by liberal japonicus
I know that I’ve expressed my frustration with Ezra Klein, but this interview is really worth a listen. I’ve cued it up at the point that I think is really worth attending to, discussing how Iran approached the US post 9-11 and how it was rebuffed, but I recommend the whole thing (and will post a transcript link if someone share it with me)
That someone can be me! If this is what lj meant, the transcript is included in this gift link (it doesn’t start in exactly the same place, but goes on with the stuff in lj’s video):
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ali-vaez.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TVA.Pk5_.8_X0pkHJtduY&smid=url-share
Regarding any past missteps by Ezra Klein (I’m thinking of, as I assume lj is, his comments after Charlie Kirk got killed), my view is very definitely that one doesn’t have to agree with every single thing someone has ever said or done to find their contributions useful, valuable or interesting. And Ezra Klein is certainly a frequent provider of all three kinds of contributions.
The only reason that Ezra Klein interview is not more depressing is that I already knew about many of the missteps (from our point of view) that the US has made. Not just the many things that we have done wrong, but the multiple opportunities to do something right which we have ignored.
That’s what makes the JPCOA so impressive. Under Obama, we (eventually) did something right. Of course, Trump insists that anything and everything that Obama did must be reversed. So, another opportunity squandered. And now he’s making another huge mess (making messes being, arguably, his core “competency”). There’s no way that ends well. The main question is: will it be a massive failure or an epic fail?
Still, making the heroic assumption that we manage to preserve our own nation, there is reason for hope. The last 3/4 century notwithstanding, Iran has remained open to good relations with the US. Maybe we will even get an administration which will take yes for an answer.
my view is very definitely that one doesn’t have to agree with every single thing someone has ever said or done to find their contributions useful, valuable or interesting.
That suggests that I am someone who has to agree with everything that someone has ever said or done before I find it valuable or interesting, I hope you realize how that could be taken badly. (and which isn’t the case, btw).
While the Charlie Kirk paean is the most egregious, I’ve noted that Klein is often competing for that David Broder Bloviator in Chief position. Given where we find ourselves, it seems obvious to me that this inability to call out stuff back in the day goes some way to explaining why we are experiencing this dumpster fire.
Klein often says that he wants to ‘steelman’ a position (more often than not, one of Trump or the administration) when he has guests who are taking issue with those policies, but when he has guests who are defending those policies, he seems to soft pedal his points. The most recent time was this one, with Nadia Schadlow who served as a deputy national security adviser during Trump’s first term (and is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, which, if her argumentation is anything to go by, the place must be an ouroboros, eating its own tail). While there are a number of points where Schadlow falls into a painful silence, I wish he had taken some of Vaez’s historical facts and set them in front of her.
I was talking/thinking about purity politics, lj, a subject we have often discussed here on ObWi. You often refer to, or link to, Ezra Klein pieces, IMO very understandably, even though his Charlie Kirk comments were outrageous and no doubt he’s behaved or expressed himself not absolutely as many of us would have liked/done on many occasions. But he provides interesting interviews, with interesting people, and he’s an important voice to have on the NYT which is (if I understand correctly) still a hugely influential newspaper in the US media context.
When you make that observation immediately after I acknowledge my problems with Klein, it makes it seem like I am being too hard on him and I should ease up.
As another example, here is David Frum talking to Beto O’Rourke
https://youtu.be/6x0O7DgC3sA?si=5-kEtlCooj9AwFRE
Frum has some interesting insights, most notably about O’Rourke’s candidacy compared to Tim Walz, but he opens with a discussion of Iran as the world’s leader in sponsoring terrorism. I wonder how he would deal with the points made by Vaez.
These sorts of mistakes are ones that the US does time and time again. Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed the Independence of Vietnam and the OSS guys who worked with him were saying that he was the person we should support. If we had moved towards Khatami’s efforts, we might not be in the shitstorm we are now.
I certainly don’t think you’re “being too hard on him”, nor that you’re not being hard enough. (Which reminds me of that wonderful interview with Shane MacGowan, where the interviewer says in passing that, as is well known, SMG drinks too much. He says “I don’t drink too much”, so she says “Oh, I suppose you think you don’t drink enough”, to which he unforgettably replies “No, I drink enough”.)
