john

So far I have refrained from engaging with Citrinowicz's analyses. But they keep popping up on my feed (even though I don't follow him), and it's something peope seem to talk about on this platform, so I'll say a few words about them in general, using the quoted post as a case study. These analyses all have the same very reliable pattern; once you read two or three, you have more or less read all of them. Here's how it goes. Step 1: Identify a problem that the US and Israel face in the war against Iran. Step 2: Offer two alternative solutions to the problem, a hawkish one that involves some kind of escalation, and a dovish one that in effect consists in ending the war. Step 3: The first option is presented as guaranteed to fail, because it won't cause the desired behavior on Iran's part. Step 4: Therefore, by exclusion we are stuck with the second option. The second option is presented as admittedly unattractive, but the least bad allowed by the war's path-dependence so far. The tone is always measured, professional, devoid of sarcasm, and uses the familiar, room temperature geopolitical jargon. So, it passes the smell test of impartial, hard-nosed analysis. The only stylistic tell is the common use of 'reality', which in the mouth of left-leaning Israeli commentators is often a code word for "just give up". However, there are recurring problems with Citrinowitz's analyses. Step 1 is often presented as an unavoidable dilemma, with no clear third option. But more often than not, this is just wrong. For example, in this case, Citrinowitz doesn't explain why Trump couldn't simply live with high oil prices on the Asian markets for a while. (Don't argue me on this point, it's just one example; I'm not saying he should do that. I'm saying that the situation is misrepresented as a dilemma between two extremes, when in fact there are intermediate options.) The framing of Step 2 typically assumes that Israel and the US face hard choices, while Iran's behavior is pre-determined and completely unresponsive to incentives. The implicit assumption is that the allied forces must fold, because... well, because Iran won't. Why is that, though? Perhaps Iran is in an even more difficult position? Perhaps squeezing it some more will force it to face very uncomfortable dilemmas, too? Iran is an actor with agency, and it isn't immune to behavioral incentives. Step 3 usually either includes a logical jump or stops before thinking the game through a few more steps further. In this case: sure, let's assume that Iran chooses further escalation. What then? Certainly, they can cause more pain both to the Gulf states and to global energy markets. This is a consideration, but is it decisive? Does Iran have nothing more to lose at that point? Citrinowitz tacitly assumes the answer to these questions, but doesn't argue for them. Ultimately, this last issue boils down to values, and it depends on how much importance is placed on the war's objectives vs. the costs that result from the fallout. Perhaps defanging Iran is worth a very high cost? In Citrinowitz's universe, the US and Israel need to adapt to Iran's behavior, but Iran's own behavior is a fixed parameter, completely rigid and unresponsive to incentives. The US and Israel must carefully consider Iran's responses, but Iran doesn't need to fear how the US and Israel might respond to its retiliatory steps. Citrinowitz's Iran isn't a real country with decision makers, objectives, economic realities, munition constraints, and its own tendencies toward poor decision making. It's an elaborate jungle of dead man's switches, pre-set by a bored God who wants the US and Israel to enact Wile E. Coyote, who despite its elaborate scheming always ends up a victim of his own inaptitude, and Iran to play the Road Runner, who in his cluelessness somehow always emerges unscathed.

I support Carrie Prejean Boller 💯! She stopped by my office today with her husband, and I gave her one of the debt badges that I invented to show my appreciation for her bravery with respect to the White House Religious Freedom Commission. I’m inspired by her resolve.

"Do you consider it the duty of the US president to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?" TS: "I don't know what earthly chance the Western world has once Iran has those weapons. They said themselves that their top priority is not Iran but Allah."

Benjamin Netanyahu: "What do we see? What happens if the, are there any signs that the Iranian regime is cracking?" "A lot of signs. A lot of signs. I wish I could divulge all of them, but I see that." "But will I tell you, will I commit right now that it's gonna collapse? I could tell you that we're working to create the conditions for it to collapse, but it may survive. It may not."

Qatar’s Prime Minister: This war needs to stop immediately. The aggression needs to stop immediately. Because everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is, and dragging the whole region into this conflict is.

I support the establishment of a strong Christian-Druze state serving as a homeland to which millions of displaced Lebanese Christians can return, along with Christian communities adjacent to it added, based on the 18th century coalition to replace the national pact of the 1920s, which has failed and will continue to do so.

Anne Applebaum nails it: