fun. Moving way too fast. Slow down boss.

Ralph L said...

Looks like we're going back to Crazy Trump.

Molly said...

(Eaglebeak)

Sounds like a Good Thing to me.

Jake said...

In praise of leading from behind.

rehajm said...

Finally shedding the backward, ignorant appeasement policies that have led to so much misery around the world.

Yeeeaaaasssss! Once we stop conditioning rogue states that aggressive tantrums and missile fits doesn't get you more US dollars, peace becomes an attractive alternative.

tim in vermont said...

Now Iran is going to overplay their hand and force the Europeans back onto the sanctions side.

rhhardin said...

America first is his responsibility; the other guy first is the other guy's responsibility.

That's the only way wealth is created. Both sides come out ahead, not one side.

Breezy said...

Love Trump's courage to upset the rotten apple cart.

rhhardin said...

Trump broke the advisor payoff system that had stabilized it for 50 years.

MadisonMan said...

When status quo isn't leading you in the right direction, it's time to change things.

MikeR said...

Paraguay: https://www.jta.org/2018/05/08/news-opinion/paraguay-moving-embassy-jerusalem-week-us

Narayanan said...

Trump telling the world: be best. On your own effort.

Tommy Duncan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

Remember last week when we were talking about being on the verge of global thermonuclear war?

Kevin said...

I remember when the press was always cautioning Obama to listen to his advisors.

Nah, it was how he was always the smartest guy in every room regardless of the situation or subject.

When anyone criticized his decisions it was either because they were racist or didn’t understand the nuance of his policymaking.

David Begley said...

As the President achieves more and more successes (and he will), America will realize how bad Obama’s foreign policy was.

I fully expect the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs. Gina at CIA will conduct some nice ops there.

Birkel said...

3 months ago: Trump will start WWIII with North Korea
Now: Trump deserves no credit for progress in NK

Now: Trump will start WWIII with Iran
3 months from now: ???

Wince said...

Peter Baker of the NYT sounds like one of those "glass half-full" guys.

Hari said...

Has there been a single instance in the past year where the NYT has actually suggested that Trump was being restrained by caution or by anything else.

FIDO said...

Well, Obama started making treaties without the consent of Congress, so we are just continuing a tradition.

Frankly, giving Iran a ton of money and technology doesn't seem like something in America's best interest. Not when they still have 'Death to America' at the beginning of every news broadcast (Kidding!)

So I am not upset that NATO needs to start paying their share, that Iran isn't getting unverified billions from Obama operatives, that Lurch is probably going down for violations of the Logan Act, that China no longer gets to hold out their empty rice bowl, pleading for special deals due to poverty, or that Arabs (who also sing Death to America every night before supper) get their Feelz hurt by an embassy in Jerusalem. I guess those suicide bombers and missile launchers better be careful of their aim these days.

And this is all due to Democrats giving political cover to extra legal dealings by Obama.

This is that precedent destroying crap that hurts the nation but it's no longer going to be unilateral. So keep letting your Antifa Mobs, your 'Resistance' go on...

Half the country now hates you...and you don't care. You relish that hate.

This does not end well.

exhelodrvr1 said...

This isn't a sudden shift, what we are seeing now is the product of the "slow and steady" steps taken over the past 16 months.

Amadeus 48 said...

Some of my rabid anti-Trump friends are willing to wait and see on N Korea--"Maybe he'll have one success. Maybe not."

Big Mike said...

Awww. And here I was hoping that Iran would test their first nukes in New York City and/or San Francisco. Now maybe thanks to Trump they won’t have nukes to test after all. We’ll see.

Big Mike said...

When anyone criticized his decisions it was either because they were racist or didn’t understand the nuance of his policymaking.

@Kevin, you could have terminated that sentence after the word “racist” and been 90% correct. Democrats’ soft bigotry of low expectations.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Up until yesterday if I had been polled on whether or not Trump should be impeached I would have said no. I have moved into the yes column. This is just ill thought out spite. I hope the Dems impeach him and the sooner the better.

Under Trump's watch North Korea gained the capability to nuke the US mainland. Rather than fuck with something that was working I think it would have been better to see if Trump's approach can produce results in North Korea and results would be complete denuclearization.

tcrosse said...

"Politics, as a practise, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." - Henry Adams

Birkel said...

ARM pretends. Cute.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Birk, I think he might be high. Too early to be huffing Fabuloso!, ARM! Seriously, he is incoherent.

Big Mike said...

Meanwhile, over at dailycaller.com there’s this:

“A source inside the White House with knowledge of the decision process tells TheDC that the Iran deal was “done” when Trump found out about Kerry’s lobbying behind the scenes. ‘Trump was headed that way but Kerry just took away any of the teeth of the detractors,’ the source said on background. ‘[Kerry’s] bulls**t ultimately killed the deal.’ “

Birkel said...

Kevin and Big Mike,

Remember that supporting Trump is prima facie evidence of racism. The formula is clear.

The guards of the Democrat Berlin PC Wall will shoot any attempting to defect with charges of racism. And sexism. QED

WisRich said...

Big Mike said...
Meanwhile, over at dailycaller.com there’s this:

“A source inside the White House with knowledge of the decision process tells TheDC that the Iran deal was “done” when Trump found out about Kerry’s lobbying behind the scenes. ‘Trump was headed that way but Kerry just took away any of the teeth of the detractors,’ the source said on background. ‘[Kerry’s] bulls**t ultimately killed the deal.’ “

5/9/18, 8:01 AM


Heh. I'd call that a deliberate leak.

Hagar said...

The NYT will have a collective heart attack when Israel and the Saudis establish legations in each other's capital.

Kevin said...

@Kevin, you could have terminated that sentence after the word “racist” and been 90% correct. Democrats’ soft bigotry of low expectations.

I should have been more specific:

Criticism from Republicans: RACIST!
Criticism from Democratic policy experts and people to Obama's left: Failure to understand Obama's nuanced thinking.

Kevin said...

Some of my rabid anti-Trump friends are willing to wait and see on N Korea--"Maybe he'll have one success. Maybe not."

Same people after N Korea and Iran give up nuclear weapons and Middle East peace is achieved:

"Trump only had three things you might call accomplishments!"

mockturtle said...

Winning. It just feels good.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

The deal that was crafted by Obama and Kerry was welcomed by robes of Iran. So - it must be good. *sarc

Big Mike said...

@Kevin, you mean there actually was criticism of Obama by Democrats? It certainly didn't make the front pages of the Washington Post!

rehajm said...

Under Trump's watch North Korea gained the capability to nuke the US mainland

..and you know this how?

Koot Katmandu said...

I think your right - he has got his sea legs now and is working his MAGA plan.
PDT understands american economic, military, and diplomatic power and has always wanted to use them to MAGA. Obama and Bush did not use our power for the american people.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

The Trump Administration deserves thanks and congratulations for terminating American participation in the toothless Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the ostentatiously official name of the Obama Administration's "nuclear weapons deal" with Iran's clerical dictatorship.

"A shrinking ayatollah bank account immediately makes the world a safer place. It's especially a safer place for American allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel who are already engaged in a slow war for national survival with Iran.

Sure, for the next 10 days or so, snide European toffs and Washington Beltway Clerks will swear American withdrawal means doom and horror. Already, they are on mainstream television shows howling and tearing their stuffed shirts.

A shrinking ayatollah bank account immediately makes the world a safer place. It's especially a safer place for American allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel who are already engaged in a slow war for national survival with Iran.