I just don’t necessarily think this is a helpful or nuanced way to think about people – I think most interesting people are multi-faceted, with complicated worldviews and opinions, and unless these skew very much to the “evil” side of the scale, as long as the people are bright, knowledgeable and interesting it can be worthwhile considering what they say. Even sometimes (maybe even often) when one doesn’t agree with them on whatever the topic is.
Here is some background and analysis of Ezra Klein. Some of the criticisms of him in the thread are referenced.
“Overall, Klein’s reputation is polarizing but enduringly influential within left-of-center media and politics—admired for intellectual depth by fans, critiqued as performative or compromised by skeptics across the spectrum. His style thrives on long podcasts and columns that engage seriously with ideas, but this same trait draws accusations of detachment from raw political realities. Public perception shifts with events (e.g., Democratic losses or cultural flashpoints), but he consistently ranks as a key voice shaping liberal policy debates rather than a neutral everyman journalist.”
Ezra Klein: Reputation and Polarizing Influence
Thanks Charles, always helpful to know what Grok brings to the table…
The video often refers to the US reneging on promises to Iran and it seems to me that Republicans always are in power when the dominoes are set up.
-CIA under Eisenhower along with MI6 assassinates Mosaddegh and installs the Shah
-Nixon goes to Iran and gives them a blank check for military purchases, allowing them to buy any non-nuclear weapons system the US has
-Ford encourages the development of nuclear power, which is why post revolution Iran was able to think about acquiring a nuclear capability
-Takeover of the Iranian embassy because Carter allows the Shah to be treated in the US (in line with promises made by Nixon and Kissinger)
-Reagan’s October surprise of (alleged) backdoor negotiations with Iran to have Carter lose the election
-Reagan sends in US Marines to Lebanon rather than pressure Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, forced the PLO to leave, allowing Hezbollah to fill the vacuum, which led to the Marine barracks bombing
-Iran-contra under Reagan, precisely because of the US putting Marine boots on the ground in Lebanon
-Bush Sr gets help with the Lebanon hostage release but reneges on promises to ease sanctions
-Bush Jr rejects Iranian offers of help after 9-11 and declares they are part of the Axis of Evil
-first term Trump withdraws the US from Obama’s JCPOA and reinstates ‘maximum sanctions’
-Biden comes to an agreement with Iran that in exchange for the release of 5 prisoners, $6 billion in oil revenue be released for humanitarian aid, but the Republican House passes a law that prevents that money from being released
-2nd term Trump does one attack to ‘obliterate’ the Iranian nuclear programs and the ‘double-dips’ with the dumpster fire we now see
Funnily enough, regarding your previous point about Frum and his attitude to the Iran situation, I’ve just been reading the transcript of his conversation with Alastair Campbell in which (among other things) he makes it clear that contrary to the opinion of most of us, and most commentators, even in the US, he thinks there WAS an imminent threat from Iran.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this: given that if I knew about most of, if not all, of the events in Iranian history outlined by you (and Vaez) above, you can bet that Frum did too (and more), I had to wonder why his understanding of the history did not influence his opinion of the situation in the modern context (i.e. Iraq war, and now). I wonder if it is something to do with a different concept of imminent threat, and its likely consequences. So even if one fully understands the appalling history of the US (and UK) involvement in Iran, somehow for some purposes some people can draw a line between past causes, and present conditions. (And in Frum’s case, of course, there is probably also the understandable impulse – experienced by many of us – to excuse actions committed by our ideological allies.)
Another thing that makes me think this is the case of my cousin in Israel. She is a Holocaust survivor (she was a little girl who was smuggled out of a concentration camp, and who spent years being hidden in a dog kennel), probably now in her 80s. She and her husband are and have always been impeccably liberal/lefty peaceniks and supporters of Palestinian rights in Israeli politics, and eloquent opponents of e.g. Likud and Netanyahu. But in our exchanges (where I wish her and her family safety etc), she recently sent me an article in which, among other things, the author says that while some people see their country as a setting, others see it as a lifeline. Given my cousin’s history, and given that the destruction of Israel has been a frequently broadcast article of faith since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, I wondered (without asking her) whether even people with her kind of political ideas think the war against Iran is justified, and must be pursued. I haven’t checked with her, because I don’t want to introduce any controversy in the current circumstances, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
So this is the sort thing I think about when I say that people are complicated, and products of their individual experiences, and that even if one disagrees with some of their views it need not necessarily influence one’s opinion of their other attitudes.
Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner, I suppose. If you want to look at Frum, there is this, which is the prelude to his talk with Beto O’Rourke.
Now, if you watched my dialogue with Tom Nichols last week, you’ve noticed I have a lot of sympathy for at least the stated goals of confronting Iran: to punish the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and to deliver the promised help to the brave people of Iran, who rose in January against an oppressive government, one of the most repressive and aggressive governments in the world. They rose in hundreds of thousands and were killed in the thousands. The president of the United States promised to help them, and I think, even when the president is Donald Trump, the promises of the president should be made good.
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/03/david-frum-show-beto-orourke-texas-democrats/686322/
The podcast took place before Khameni jr was elected, but after he experienced this
According to Iranian state media and reports from the region, the following members of the Khamenei family were killed in that strike:
Ali Khamenei: The previous Supreme Leader (father of the current leader).
Zahra Haddad-Adel: The wife of the current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Mohammad Bagher Khamenei: The 18-year-old son of Mojtaba Khamenei.
One of Ali Khamenei’s daughters: (A sister of the current leader).
A granddaughter of Ali Khamenei: (A 14-month-old niece of the current leader).
Misbah al-Huda Bagheri Kani: The husband of one of Ali Khamenei’s daughters (brother-in-law of the current leader).
While early reports suggested Ali Khamenei’s wife, Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, had also died, Iranian state media later clarified that she survived the attack. The current leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was reportedly wounded in the strike but survived.
Given that Frum proudly takes credit for including Iran in the Axis of Evil, which made its debut after Iran offered to help the US in the wake of 9-11, I wonder if he has ever paused to wonder how he would feel is some nation-state had wreaked similar havoc on his family. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner indeed.
Given that Frum proudly takes credit for including Iran in the Axis of Evil, which made its debut after Iran offered to help the US in the wake of 9-11
So does that mean that you think having offered to help the US after 9/11 automatically means that Iran should have been entitled to be excluded from whatever (questionable to say the least) qualifications Frum et al considered necessary to be included in the Axis of Evil? That seems rather transactional..
It’s not a question of what I think. It is if you can imagine that Iran may have thought they were getting screwed. A gemini summary
======
Following the September 11 attacks, Iran provided significant tactical and diplomatic assistance to the United States, primarily centered on their shared interest in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.
Military and Intelligence Cooperation
Search and Rescue: Iran offered to use its territory and personnel to perform search-and-rescue operations for any American pilots downed in Afghan territory.
Intelligence Sharing: Iranian officials provided the U.S. with maps and intelligence regarding Taliban positions.
Logistics: Tehran gave the U.S. safe passage for humanitarian aid and cooperated with the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces to supply the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban coalition that Iran had supported for years.
Military Training: Iranian officials offered to help the U.S. build and train a new Afghan National Army, proposing to quarter and train up to 20,000 recruits.
Diplomatic Assistance
The Bonn Conference (2001): During the negotiations to establish a post-Taliban government, Iranian envoy Javad Zarif worked closely with U.S. envoy James Dobbins. Zarif was instrumental in:
Persuading Northern Alliance leaders to accept a smaller share of power to ensure a stable interim government.
Insisting that the final agreement include a commitment to democracy and the war on terrorism.
Financial Aid: At the 2002 Tokyo donors’ conference, Iran pledged $500 million for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the largest pledge from any of Afghanistan’s neighbors.
Security and Al-Qaeda
Border Control: Iran arrested hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives who fled across the border from Afghanistan. While some were later held under “house arrest” or used as leverage, many were deported to their home countries or detained.
Despite this cooperation, the relationship soured in January 2002 when President George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union address.
=====
Given that 9-11 didn’t have anything to do with Iran, and since they hated Iraq, some consideration might have been given to that.
