Sam Harris is widely demonized by the know-nothings, and I’m not quite sure why. Yes, he discussed the possibility of torture in certain circumstance, but this was a philosophical rumination which is perfectly justifiable if you have a utilitarian or consequentialist view of ethics, and in fact a similar discussion appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His view are speculative and nuanced, and he thinks the torture by the American government should remain illegal. Nevertheless, over and over again I’ve seen him damned for advocating willy-nilly torture, as if he were some kind of latter-day Josef-Mengele. And that is what I’ve seen people emphasize, though Sam has also discussed the possibility of American preemptive nuclear strikes, the nature of Islam (he’s been deemed an “Islamophobe”), and for profiling groups of people for airline security. That has been more fodder for going after him, though people always neglect the nuance.
I myself have criticized his position on “objective morality,” but that would never make me dismiss Sam, as his writings are always measured and thoughtful—and largely philosophical. They promote thought, and that is, after all, the goal of philosophy. But I guess when an avowed atheist dips into philosophy, he’s almost automatically damned. So be it; I will continue to read him.
Yesterday Sam posted his views about our war with Iran, and his overall take is summarized in the title of this post. You can read his discussion by clicking on the link below, or reading the the piece archived here.
I think the moral confusion about the war, which I see as the conflict between feeling it’s a just war and the despair at the rationalizations for the war by our administration and Trump’s repeated lies about what’s going on and what he intends to do—all of this is the cause for the increasing anomie many of us feel about our engagement, as well as for the widespread opposition to the war by Americans. As Sam says, “To think clearly about this war, we need to hold two sets of ideas in our minds at the same moment: the Iranian regime is evil, and the Trump administration is dangerously amoral, corrupt, and incompetent.”
I’ll give a few quotes from Sam (indented). Text that is flush left is mine, as are the bold headings:
Why it’s a morally just war
The Islamic Republic has tormented its own people for forty-seven years. It has hanged dissidents from cranes, crushed peaceful protests with live ammunition, tortured political prisoners, and funded jihadist proxies throughout the Middle East and beyond. When Salman Rushdie was nearly killed by a knife-wielding fanatic, after living for thirty-three years under the shadow of the Ayatollah’s imbecilic curse, this was a direct export from the theocracy in Tehran—which has grown increasingly unpopular with the Iranian people. The protests of 2025 and 2026 reminded the world, yet again, of the Iranian majority’s desperation to be free. The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei on the first day of this war was greeted with celebrations in Tehran, Isfahan, and among the Iranian diaspora in Los Angeles and New York. Whatever else one thinks about the decision to strike Iran, it is obscene to pretend that there was no moral or pragmatic argument for doing so.
Note that a credible figure for civilians killed by the Iranian regime for protesting is 30,000+. The regime apprehends political prisoners for protesting the war, including the families of protestors, and tries to assassinate critics of the regime even when they are overseas (e.g., Masih Alinejad). There’s no doubt that the Iranian people, overall, want to acquire the freedoms they had before the Revolution. All this, and the determination of Iran to export terrorism throughout the Middle East, makes this a just war.
The lame criticism of this war. (Sam sees this as a failure to recognize moral evil (or recognizing it and ignoring it), as he did when he wrote about the Gaza War)
And yet, most critics of the war speak as though Iran was a peaceful nation attacked by foreign aggressors. Notions of “sovereignty” and “international law” are invoked as though the Islamic Republic were Sweden. Almost no prominent critic of this war has anything cogent to say about the decades of misery the mullahs have inflicted on their own citizens, the threat that Iran’s network of proxy militias poses to the entire region, or the inconceivability of establishing deterrence once a jihadist death cult acquires nuclear weapons. If your opposition to this war cannot acknowledge the evil we are facing, your opposition is not morally sane.
I’ll add to this something that Sam takes up later: some of the motivation for criticizing this war comes from the fact that we’re allies with Israel, seen as a settler-colonialist and evil apartheid regime,and of course a Jewish state.
The justified criticism of this war.
But there is a serious case to be made against this war. One might believe, along with Damon Linker, that the risk of Iran becoming a failed state—a larger, more dangerous version of post-invasion Iraq—far outweighs the benefits of toppling the regime today. One could point to the apparent absence of a credible plan for what comes next, or to the fact that three weeks of bombardment haven’t produced anything resembling the “unconditional surrender” that Trump once demanded. Iranian state media has reported that the conflict has already killed more than 1,500 people, including over 200 children. Whatever the actual numbers, there can be no doubt that the humanitarian toll is real and mounting. These are intelligible concerns, and they deserve to be taken seriously.