Sure, for the next 10 days or so, snide European toffs and Washington Beltway Clerks will swear American withdrawal means doom and horror. Already, they are on mainstream television shows howling and tearing their stuffed shirts.

Ignore them. They're blind to the doom and horror spawned by vicious Iranian overt and covert troublemaking that savages our planet on a daily basis. Yemen, Syria and Lebanon are three of the bloodiest examples of Iran's policy of geo-strategic mayhem.

The failure to penalize the Iranian regime's covert and overt violent troublemaking and its organized criminal operations (yes, transnational crime, like smuggling narcotics and human beings) was the JCPOA's most grievous flaw.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's mis-deal had other flaws. The wicked nature of the Iranian regime may appear extrinsic to the mis-deal's advocates, benighted actors like former Secretary of State John Kerry. Well, it isn't. Failing to account for the regime's corrupt nature is one of the stupid pact's more serious flaws. Britain's Neville Chamberlain learned that the hard way in 1938, when he made a deal with Adolf Hitler in Munich that supposedly guaranteed Western Europe "peace for our time." "

Big Mike said...

I think it would have been better to see if Trump's approach can produce results in North Korea

Well, ARM, right now Mike Pompeo is in the air bringing three former hostages back from Pyongyang. Donald Trump has pledged to meet that flight when it lands at Andrews AFB at 2:00 AM Eastern. This is a positive indicator (though you will dispute that fact).

holdfast said...

Most of the Arab states that are actually our allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are sick to death of the Palestinians. As long as the US Embassy is in West Jerusalem (which it is), they’ll get over it with just token protest.

rehajm said...

Ya know, lefties if you wanted to deny Trump the ability to intervene in your little Iran deal you could've passed something through Congress the previous President could have signed.

Erasable pen and a phone.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Results will be North Korea having as many nukes as Iran currently has.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“Under Trump's watch North Korea gained the capability to nuke the US mainland. Rather than fuck with something that was working I think it would have been better to see if Trump's approach can produce results in North Korea and results would be complete denuclearization.”

Damn. The Norks developed nuclear weapons and ICBM technology all in a year? No wonder all those Asian kids are hoovering up all the “A’s”!
I may be an unusual conservative in that displays of Trumpsteria absolutely delight me. The Left abandoning any pretense of reason, while disruptive in the short term, can only hasten their demise. It’s an iron law of history.

Kevin said...

@Kevin, you mean there actually was criticism of Obama by Democrats? It certainly didn't make the front pages of the Washington Post!

The media was constantly promoting his policies and working to tamp down any criticism before it could break out. They didn't say "Person A, B, and C disagree." They wrote pieces like this at The Nation, thus giving Obama's supporters the mindset and talking points to deal with anything that might surface in a TV interview or WSJ op-ed.

You take the experts and put them on notice that if they seem to disagree, they simply don't understand the new environment like Obama does:

"The era that began with the passing of the Cold War had essentially ended by the time Obama came to office. At the time, neither he nor others understood this, of course. Even so, over the course of two terms, Obama has quietly fashioned himself into the first president of the as-yet-to-be-named era in which we now find ourselves. One of this era’s defining characteristics is that authority and responsibilities are being dispersed. The emerging order is both multipolar and radically decentralized. As a consequence, decisions made in Washington no longer determine the way the world works (assuming they ever did).

Obama gets this. In the remarkable series of interviews that form the basis of Jeffrey Goldberg’s mistitled essay “The Obama Doctrine,” published in The Atlantic in April 2016, the president offers a nuanced appreciation of the complexity defining this post-post–Cold War order. In his conversations with Goldberg, Obama suggests that doctrine itself is part of the problem: Washington’s fixation with it inhibits the ability of policy-makers to address complexity. The president goes out of his way to express his disdain for the foreign-policy establishment’s hidebound “playbook.” Thirty or 60 years ago, it may have had value; today, it offers evidence of advanced intellectual sclerosis.

Obama’s fate, at least for now, is to be judged according to criteria derived from that obsolete playbook. Over the long term, however, historians will judge him by a different standard: They may well see as Obama’s chief failing the fact that, though he recognized the Washington playbook had become outmoded, he was unable to persuade others in the political class to embrace an alternative. However obliquely, that failure contributed to the rise of Donald Trump, who recognizes no playbook whatsoever."

BarrySanders20 said...

Iran's mullahs asked to borrow the "HALP US JON CARRY! WE R STUK HEAR N IRAK!" banner. Just need to change the last letter.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-gis-mocks-kerry-remarks/

Kevin said...

Note that Trump, unlike Obama, can't see anything strategically -- he has no playbook whatsoever.

This is the opposite effect, signaling to people who don't like Trump that they certainly aren't in danger of having missed anything intelligent in his decision-making.

He is simply, as they tagged W, a cowboy.

Kevin said...

...who will do nothing but get us into yet another war.

Kevin said...

Ya know, lefties if you wanted to deny Trump the ability to intervene in your little Iran deal you could've passed something through Congress the previous President could have signed.

They've always relied on the media to shame Republicans into doing their bidding.

Remember when Roberts was cowed into not overturning "Obama's signature legislative achievement", as if that merited some consideration as to the constitutionality of its provisions?

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Results will be North Korea having as many nukes as Iran currently has.

Well, well, so you think that the Obama deal with Iran didn't do anything to stop them from developing nukes? Amazing.

J. Farmer said...

Where will things go from here? Watch Brussels. Henry Kissinger in his Arab-Israeli diplomacy days used to say that there could be “no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria.” In nuclear talks with Iran, there can be no decisive impact without Europe, and no settlement without America. Europe is the pivot player. Iran wants to do business with Europe; even with the nuclear deal, much U.S. business with Iran was illegal. Trump will either need to get Europe on board with new sanctions that hurt European businesses, or he will need to target European companies himself, creating a serious diplomatic crisis. (The middle path, sanctioning Iran unilaterally while letting Europe slide, would significantly reduce pressure on Tehran.) Europe so far has shown no appetite for putting fresh pressure on Iran. And all this, again, is for the chance of creating enough leverage to begin broader negotiations, and comes at real technical and strategic cost. One thing alone is sure: Iran’s main strategic goal on the nuclear issue has been achieved. America and Europe are split, and the UN sanctions are off. Now Tehran can choose whether it would like an enriched cherry on top.

-America Loses Big as Trump Jettisons the Nuclear Deal, John Allen Gay, The American Conservative

Michael K said...

Mr. Trump will break with Arab allies on Monday with the formal opening of an American Embassy in Jerusalem.

Let's wait and see. MBS is already moving the Saudis into an alliance with Israel. The other Sunni states, which are our only "allies" among the Arabs, are moving into a US-Israel alliance against Iran.

I wonder what Farmer will have to say if the ongoing revolt against the regime, which has continued even though ignored by US Media, overthrows the regime or stimulates a generals revolt that overthrows the corrupt mullahs?

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

It's telling that such a great deal for the world also made the Islamic Supremacist "death to Israel/Death to America" radical robed Ayatollahs happy. and now they are back to chanting in the chamber.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

A free Iran without radical Islamist supremacist money-grubbing hardline dictators in charge would be wonderful for the people of Iran.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I wonder what Farmer will have to say if the ongoing revolt against the regime, which has continued even though ignored by US Media, overthrows the regime or stimulates a generals revolt that overthrows the corrupt mullahs?

For someone that styles himself a convservative, Michael, you certainly seem to have a strange affection for revolution, which is about the most unconservative idea there is.