I knew that, after 9/11, Iran offered help. Including free passage, not just for aid but for troops and supplies (vs. us paying thru the nose to transit Pakistan). But the way I heard it was that the Bush administration didn’t even bother to acknowledge the offer. Besides, obviously, not accepting it.
Better, I suppose, to give all that money to Pakistan, so that their ISI could fund the Taliban. Otherwise the Saudi’s might be outraged that we were improving relations with the Iranians, who they hate/fear.
Another data point, the Iranian envoy Javad Zarif, who worked on the negotiations, and is not a hardliner, had sanctions put on him during Trump’s first term. Zarif tweeted at that time that it was peace that was the “existential threat” to the US and Israel. Can’t really argue with him on that.
https://www.mtv.com.lb/news/952572
This pull graf is of interest
Senator Chris Murphy, a Democratic member of the Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the administration’s move.
“If our position is really that we want to negotiate with Iran than maybe we shouldn’t sanction their chief negotiator,” Murphy posted on Twitter.
Wendy Sherman, who was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Iran nuclear deal under Obama, echoed that view and said placing sanctions on Zarif “risks dangerous escalation.”
She linked the action to what Bolton said was a U.S. decision to renew sanctions waivers for Iranian nuclear programs that allow Russia, China and European countries to continue their civilian nuclear cooperation with Tehran.
“One assumes sanctioning Zarif is the price for those waivers. The internal administration battle of war or diplomacy apparently wages on,” said Sherman, who is director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School
Sounds way more transactional to me, but what do I know?
Well, for me, tout comprendre c’est tout comprendre. Unattainable of course, but worth aspiring to.
We’re no longer, after the McKinney era, subject to pathetic panegyrics on how western civilisation is the most advanced and superior civilisation on earth, nor (not that we here have ever been) to the narrative of the subtle and advanced civilisations of the east. As far as I can see, nobody here needs to be convinced of the missteps, stupidities, inhumanities and treacheries of this or various past administrations. (Although, I did notice in the Biden era the tendency of some progressives to illustrate too well Voltaire’s le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. It’s always worth talking about the better, and what it would look like, but one must at the same time be realistic about the world as it is, and the challenges it throws up.) In any case, none of this erases the wholesale oppression and abuse by the Islamic Republic. Nor of course does anything erase the unbelievable corruption, stupidity, ineptitude and short sightedness of the Trump administration.
Of course I am old enough like many here to remember SAVAK’s repression, and the fact that it was CIA trained and backed. But one must also remember that the mullahs backed the coup that ended Iran’s democracy, and Mossadegh’s premiership. History is complicated, and as I said before, a lot depends on the date at which you draw the line “where it all started”.
Scoring points seems unnecessary (I acknowledge I was the first to bring up transactionalism). The camps who are comfortable with emphasising that America is the root of all evil, or that America is the source of all that is good (“Truth, Justice and the American way), are equally ridiculous. The world is complicated, as are people. Cesar Chavez did good, as well as evil. Ezra Klein brings something valuable to the US discourse whether one agrees with him about everything or not. As well as understanding the past, one has to acknowledge the realities of the present. Things are not black or white.
Things are not black or white.
Even classic movies include shades of grey. 😉
My only comment on listening to Klein is that while one can say that he often does put forward some interesting information or start a conversation about something that proves somewhat clarifying, I always start from the knowledge that I am dealing with someone who has an ethos problem, and more than that, someone for whom that ethos problem is part of his brand. He seems to see that gadfly engagement aspect as part of the value he brings to the conversation, and I don’t find it at all charming or helpful or necessary.
Even classic movies include shades of grey.
More than 30 years ago now — how did I ever get to be this old? — when I was doing research into real-time multi-party multi-media communication over parts of the internet, I needed a placeholder video that (a) was video rather than a slideshow and (b) a 50 MHz 486 processor could simultaneously encode one stream and decode at least two. Out of that came MikeVision, “the world’s ugliest video”: 15 fps, 240×176 black and white pixels. Error diffusion dithering to give the illusion of gray shades. A number of world experts told me that it could never work. In fact, once you got used to it, you could pass an enormous amount of information with it.