But this is not the argument that most opponents of this war are making. They are making a much lazier set of claims—and often treating any American use of force as inherently unjust. Most critics are simply ignoring the question of what the world should do about a jihadist regime that has spent decades aspiring to commit genocide, views any peace as a temporary interval in which to gain the upper hand, and happens to be on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Admittedly, it is difficult to separate the ethics of destroying the Iranian regime, and seeking to liberate the Iranian people, from the staggering incompetence and callousness of the reality-television stars who are now sit atop our vast machinery of war and wield it for no clearly stated purpose.
Sam then recounts a lot of Trump’s lies (or confusions), including his back-and-forth on whether we’ve destroyed the regime and its nuclear program, whether or not he’ll demand “unconditional surrender”, his failure to include Congress in his deliberations, and his failure to prepare the American people for the conflict. This leads to feelings of both anomie and impotence:
Congressional Democrats now face the agonizing reality that they cannot stop a war that is already underway—the question is whether they can impose constitutional oversight on an administration that started it without asking anyone’s permission.
How the war increased antisemitism
I think we all know that antisemitism is now a tenacious termite in Western democracies. Though not ubiquitous, we see it growing in America, in Canada, in Europe, and in Australia. I’m not sure whether the conflict with Iran has actually increased it, or simply given antisemites an excuse to parade their views more openly. Sam blames Trump for his incompetence that has created an explanatory vacuum that’s fbeen filled with Jew-hating.
Finally, all of this bluster, confusion, dishonesty, and strategic incoherence has been a gift to the world’s antisemites. In the three weeks since the war began, antisemitic incidents worldwide have spiked by 34 percent. The resignation of Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center—who blamed “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for encouraging the conflict—gave mainstream respectability to the conspiracy theory that most of our wars are fought at the behest of perfidious Jews. Far-right figures have seized on the joint U.S.-Israeli operation to push the narrative that American soldiers are dying for a foreign power. And the antiwar Left, rather than reject this framing, has amplified it. While the similarities between the far Right and the far Left may be overstated, for the Jews, “horseshoe theory” is now a daily reality.
And Trump’s chaotic messaging bears much of the blame. When a president cannot clearly articulate why his country has gone to war, he leaves a vacuum that conspiracy theories will fill. A competent leader would have made the case for this war on its merits—the destruction of a terroristic theocracy’s military infrastructure, the elimination of its nuclear program, the liberation of 88 million people from a regime that jails and tortures women for the crime of uncovering their hair. Instead, Trump has offered a jumble of contradictions: Iran’s military is destroyed, but we need more troops; the war is almost over, but we may yet put boots on the ground; Iran wants to talk, but there is no one to talk to. This moral and logical void has become a vessel for antisemitic paranoia on both the Right and the Left. Needless to say, it doesn’t help that Trump and his family have been accepting personal gifts and payments from the Gulf states—a plane from Qatar, secretive investments from the UAE—while American forces protect those same regimes. The man is simultaneously waging a war of choice and running what appears to be an extortion racket.
The resultant ambivalence.
I think the first paragraph below, which involves us believing things that seem at odds with each other, explains at least for my ambivalence about the war. A nutjob is in charge, someone who continually contradicts himself and acts on impulse, and yet he’s in charge of a just war.
It is possible, even necessary, to believe all of the following at once: the Iranian regime is a monstrosity that should be destroyed; the Iranian people deserve to be free; the risk that this war will end in catastrophe is real, largely because of the character of those who are waging it; and the rising tide of antisemitism that this conflict has unleashed is yet another moral emergency that people on both sides of the debate have a responsibility to confront.
The tragedy of this moment is that the right war is being waged by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. And the opponents of the war, rather than making this case, have mostly opted for blinkered pacifism and conspiracy theories, while refusing to grapple with the manifest evil of the Iranian regime. Of course, the Iranian people, caught between their own tyrants, a reckless American president, and his feckless critics, will pay the heaviest price.
This morning, Coleman Hughes put out a one-hour video, “Sam Harris: Why Israel is Worth Defending”, with Sam on Israel and Iran war among other discussions. The hour seems to go by fast with these two guys. Should be at url
Thanks Jim, but a tad late: I watched this this morning! hahaha Our great minds think alike: as do the great minds in the interview.