J. Farmer said...

A free Saudi Arabia without radical Islamist supremacist funding money-grubbing hardline dictators in charge would be wonderful for the people of Saudi Arabia.

So if the people of Saudi Arabia decide to rise up against the monarchy and fight for their freedom, we will give them money and guns and training and covert support, right? Or do you think we'll just ignore it and hope the movement is crushed swiftly and quickly like the Bahrainis did?

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Michael K:

"I wonder what Farmer will have to say if the ongoing revolt against the regime, which has continued even though ignored by US Media, overthrows the regime or stimulates a generals revolt that overthrows the corrupt mullahs?

For someone that styles himself a convservative, Michael, you certainly seem to have a strange affection for revolution, which is about the most unconservative idea there is."

Like most of us the doc is a classic liberal. You again make assertions not based on evidence.

n.n said...

Not another Libya, or Ukraine, renewal of war in Iraq, or CAIR (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform).

Birkel said...

Conservatives do not wish to retain everything that was. Conservatives admit there are many things not worth saving.

"Death to J.Farmer, in particular."

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Like most of us the doc is a classic liberal. You again make assertions not based on evidence.

So how do you reconcile classical liberalism with a giant military-industrial state?

Kevin said...

For someone that styles himself a convservative, Michael, you certainly seem to have a strange affection for revolution, which is about the most unconservative idea there is.

Oh, wow. Now I see the problem. It's the same problem most on the left have.

You think conservatism is about maintaining the status quo rather than protecting freedom.

Conservatives love a good revolution. Just ask the Founding Fathers.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Conservatives do not wish to retain everything that was. Conservatives admit there are many things not worth saving.

Undoubtedly. The question is how are things not saved. To be skeptical of revolution is the central insight of conservatism. But then again, the US has not had a conservative foreign policy in a century. It has been absolutely dominated by the progressive, international liberalism that grew out of the first part of the 20th century.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

You think conservatism is about maintaining the status quo rather than protecting freedom.

The Bourbon Restoration was about protecting freedom? I had no idea.

Conservatives love a good revolution. Just ask the Founding Fathers.

The founding fathers were not conservatives. And their project failed.

Kevin said...

America and Europe are split, and the UN sanctions are off.

The American Conservative doesn't seem to note this doesn't bother Trump at all.

Unlike most of the political class, what Europe thinks is of a secondary or tertiary nature to solving actual problems.

Must of the post-Cold War positioning has been to ensure the US won't feel free to act out of concert with Europe and the UN, even when in its clear interest to do so.

America First is all about throwing that notion overboard. If Europe hasn't yet awoken to that reality, the alarm clock just went off.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Unlike most of the political class, what Europe thinks is of a secondary or tertiary nature to solving actual problems.

Europe is one of Iran's primary business partners. There is no way to sanction Iran in a way that will actually put significant pressure on the Iranians. The point of sanctions is to compel their behavior, and to ask the Europeans to hurt their businesses by employing sanctions when they see no need to is a tall task.

America First is all about throwing that notion overboard. If Europe hasn't yet awoken to that reality, the alarm clock just went off.

If you think unilateral US sanctions are enough to compel Iran's behavior, I would submit to you the example of Cuba. And if we are going to run an America First policy in Europe, then why are we still in NATO?

mccullough said...

We do have a rather large trade deficit with Germany, as Trump has pointed out to Merkel. He also pointed out that Germany hasn’t been meeting its NATO obligations of spending 2% of GDP on military.

Germany and the UK and France have been a free riding ally for a long time. A good part of Trump throwing out Obama’s deal with Iran is to slap our European “friends” around a bit. They tried to go around Trumo’s back with Rex. And Rex got fired on Twitter for it.

All our dealings with other nations needed to change. US foreign policy since 1990 has been predictable and stupid.

The US needed to change its approach to Germany, the UK, and France — “old Europe” as Rumsfeld accurately called it. They are declining nations with low birth rates and insane immigration policies. Now is a good time to change our approach to them. Long overdue actually.

These people aren’t our friends. We have let them use us for far too long. If they want to sell to Iran, so be it. If they want to become Muslim fanatical countries within 25 years, so be it. We’ll let their best people come here as we did in the 1800s and early 1900s and help them accelerate their decline. Or they can get their heads out of their asses and stop acting like greedy, selfish cowards with no long term desire or plan for survival.

Rusty said...


"So how do you reconcile classical liberalism with a giant military-industrial state?"

The state is constitutionally obligated to defend us.

Anonymous said...

One of the things I haven't seen in the coverage of the withdrawal from the rotten Iran deal is what's at stake for our "European" Allies.
The most recent figures for exports to Iran:
Germany 2.6 billion Euros
UK 260 million Euros
France 3.18 Billion Euros
EU - Iran exports 10.8 Billion Euros
Iran trade overall ranking with the EU 33

The most recent figures for exports to the US
France - US Exports 48.8 Billion $
German - US Exports 117.7 Billion $
UK - US Exports 53.1 Billion $
EU - US exports 506.5 Billion Billion $
EU/US overall trade rank 1

Where do you think Merkel, Macron and May are going to be on the sanctions issue? Which trade relationship are they going to protect? How much leverage does Trump have? Just read the numbers.

I am very happy about the withdrawal from the Iran deal. Primarily because it was a terrible deal really doing nothing to prevent Iran from developing a bomb long term - if you can call seven years long term. It also exposed Iran's malfeasance in the entire region and used that to further justify reinstating sanctions. Most important, I believe, it underscores that we have a Constitution that provides for the development and ratification of treaties and that Obama's deceitful action in avoiding that Constitutional requirement ultimately came to naught and will be a healthy precedent.

mccullough said...

Farmer,

I agree. NATO should have been dissolved in 1991. The Soviet Union was gone. HW and the stupidity that followed has led to the shit we are on. That stupid Gulf War 1 was another example of Bush stupidity. That family is really overrated. Compared to the Kennedys they come out ahead but they are mediocre at best.

They have caused a lot of problems, starting with the First Gulf War. Why we are defending “allies” that are on national suicide slides is beyond dumb. Western Europe has a huge Muslim problem of its own making. They don’t have enough kids to support their enormous social welfare spending and the Muslims don’t like them and aren’t earning enough money to support Europe’s high taxes. If they were smarter, they would just import poor Mexicans instead of ooor Muslims. They would face some of the same fiscal problems but without the cultural suicide.

mccullough said...

Khesanh,

Those are numbers Trump keeps throwing in their face. It’s big leverage. Trump also knows the Three Ms are weak. Their countries are in decline and they look the other way as Muslim savages destroy their communities. Very easy to negotiate with people like this. You know they are weak and don’t like confrontation. They instead just acquiesce because they don’t lead nations they presided over their decline.

Kevin said...

Europe is one of Iran's primary business partners.

No shit. You type that as if it will be news to me. European companies have made fortunes trading with regimes outlawed by the US. Iran, Lybia, Cuba, the list goes on. European companies sell to these oil-rich nations at inflated prices and then use those profits to competitively bid against US companies at home and abroad.

The difference is that no US President would retaliate against them for doing so. No US President would take a risk of upsetting the global trade system.

So perhaps this time is different. But you know that. Why are you making me type it?

Kevin said...

You think the heads of state of France and Germany and the Foreign Minister of the UK just came here to lecture Trump?

He listened politely to their proposals and then told each what would happen if they chose doing business with Iran over siding with the US.

Michael K said...

Farmer's reaction has been interesting.

I agree that I am a classical Liberal but his idea of conservatism is weird, in my opinion.

