Commenter Archive

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

Yes. I was particularly keen on "he's clearly not a historian".

GftNC:

That seems classic British understatement along the lines of Alec Guinness in Smiley’s People.

Sir Richard Dearlove (retired head of MI6 - not called M but C) interviewed by Times Radio:

“Trump blows hot and cold. He shoots his mouth off. It’s a problem in the short term.”

But he added that “one needs to be mature about these things and not worry too much about the medium to long-term impact”.

“Trump has said some pretty odd things. He’s clearly not a historian and he should perhaps be reminded that the US arrived rather late in World War One and World War Two”

Tweeted by Andrew Neil, eminent and respected (but indubitably pretty right wing) political interviewer (BoJo was too scared of him to be interviewed before his last election as PM) whose interview with Ben Shapiro I still treasure. BS had never heard of Neil, had done no research on him but was so outraged by his questions he called him left wing. Andrew Neil just laughed and carried on with the interview:

You want the NATO allies to join you in a war you started without ever consulting these allies about the war or explaining your war aims. We’re meant just to meekly fall in line.
You recently supported a US invasion of a NATO ally (Denmark/Greenland) but now you want these same allies to join your war.
Your president disparaged and misrepresented the role of NATO allies in Afghanistan. But now you want them to join with you again in a war of your making.
You went to war with Iran without a thought of how to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and without involving your allies in the matter. But now you want the NATO allies to bail you out, even though there’s still no plan for Hormuz.
You want the NATO allies to join you in a war in which you still cannot articulate the endgame. Or what victory would look like.
You went to war thinking the Iranian regime would quickly topple, that Tehran would not attack the Gulf States or close Hormuz. Why would we align with such Epic Stupidity?
You and other know-nothing blowhards started this war all on your own. You can finish it on your own. If you’re able to …

Between those revelations and the resignation of Joe Kent (a right-wing loon, mind you), the Bumbler in Chief is having a not-good day.

Oops, I imagine this is going to go down like a lead balloon with the Trump administration (especially the judgement on Kushner and Witkoff), and only add to their anger at the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach

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

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.

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 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.

It's back now. This morning it was absent in that thread, not in the others.

The FCC boss now threatens the licences of broadcasters that are not sufficiently enthusiastic about the 'but do not call it war' in Iran. And His Orangeness is enthusiastic about that, adding his usual 'dissent is treason' refrain.
But I assume their only sharp tool is to threaten media mergers with vetos, if lines are not toed (Be a good toad, will ye!).

@hartmut, I took the liberty of editing your comment to provide the blockquote formatting. I'm seing all the tools in the comment box on the site. Is your's still missing? If so, you might try a forced refresh.

At the moment the official GOP talking point is that the US and Iran are already at war for 47 years*, i.e. since 1979, so His Orangeness did not start a 'new' war and thus did not break his campaign promise.

*the talking point clearly points to that number given this ridiculous fumble:

Republican Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, tried to peddle the same talking point on Fox News, but he apparently got tripped up and instead said, “We have been at war with Iran since 1947.”

---
The toolbox has disappeared, so I had to go for [ ] for formatting. Hope it works.

Trump said, “Say, three and a half years from now, so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections.”

Suddenly it becomes clear why he has started a war with Iran. Expect him to say, at some point, that what actually happened is that Iran declared war on us. Because, after all, he is always the victim. No matter how totally history has to be rewritten falsified to get there.

I agree with him. We should settle by other means, as armed conservatives have recommended since I was knee-high to a Goebbels.

The Republican Party is Timothy McVeigh. Too bad fertilizer prices are stuck between a Hormuz Strait and 80 milllion vermin running the country.

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-muses-on-midterms-when-you-think-of-it-we-shouldnt-even-have-an-election

Bring it on.

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.

thanks, nous

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.

a number of American social scientists had been doing contract and consultation work for the Defense Department.

The challenge, always, is to figure out whether the work you are doing will be used for unethical ends. Sometimes, that's easy. But other times, it isn't -- especially with work which might, or might not, be used for unethical purposes. Social science has that issue, but so does medicine, engineering, etc.

It's easy, especially after the fact and with 20/20 hindsight based on more complete information, to say "Obviously this work...." It takes actual effort to work out what information the actors had, and the context they were working in. Pundits rarely, in my observation, are quite that industrious.

I've mentioned Giovanna Borradori's Philosophy in a Time of Terror (2003) a few times here over the years. Borradori's book is her dialogues with Habermas and Derrida speaking with her separately, but responding to parallel questions about terrorism and philosophy in NYC not long after 9/11. It's an extraordinary work, giving the reader a chance to see both philosophers thinking and responding in real time to an extraordinary circumstance. I found it very approachable reading, so it might make a good introduction to anyone wanting to get a taste of Habermas's thinking, and an idea of the philosophical tensions between him and the post-structuralists.

I found Derrida's responses in the book to be very insightful and clarifying, and a good corrective to the straw man portrayals of him as fast-talking charlatan.

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.

pi + 0.01

A comment that refers to "irrationalists" would have been better for Pi Day, but Pi+1 is still appropriate, I guess.

Thanks. I hope it's ok if I use this as no open thread:

Juergen Habermas has died. I doubt many people made it through "The Theory of Communicative Action" but his (and Apel's) discourse ethics were certainly influential when I studied philosophy. The idea that the better argument will eventually win out, together with Gadamer's principle of charity, i.e. assuming that your interlocutor is rational and possibly correct, seems strangely antiquated in these times.

I only ever read "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity" and took away that Habermas tried to valiantly defend Kantian reason against various irrationalists and postmodernist upstarts - however, I wasn't really buying it, especially since he seemed to contradict his own maxims by not really trying to understand where, say, Foucault and Derrida were coming from.
His concept of "Verfassungspatriotismus" (patriotism based on the constitution) was a useful corrective to the nationalist and xenophobic tendencies in Germany.

Finally, he recently made some contentious remarks about Ukraine ("compromise") and Gaza ("Jewish lives are a priority") which exposed the limits of his universalism, a generational shift in German intellectual discourse and left a bit of a sour aftertaste. But then this just showed that even the most rational thinkers are children of their time.