If you think unilateral US sanctions are enough to compel Iran's behavior, I would submit to you the example of Cuba

Cuba is 90 miles from the US and the Cuban middle class left. Iran has no near sanctuary and the people who are fighting the regime have nowhere else to go.


@Kevin:

You think conservatism is about maintaining the status quo rather than protecting freedom.

The Bourbon Restoration was about protecting freedom? I had no idea.


I wonder at your historical knowledge. The Bourbon restoration was a brief interval in the overthrow of Napoleon.

We restored the Shah when the Mossadegh coup threatened our cold war with the Soviets.

Had Jimmy Carter been smarter, the Shah and his son would still rule Iran. Maybe they could not have dealt with the mullahs successfully but what Carter did was far worse.

To be skeptical of revolution is the central insight of conservatism. But then again, the US has not had a conservative foreign policy in a century. It has been absolutely dominated by the progressive, international liberalism that grew out of the first part of the 20th century.

To some degree, I agree but World War I was where we went wrong. I doubt we could have avoided WWII.

I'm listening to Pat Buchanan's book "The Unnecessary Wars" and he makes some good points but mostly about Edward Grey and WWI. I'm also reading "The Sleepwalkers: which Niall Ferguson has high praise for. You might find it interesting.

Had Obama acted as Presidents are supposed to do, he would have submitted the Iran deal to the Senate and it would have been voted down, just as the climate stuff was voted down when submitted as a treaty.

Kevin said...

And if we are going to run an America First policy in Europe, then why are we still in NATO?

We are still in NATO to see if the alliance can be saved. If so, there are advantages to the US having access to European bases.

If it continues to be a bad deal for the US, look for Trump to do in his second term to NATO what he did with NAFTA, North Korea, and the Iran nuclear deals in his first.

Frankly, the idea that Europe might pay fully the costs of its own defense is so utterly impossible to the members of the EU, that they'll gladly pay their token NATO responsibilities as long as they are convinced Trump will call their bluff.

HIs actions against China, Mexico, NoKo, and Iran are directed at our European Allies and trading partners as well.

Seeing Red said...

how do you reconcile classical liberalism with a giant military-industrial state?


Trust, but verify.





Seeing Red said...

As to the US is split from Europ, oh nose!


They’ve always hated US.

Seeing Red said...

Cuba is poor and starving, but Viva la Revolution!

You should take a look at the real Cuba .com

Anonymous said...

@ Kevin You make an excellent point. For the first time in a very long time the US, under Trump, is exercising a leadership role and forcing everyone else to follow. It has taken some time for foreign leaders to understand that they are dealing with a guy who doesn't go for BS. He has said all along that his highest priority is the welfare of the US and its citizens and he keeps putting that into practice. He is forcing others to adjust to that fact. I love it.

mockturtle said...

Michael K muses: I wonder what Farmer will have to say if the ongoing revolt against the regime, which has continued even though ignored by US Media, overthrows the regime or stimulates a generals revolt that overthrows the corrupt mullahs?

They even chant at soccer games. It's ripe and getting riper. More winning.

Hagar said...

The trouble is that the mullahs and the generals both need to go.

Hagar said...

The generals may not be preaching jihad, but they do want to restore the Persian Empire.

J. Farmer said...

@Khesanh 0802:

Where do you think Merkel, Macron and May are going to be on the sanctions issue? Which trade relationship are they going to protect? How much leverage does Trump have? Just read the numbers.

Uhh...we have $150 billion trade deficit with the EU. We exported $283 billion goods to the EU and imported $435 billion from them. These are roughly analogous to our trade numbers with China.

Most important, I believe, it underscores that we have a Constitution that provides for the development and ratification of treaties and that Obama's deceitful action in avoiding that Constitutional requirement ultimately came to naught and will be a healthy precedent.

What constitutional authority does Trump have to wage war against Syria?

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

The difference is that no US President would retaliate against them for doing so. No US President would take a risk of upsetting the global trade system.

So "upsetting the global trade system" is worthwhile in order to cajole Europeans into supporting sanctions which may or may not put pressure on the Iranians to renegotiate a deal?

He listened politely to their proposals and then told each what would happen if they chose doing business with Iran over siding with the US.

And "what would happen?" You seem to be stuck under the unipolar delusion in which the US has the power to achieve everything it wants on the international stage and any failure to do so is because of bad leadership or intentions. And not because there are actual limits to what power can achieve in the system.

Sprezzatura said...

"He has said all along that his highest priority is the welfare of the US and its citizens and he keeps putting that into practice. He is forcing others to adjust to that fact. I love it."

a) DJT tells a lot of lies. It's best to not fuss about what he says. What is he doing?

b) America is already the greatest, most powerful nation in the world. This ascension re innovation/economics/military happened by not having DJT in charge.

c) DJT deciding to be a bullshitter in the greatest figurative China shop that the world has ever known is not going to rank well re Althouse's stated preference for doing nothing re changes.

d) "If it's the greatest ever, break it" Not catchy. IMHO. But, I haven't run a bunch of businesses into the ground and had my daddy bail me out a bunch. Presumably DJT has a different POV.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I agree that I am a classical Liberal but his idea of conservatism is weird, in my opinion.

See Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France

I wonder at your historical knowledge. The Bourbon restoration was a brief interval in the overthrow of Napoleon.

The Bourbon Restoration was an attempt to return France to its pre-revolutionary arrangement. It also marked the beginning of conservatism as a political concept. See Le Conservateur.

I'm listening to Pat Buchanan's book "The Unnecessary Wars" and he makes some good points but mostly about Edward Grey and WWI. I'm also reading "The Sleepwalkers: which Niall Ferguson has high praise for. You might find it interesting.

You've mentioned these books to me in the past but may not have read (or may have forgotten) my respond. I read Buchanan's book many years ago and while very impressed with it was never totally convinced by its thesis. As for Clark's Sleepwalkers, I enjoyed the first third or so of the book and detested the rest. I do not subscribe to much revisionist history of WWI. I think Germany does deserve primary blame thinks to its reckless empowering of Austro-Hungary. That said, I think Britain and France acted abysmally and in an exceptionally piggish manner at Versaille, more eager to divide up the spoils of war over a defeated German Empire than to establish a lasting peace on the continent.

J. Farmer said...

@Khesanh 0802:

He has said all along that his highest priority is the welfare of the US and its citizens and he keeps putting that into practice. He is forcing others to adjust to that fact. I love it.

Well now that the US is out of the JCPOA, that will do quite a lot for "the welfare of the US and its citizens." Higher prices at the pump are a great start.

Michael K said...

I think Germany does deserve primary blame thinks to its reckless empowering of Austro-Hungary.

Sorry, I had forgotten your response. There is an argument, a fair one in my opinion, that Wilhelm was more responsible than his ministers who often kept important matters from him if possible. The author makes a good argument that Europe was in a transition from powerful royalty to more professional diplomats and that the uncertainty was often a consequence.

There is also an argument that France was more responsible, than usually appreciated.

I mentioned Buchanan because you sound like him.

Higher prices at the pump are a great start.

We have Trump to thank for fracking, which would have been closed down under Hillary.

Kevin said...

Higher prices at the pump are a great start.

"Saudi Arabia, long a regional rival to Iran and a fierce competitor for global oil market share, quickly telegraphed its willingness to step in. It has limited its own output since 2016, as part of a pact among big producers to help lift prices.

In the wake of Washington’s decision, Saudi Arabia issued a statement saying it remained “committed to supporting the stability of oil markets.” It said that, along with other big producers, the country would help “mitigate the impact of any potential supply shortages” caused by the new sanctions."

Really J, are your posts simply based on extrapolating past assumptions and not knowing what's going on in the world?

Kevin said...

And "what would happen?" You seem to be stuck under the unipolar delusion in which the US has the power to achieve everything it wants on the international stage and any failure to do so is because of bad leadership or intentions. And not because there are actual limits to what power can achieve in the system.

We are hardly against the limits of American power. In fact, we have been so lax with our power and have let people take such advantage of us that the reserve power of America is huge.

That was Trump's little secret that the press still hasn't figured out yet.

We have the biggest military by far. We have a huge, and yet underperforming economy. Mexico can't function without its people coming to America and remitting funds. China and Europe have trade surpluses that we've allowed them to accumulate. Russian oligarchs still need access to the legitimate banking systems to store their wealth.

The US is now an oil exporter.

Trump hasn't scratched the surface of American power, but I suspect in the next 8 years he'll continue to do things the editors of the NYT have been told are impossible.

So "upsetting the global trade system" is worthwhile in order to cajole Europeans into supporting sanctions which may or may not put pressure on the Iranians to renegotiate a deal?

How much has Trump achieved with a single steel tariff which has yet to go into effect?

My God, you're really not paying attention, are you?

I'll let my friend J. Farmer do the math for you: Uhh...we have $150 billion trade deficit with the EU. We exported $283 billion goods to the EU and imported $435 billion from them. These are roughly analogous to our trade numbers with China.

China is at present working through how to restructure their trade. Do you think the EU, with all of the different member countries, is even capable of such a task?

Perhaps they'd better go along with sanctions.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Really J, are your posts simply based on extrapolating past assumptions and not knowing what's going on in the world?

No, I don't believe in taking the Saudi regime's words credulously. Apparently you operated under the assumption that anything that comes from the Saudis must be taken as gospel. We will see what happens with oil prices and production in the coming months.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Hillary Obama Kerry and the radical robed beards of Iran are all pissed. Pissed.

Iran never signed it. The crap deal never would have passed the senate.

Kevin said...

No, I don't believe in taking the Saudi regime's words credulously.

Sure. Saudi Arabia might act to help out it's neighbor, Iran, who is supplying the missiles that are being fired at the country from Yemen.

Seriously, you DON'T know what's going on in the world.

langford peel said...

"If you think unilateral US sanctions are enough to compel Iran's behavior, I would submit to you the example of Cuba. And if we are going to run an America First policy in Europe, then why are we still in NATO?"

Good question. I agree we should leave NATO. We should set up a new security arrangement with the nations of Eastern Europe and leave the corrupt raddled old whores of Old Europe to wallow in their transition into Muslim dominated. An alliance with Poland, Hungry, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would ally us with people who would actually fight to be free.

Where do France, England and especially Germany get the right to lecture us and tell us what to do? Fuck them and the hobbyhorses they rode in on.

I will predict when President Trump will announce that he is reevaluating NATO and preparing to leave this obsolete foreign entanglement. It will be after his visit to England where the massive protests led by the knife wielding Muslim terrorist Mayor of London will show the God Emperor that these benighted craven fools are only worth the back of his hand. He can start the process of ending WW2 and its enduring entanglements just as he is ending the Korean War.

Give peace a chance. End the endless wars and abandon foreign entanglements.

America first.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

We have the biggest military by far.

And it lost to the Taliban.

How much has Trump achieved with a single steel tariff which has yet to go into effect?

You tell me. What has been "achieved?"

Perhaps they'd better go along with sanctions.

Well, I'll tell you what. Since you're paying attention, while I am hopelessly clueless, why don't we make a wager on it. I'll bet you a thousand dollars the Trump will not get the EU, Russia, and China to agree on new sanctions by the end of his first time.

Care to take my bet?

Kevin said...

But, but, what if Iran starts enriching uranium again?????

An Israeli-Iran war would not be a limited conflict. Both sides would attempt to destroy the other’s capacity to fight, and the odds for the moment favor Israel.

Two dozen Israeli missiles or bomber sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours, and that makes a war unlikely for the time being. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. And as Hillel Frisch points out in the Jerusalem Post, with a bit more effort Israel could eliminate the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Sure. Saudi Arabia might act to help out it's neighbor, Iran, who is supplying the missiles that are being fired at the country from Yemen.

Seriously, you DON'T know what's going on in the world.


How awful that Yemen has fired rockets at a country that has been attacking and bombing it for two yeas and is currently trying to starve it into submission by blockading food and bombing farms and agricultural facilities.

Saudi Arabia is a client of the US, and the primary goal of its oil production in recent years was the desire to drive US shale producers into bankruptcy.

langford peel said...

There is absolutely no benefit to our remaining in NATO. The nations of NATO add nothing to our defense. They can barely muster up a corporals guard. Look at the last action in Syria as fucked up as that was. Germany refused to participate. England sent a few Sopwith Camels. The French sent a couple of backs of gauloises and half a baguette. Half! Not even a full one. What the fuck do we need these pussies for anyway? They can't even stop their children from getting groomed and turned out by Muslim cab drivers. They are more interested in killing babies and bringing in more Muslim refugees then they are in defending themselves.

Bring our boys home. End the endless wars and foreign entanglements.

America First.

Kevin said...

Well, I'll tell you what. Since you're paying attention, while I am hopelessly clueless, why don't we make a wager on it. I'll bet you a thousand dollars the Trump will not get the EU, Russia, and China to agree on new sanctions by the end of his first time.

China isn't going to agree to new sanctions. If you kept up, you'd know that.

They're doing their part in NoKo, something people said they'd never do.

langford peel said...

How much is Iran paying you J Farmer?

Or are you just a patriot in the same style as John Kerry and Jane Fonda.

Kevin said...

How awful that Yemen has fired rockets at a country that has been attacking and bombing it for two yeas and is currently trying to starve it into submission by blockading food and bombing farms and agricultural facilities.

You're ducking the point, as you tend to do. Why does SA want to help Iran when Iran is selling missiles to Yemen?

Saudi Arabia is a client of the US, and the primary goal of its oil production in recent years was the desire to drive US shale producers into bankruptcy.

Yep, and then they got a new ruler. You probably didn't hear about that either.

Michael K said...

Apparently you operated under the assumption that anything that comes from the Saudis must be taken as gospel.

As do you about Iran.

I am starting to wonder about you Farmer.

Saudi Arabia is a client of the US, and the primary goal of its oil production in recent years was the desire to drive US shale producers into bankruptcy.

Both SA and Russia tried that and failed. SA now has bigger fish to fry.

Iran is knocking on the door and the only two allies SA has are the US and Israel.

I am wondering about you.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

China isn't going to agree to new sanctions.

China and India account for a third of Iran's oil imports. How much pressure can sanctions put without these two participating?

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

As do you about Iran.

I am starting to wonder about you Farmer.


No, I've never advocated that. In fact, I have said just the opposite. The reason you have an inspections regime is because you don't trust a state.

Iran is knocking on the door and the only two allies SA has are the US and Israel.

Saudi Arabia is not an ally of the US or Israel.

langford peel said...

"China and India account for a third of Iran's oil imports. How much pressure can sanctions put without these two participating?"

Iran imports oil? That's odd. You mean exports.

Still we can pick up the slack with discounted shale oil or oil freed up by domestic drilling. It will benefit our economy and choke off the lifeline of a despotic Muslim regime. Win/win.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

You're ducking the point, as you tend to do. Why does SA want to help Iran when Iran is selling missiles to Yemen?

Saudi Arabia and Iran still coordinate through OPEC, including giving Iran an exemption from OPEC cuts. The Saudis do not agree to such things out a desire to help the Iranians, but because it is necessary to achieve their own self-interested goals.

Yep, and then they got a new ruler. You probably didn't hear about that either.

Yes, and his record thus far as included violent kidnappings, torture, and execution of potential regime opponents, the supplying, funding, and arming of Sunni rebels in Syria that turned into ISIS, and the empowerment of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But hey, he gave Trump a party and pays lip service to modernization, so he must be all right. I am sure the leader of Saudi Arabia would never once imagine acting with any sort of cynicism.

langford peel said...

"Saudi Arabia is not an ally of the US or Israel."

Of course not. Countries do not have permanent allies only permanent interests. Currently our interests coincide. For now. We should use that to get what we want. Realpolitik. Don't knock it until you try it.

Birkel said...

I might believe your points more fully if you were a little more Smug.

Michael K said...

Saudi Arabia is not an ally of the US or Israel.

I still don't understand your thinking. The Saudi government/royal family have been allies of the US since 1945.

Members of the royal family, which is the size of a small city, have funded terrorism and the royal family made a devil's bargain after the attack on Mecca 40 years go to allow the religious police to impose all sorts of tyranny on the female population, which has been resented. MBS is trying to do two things.

One is to prepare for the end of the oil age.

The second is to control the religious police, who are government employees.

You sound a bit like an Iranian spokesman. Are you sure you don't need to register?

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

I might believe your points more fully if you were a little more Smug.

It'll be difficult but for you, buddy, I'll give it a try.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I still don't understand your thinking. The Saudi government/royal family have been allies of the US since 1945.

No, they have been clients of the US since 1945.

You sound a bit like an Iranian spokesman. Are you sure you don't need to register?

By any objective measure, Iran is a more open society than Saudi Arabia and has been less destructive in the region. What was the most significant security concern in the Middle East of the last several years? The rise of ISIS. That rise can be explicitly linked to the Saudis and the UAE and Turkey funding and arming radical Sunni jihadists in Syria.

Birkel said...

Turkey:
Another reason to reconsider NATO.

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "The reason you have an inspections regime is because you don't trust a state."

What, pray tell, is the reason for having a totally fake and illusory "inspections" regime?

The lies we tell ourselves....

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Another reason to reconsider NATO.

Agree. Another among many.

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

What, pray tell, is the reason for having a totally fake and illusory "inspections" regime?

It was neither fake nor illusory; that is just shit people like you pull out of the air because you lack substantive critiques of a deal you seemingly relish being ignorant about.

Michael K said...

OK. Farmer is a fan of Iran and the mullahs.

Got it. Why didn't you say so ?

Birkel said...

Another implies others.
You see? That's the Smug that keeps on Smugging. You just can't help yourself, you Smug Smugster. You ooze Smug.

And that is why you will never get substance out of me, you Smug lockable Smugwich.

Anonymous said...

@ Farmer Here's what happened in oil markets YESTERDAY (!) - the day Trump pulled us out of the rotten Iran agreement: "President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear agreement and to impose “powerful” economic sanctions on Tehran wasn’t enough to turn oil prices positive on Tuesday.

"Oil futures did cut some of their earlier losses to finish off session lows. June West Texas Intermediate crude CLM8, +2.97% the U.S. benchmark, settled at $69.06 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down $1.67, or nearly 2.4%, for the session, but up from the day’s low of $67.63. It was trading at around $68.68 before the announcement.

July Brent crude LCON8, +3.07% the global benchmark, ended at $74.85 on ICE Futures Europe, down $1.32, or 1.7%, for the day, after a low at $73.10."
(Market Watch)

Here's a short primer on the oil market from Business Insider I find it hard to believe that the American consumer will be effected by any amount that Iran pumps or doesn't pump.

There was a price spike today, but most commenters see that as part of the adjustment that will be made between demand and supply. Iran,at best, supplies 3% of the daily oil production in the world; easily replaced. The much larger impacts are what the Saudis do and what may or may not happen in Venezuela.

Anonymous said...

One might ask why Farmer is one of the few people on this side of the pond who think the Iran inspection regime was adequate.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question about constitutional authority for Syrian action: "The Obama administration justified US military action against IS on a broad controversial reading of the 2001 AUMF that justified the war in Afghanistan and against "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces" — even though IS did not exist at the time of the 2001 AUMF and is a rival of al-Qaeda. The Trump administration has justified continued anti-IS operations in Syria under the same 17-year-old AUMF that the Obama administration used. It has said it has no intention of seeking a new AUMF from Congress."

Another view: "Dunlap, who held the position as deputy judge advocate general for the US Air Force, suggested that Congress has implicitly supported the US military action in Syria by funding it. But he said Congress should still debate a new AUMF."

Here's the whole article.

Anonymous said...

@ Farmer How is an inspection routine effective when your inspectors are not allowed to look at places most likely to be used for nuclear work?

"Iran has argued that inspections of military sites would violate national sovereignty, although the 2015 deal it signed with the United States and five other world powers allows inspectors to gain limited access to any site where illicit nuclear activity is suspected.

There is a growing debate among experts over whether inspectors should demand access to military sites, including those that in the past were suspected of being linked to nuclear-related activities.

Last week, the Institute for Science and International Security, a group of leading scientists that has argued for stricter monitoring of the Iran deal, released a report calling on the United States and other parties to the nuclear deal to require the IAEA to request access to the Parchin facility. The group believes Iran might have used the facility to conduct tests to see how certain materials react under high pressure, conditions similar to a nuclear explosion."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html

As Judge Ellis says "Cmon, man!"

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Another implies others.

You see? That's the Smug that keeps on Smugging.


Another among many is different than another among a few. You see? I know you are desperate for my attention, and I've agreed to give it to you. You don't have to try so hard. Very unbecoming.

Birkel said...

I guess the current inspection regime tells us which areas to bomb first - the areas that inspectors are not allowed.

So there's that.

Seeing Red said...

It just sounds like a version of

We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.

They pretend to look, we pretend....

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

OK. Farmer is a fan of Iran and the mullahs.

Got it. Why didn't you say so ?


Thank you, Michael. Any time I start believing reasonable conversation with you is possible, you reliably remind me what an utter bore you are.

Birkel said...

Smug just Smugged again.

J. Farmer said...

@Khesanh 0802:

There was a price spike today, but most commenters see that as part of the adjustment that will be made between demand and supply.

I'll have to take your as to what these amorphous "most commenters" believe or don't believe. But for another perspective: Oil Prices Jump, Rattled by Trump’s Decision to Reinstate Iran Sanctions

The Trump administration has justified continued anti-IS operations in Syria under the same 17-year-old AUMF that the Obama administration used. It has said it has no intention of seeking a new AUMF from Congress."

Translation: they have no constitutional authority; they're just relying on the same bogus legal arguments the previous two administrations have relied on.

One might ask why Farmer is one of the few people on this side of the pond who think the Iran inspection regime was adequate.

I didn't realize you had conducted a pole on this. But there is also Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster to name just a couple off the top of my head. Then there's the editorial board of The National Interest, Foreign Policy, and Foreign Affairs, the Arms Control Association, and the Carnegie Endowment.

@ Farmer How is an inspection routine effective when your inspectors are not allowed to look at places most likely to be used for nuclear work?

Military sites are not the "places most likely to be used for nuclear work." Iran's entire fuel cycle is under surveillance and monitoring by the IAEA, and IAEA staff have work space in Iran's nuclear facilities and nearby.

Also, the JCPOA has mechanisms for inspecting undeclared sites.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Smug just Smugged again.

Anything for you, sweetheart. You're such a fan of mine, I suppose I owe you some recognition. Thank you for dutifully reading and responding to every word I write. I really do appreciate it.

Birkel said...

Mechanisms? Sounds fun.
More straightforward methods would be more straightforward.
But mechanisms sound good too.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Well your father pulling out and you ending up running down the crack of your mother's ass and ending up as a brown stain on the mattress would be good, too. But hey, we can't always get what we want.

H/T Gunnery Sergeant Hartman

Birkel said...

You work Smug better than you work Blue.

Clyde said...

Looking over the other articles by this Peter Baker fellow, it's apparent that there's nothing that Trump could do to please him other than resign. Looks like he's part of the 91%.

Clyde said...

One person's "China breaking" is another person's iconoclasm. And given the depth of malfeasance and bad policy by the previous administration, the sound of the shattering icons sounds like a beautiful melody to me.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

You work Smug better than you work Blue.

We all have our talents. I do my best to be smug and you do your best to demonstrate the effects of having a stupid bitch for a mother and a punk ass for a father. I can only hope that your parents are maggot food by now and have not survived to see what an utter loser they produced. If they are still alive, I hope you've found some way to forgive. I'll keep you in my prayers, Birks.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. Eh, you're right. It really isn't my style. Try as I might the dominant emotion I can manage for you is pity. Oh well. We all play our parts. I'll play smug and you can keep perfecting your role of anonymous internet douche.

Birkel said...

That inner anger looks good on you. Wear it more proudly. That much Smug is almost always a cover for something else. I wouldn't hazard a guess at the cause.

As for me, I cannot be raised to care about you or any other internet troll. You feign at conversation and exchanging ideas but have yet to do anything but dismiss anybody else's differing opinion. So I call you Smug because that is what you display.

There is no emotion in observing your pattern of behavior. You are Smug.

Michael K said...

Any time I start believing reasonable conversation with you is possible, you reliably remind me what an utter bore you are.

Is that you, Inga ?

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Is that you, Inga ?

I certainly hope your performance here is not reflective of your general skills . Otherwise, I suspect you have quite a bit of patients' blood on your hands due to some toxic combination of hubris and incompetence.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

There is no emotion in observing your pattern of behavior. You are Smug.

Oh no, you've already mentioned you do it for attention. What a fulfilled life you must lead, Birkel. Of course, we'll never know, because like most Internet loudmouths, you're too much of a gutless coward to present yourself anyway other than anonymously.

Michael K said...

Farmer is losing it. Why not post on that Megan McArdle thread ?

Lots of stuff that sounds like you.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Farmer is losing it.

Not losing it, just adopting an if you can't beat em, join em strategy. But since my favorite saint is Jude, the saint of lost causes, I will waste my time one more time in a vain effort of trying to communicate on a reasonable basis.

I wrote: "By any objective measure, Iran is a more open society than Saudi Arabia and has been less destructive in the region. What was the most significant security concern in the Middle East of the last several years? The rise of ISIS. That rise can be explicitly linked to the Saudis and the UAE and Turkey funding and arming radical Sunni jihadists in Syria."

Your response: "OK. Farmer is a fan of Iran and the mullahs."

If you actually believe that your statement follows logically from mine, then I highly suggest you review cranial nerves 1 through 13.

Birkel said...

Whinging and Smug do not mix well.

Birkel said...

I will note your penchant for poorly paraphrasing me. You pretend not to like that when others do it to you.

I suggest you lash out for my noticing that deception, again.

mockturtle said...

Pardon my lack of objectivity here, Farmer, but you are a giant pain in the ass.

Michael K said...

I thought Farmer was a commenter you could have a debate with. My bad.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Pardon my lack of objectivity here, Farmer, but you are a giant pain in the ass.

Sweet of you to say. Thanks.

Michael K:

I thought Farmer was a commenter you could have a debate with. My bad.

Here's an idea. How about just addressing the points I make instead of trying to insult me personally. So let's try this really simply.

Here's what I wrote: ""By any objective measure, Iran is a more open society than Saudi Arabia and has been less destructive in the region. What was the most significant security concern in the Middle East of the last several years? The rise of ISIS. That rise can be explicitly linked to the Saudis and the UAE and Turkey funding and arming radical Sunni jihadists in Syria.""

Explain why what I wrote there is wrong. So far, the total of your responses has been "OK. Farmer is a fan of Iran and the mullahs" and "I thought Farmer was a commenter you could have a debate with. My bad."

Perhaps you could explain how those two statements have fuck all to do with an empirical claim I made. But I'm not holding my breath.

Birkel said...

"...Address() the points I make."
[I will address none of yours.]

Smug has a way about him.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

[I will address none of yours.]

Smug has a way about him.


Right. That's why I quote people here and write responses to things they said, because I "address none of yours." Really, Birkel, I know you are desperate for my attention, but you really do need to try better.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. Of course, Birkel, if you care to point out a point here that you believe I did not address. I would be more than happy to give it attention. I won't hold my breath.

Birkel said...

Again, Smug, I have yet to see you address a single person except to dismiss them. Smug away. I will mention the inherent Smug in you. And mostly when the threads are already dead, I will mention your Smugness.

You could not persuade a single person because your Smug is too thick to penetrate. Smug makes you unlikeable. Smug away.

Michael K said...

A retired foreign service officer dares to disagree with Farmer.

Trump knows how to do foreign policy. We've had to put up with decades of condescending lectures from the traditional foreign policy "elites" on how difficult foreign policy is, how it's just more complex than YOU could ever understand, don't try it at home, leave it to the experts. It seems that our President is following in the foot-steps of Ronald Reagan and even blazing a few paths of his own when it comes to foreign policy. Amazing how a clear articulation and demonstration of strength and a refusal to accept the standard bromides produces different results. What's that definition of crazy? Shall we say, President Trump is destroying the world order in order to save the world? Sounds good.

But Farmer with his decades of service overseas know better.

Michael K said...

Iran is a more open society than Saudi Arabia and has been less destructive in the region.

The Green Re volution kids could not be reached to argue with you. Especially the one shot dead by the Basij, the IRGC paramilitary that was shooting from sniper locations.

Āghā-Soltān was the middle child of a middle-class family of three children,[12] whose family resided in a fourth floor flat on Meshkini Street in the Tehrānpars district of Tehran.[13] Her father is a civil servant and her mother is a homemaker.[12] She was graduating from Islamic Āzād University, where she had studied Islamic theology as well as secular philosophies, but she withdrew after two semesters of study for two reasons, one being a disagreement with her husband Amir and his family, and the other being the atmosphere and the pressure of the authorities towards her appearance and dress in the university.

I know, the Saudi religious police have punished women and even a couple of princesses have been executed.

Still, things are changing in Saudi while the Iran revolt continues.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

The Green Re volution kids could not be reached to argue with you.

The "green revolution kids" were supported by Mir Hossein Mousavi. Perhaps you can tell how supporting him for president would have led to the end of the Mullahs.

Still, things are changing in Saudi while the Iran revolt continues.

So, in your mind, the fact that Saudi Arabia helped create ISIS is mitigated by the fact that women will be able to attend cinemas. Okay, got you.

But Farmer with his decades of service overseas know better.

And how about the people with "decades of services overseas" who agee with me. I am guessing you don't find them persuasive, so please stop pretending that anyone with "decades of service overseas" ipso facto makes you correct about foreign policy decisions.

So, Michael, just in case were clear, you're okay with Saudi Arabia funding and arming radical sunni jihadists so long as they open up political space for women in Saudi Arabia?

mockturtle said...

The Sunnis and the Shiites are equally dangerous and we should really avoid both whenever possible. To trust the Saudis is to ignore 9/11. We have been hirelings for the Saudis at least since Bush senior. But to side with Shiite Iran under their present government is to ignore their rhetoric regarding Israel.

mockturtle said...

And I might add that my Kuwaiti boyfriend from college days was equally dismissive of Israel's right to nationhood. And this was in the 1960s.

Birkel said...

Decades of service, given the track record of State and CIA, stands against the offered opinion pending further notice.

Michael K said...

So, Michael, just in case were clear, you're okay with Saudi Arabia funding and arming radical sunni jihadists so long as they open up political space for women in Saudi Arabia?

Last response, Farmer. The Saudis have a lot of rich cousins. Some have funded terrorism. The funding of the 9/11 hijackers is unknown and maybe some Saudis did help.

The whole 9/11 caper was run by Osama bin Laden who HATED the Saudi regime and wanted us out of Saudi, which was an ally.

Now, you might have preferred that Saddam take all of Saudi. I can't tell as you seem to be all over the place.

Now, we have fracking that Obama and Hillary tried to block. Cuomo has blocked it in upstate NY and the majority of the state is a disaster area since Kodak went BK.

I really can't figure out where you are coming from. You seem very sure you are right but your opinions, aside from promoting Iran, are all over the place.

mockturtle said...

Farmer: It's not what you say so much as how you say it. We're not holding formal debates or defending our doctoral dissertations here. Most of us are just tossing ideas around for amusement. You're awfully intense. Lighten up, kiddo! ;-)

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Farmer: It's not what you say so much as how you say it. We're not holding formal debates or defending our doctoral dissertations here. Most of us are just tossing ideas around for amusement. You're awfully intense. Lighten up, kiddo! ;-)

"Tossing ideas around for amusement" is basically what I am doing. Obviously what I write here is not going to have much impact in the real world, but it's something I do to help myself work through ideas and because the give and take of ideas is pleasurable in and of itself.

But I tell you what. From now when you write down what you think about a subject, I'll just attack you personally. Deal?


Michael K said...

From now when you write down what you think about a subject, I'll just attack you personally. Deal?

Poor guy. Attacked personally by Andy McCarthy.

The Iran deal empowered the totalitarians. Trump’s exit squeezes them.
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is the greatest boost for American and global security in decades.

If you think that is an exaggeration, then you evidently think the Obama administration’s injection of well over a hundred billion dollars — some of it in the form of cash bribes — into the coffers of the world’s leading state sponsor of anti-American terrorism was either trivial or, more delusionally, a master-stroke of statecraft.

Of course, there’s a lot of delusion going around. After repeatedly vowing to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (with signature “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance” candor), President Obama, and his trusty factotum John Kerry, made an agreement that guaranteed Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon.

They rationalized this dereliction with the nostrum that an unverifiable delay in nuclear-weapons development, coupled with Iran’s coup in reestablishing lucrative international trade relations, would tame the revolutionary jihadist regime, such that it would be a responsible government by the time the delay ended. Meantime, we would exercise an oh-so-sophisticated brand of “strategic patience” as the mullahs continued abetting terrorism, mass-murdering Syrians, menacing other neighbors, evolving ballistic missiles, crushing domestic dissent, and provoking American military forces — even abducting our sailors on the high seas.


Poor Farmer, even attacked personally by the guy who prosecuted the Blind Sheik.

Birkel said...

Smug cannot unSmug. That defies Smug logic.

Daniel Jackson said...

Thanks, Kevin; I read this too

"Two dozen Israeli missiles or bomber sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours, and that makes a war unlikely for the time being. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. And as Hillel Frisch points out in the Jerusalem Post, with a bit more effort Israel could eliminate the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons."

The deal is pretty simple. The US gave Israel long range stealth aviation. The Israelis have already flown over Iran. They really need a forward airbase to take US built aviation. The US has already given over such a facility to Saud.

It will be very quick; there is no need to take out anything after the port is closed. Bottled up, they will be. A second wave, if there is no compliance will be the power plants.

The Mullahs will go. Quickly.

This is not 1979 and Trump, thank God, is not Carter.


Birkel said...

I am no fan of bombing Iran. FTR.

Michael K said...

In 1979, the Joint Chiefs wanted Carter to take out Kargh Island when the "students" took the hostages.

Had he done so, the last 40 years would be quite a bit different. Probably two terms for Carter, maybe no Reagan.

Birkel said...

Michael K,
And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.

Right?

Anonymous said...

Most folks live in the moment. Emotionally. All of us actually...Samsara. The wheel of suffering and death, as Buddha says. Still... We have teams. Elephant/Donkey. We have colors. Blue/Red. (Thanks Tim Russert) The game goes on and on. At the end, what matters? I have lurked here for years. I have learned so much from buwaya and Michael K. I thank them both for their time. I've been amused by Drago/LLR. Laslo, (4chan guy?)vulgar, but made his point. Won't miss Garage Mahal.
I am grateful that Ann Althouse created this space. Thanks Ann. I'm glad you found your guy. He's got a good sense of humor.
I would have preferred less profanity. Please children...you impress no one by throwing around the 'F' word. Civility. Anyway... This life goes by so fast. Be right with God and you're ready to go at any time. You're free. Gotta go.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You OK, James?

Michael K said...

More bad news for Farmer.

In an extremely rare expression of support for an Israeli military operation, the foreign minister of Bahrain on Thursday said Israel’s overnight attack on Iranian targets in Syria was legitimate in light of Tehran’s increasing aggression.

“As long as Iran continues the current status quo of its forces and rockets operating in the region, any country — including Israel — has the right to defend itself by eliminating the source of danger,” Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa posted on his Twitter account, writing in Arabic.

Responding to missiles fired into Israel from Syria, the Israeli Air Force overnight launched a major operation against Iranian targets in the country, wiping out much of Tehran’s military infrastructure there, officials said.

At least 23 troops were killed during the Israeli retaliatory strike, 18 them non-Syrians, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Earlier on Thursday, the UK and Germany condemned the Islamic Republic for shooting rockets at Israeli bases and called on the two sides not to escalate the situation.

“The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest terms the Iranian rocket attacks against Israeli forces. We strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself,” Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said.


The Syrian army said 3 were killed.



Michael K said...

More bad news for Farmer, if Althouse ever kets us out of moderation.

For decades—since the Iranian revolution, in fact—it has paid for lesser nations to ruffle the eagle’s feathers. Rather than bite back, American presidents from George H. W. Bush to Obama have turned the other cheek to near-continuous provocation; indeed, it took the enormity of 9/11 for George W. Bush to rouse the nation to action, and even then it was largely wasted on “nation-building” projects in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that were never really nations in the first place.

What should have been a punitive expedition against recrudescent Islam, several orders of magnitude greater than that of Kitchener at Omdurman, has since morphed into the Endless War—one that gives military procurers, Army lawyers, and the striped-pants set permanent employment, even as our capabilities have been degraded, our capital squandered, our young people killed and maimed, and “diplomats” like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have racked up air mileage at public expense and accomplishing exactly nothing.


Maybe she will get around to it.