Coleman is excellent and there are few public intellectuals I align myself more with thab Harris.
MAGA hate… REALLY hate him b/c he’s so wildly (I think reasonably) anti-Trump. But his criticisms of Trump aren’t off by much.
D.A.
NYC
Sam weakens and cheapens his argument with the name calling of the Trump administration. He has valid reasons for the war and criticism of Trump’s leadership. Readers, particularly of this blog, are smart and are put off by the middle-school digs.
I read nothing in the descriptions that Jerry quotes above that Trump and his cronies do not richly deserve, many times over. Harris was in fact remarkably restrained.
From Harris:… “staggering incompetence and callousness of the reality-television stars who are now sit atop our vast machinery of war and wield it for no clearly stated purpose.”
If you objectively look at their record, they are hardly incompetent. Sam equates disagreement with incompetence.
The reality television stars Harris cites are accomplished in other professional areas, not solely in television. The same reasoning applies to your use of the word cronies if your intent was to imply his administration are simply yes-persons.
See Mr. Gilinsky’s comment on the stated purpose of the war. This information and Mr. Gilinsky’s reasoning was available to Sam.
The only competence on view is that of the military personnel carrying out their instructions. The civilians giving the instructions are indeed “staggeringly incompetent”, whether it’s Signalgate, the casual insulting of, making threats against, and ritual humiliation of longstanding allies, followed by asking for their help (and then insulting them again when it isn’t forthcoming), the lack of any medium-term thinking of how they will achieve their stated goals before starting operations (let alone long-term thinking), or the seeming inability to anticipate very obvious first-order consequences of their actions, let alone more distant ones, the incompetence on display is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in American history. I would be interested to know in what areas you think an alcoholic Fox News presenter like Pete Hegseth displays any professional accomplishment. And yes, he, Vance and Rubio are very obviously nothing more than yes-men, as their inability to exert the smallest restraining influence on their president demonstrates on a daily basis.
Tossing Marco Rubio into the same bin as Pete Hegseth seems a stretch at best—if not an inability to recognize relevant distinctions. Rubio was confirmed unanimously 99-0 by the Senate. What disqualifying traits did his former Democratic colleagues miss that you so readily see? I am also curious whether you have ever sat behind closed doors with these gentlemen to witness firsthand “their inability to exert the smallest restraining influence” on Trump. If not, what leads you to the conclusion that each is “very obviously nothing more” than a yes-man?
Doug, the fact that Trump throws those who voice the slightest disagreement from him under the bus, without the slightest indication of regret, and no matter how closely they have supported him in the past, indicates that those who manage to avoid that fate are not opposing him even in private — and for someone of Trump’s bullying and sociopathic personality, even carefully and mildly expressed disagreement in private would be regarded as opposition. Vance has been utterly sidelined over the last few months, especially since the beginning of the war with Iran — something he staked considerable political capital on opposing before he became part of the administration.
Rubio’s 99 votes in the senate isn’t unusual — for most US history senators have regarded confirmation hearings as simply a confirmation that the person is basically qualified, and since in this case the candidate was himself a senator, and senators behind the scenes tend to defend the privileges of the senate above all else, it’s hardly likely they would try to smear one of their own. In terms of a Trump administration, Rubio is capable of appearing almost statesmanlike — but in a Trump administration that bar is set very, very low.
If you imagine Rubio is someone Trump actually respected enough to listen to and was able to exert a moderating influence, how do you explain what’s actually happened over the last year? The comprehensive collapse of international respect for the United States — precisely the area that Rubio is meant to oversee — unprecedented in the country’s 250-year history; the absurd musings about Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela all somehow becoming a “51st state”; the arrogant dressing-down of once-trusted allies and supporters. I really fail to see Rubio’s moderating hand in any of this, or how you find him any more impressive than any of the other mountebanks and buffoons in this administration. The only thing that might be said, looking at his face during that catastrophic first meeting with Zelensky in the Oval Office, was perhaps some inchoate sense that he understood how utterly degrading the whole situation was.
And we all abhor Trump’s middle-school name calling–it’s still foolish even if an intellectual like Sam Harris does it.
No prizes for pretending to be offended at someone calling Trump a very mild version of what he deserves to be called.
Please abide by the “not too many comments” rule.
I think that Trump’s original speech announcing the war was a pretty clear exposition of the reasons and purpose: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2027654336138924410.
He read the speech and didn’t ad lib. But in the aftermath, Trump has been all over the map, showing the lack of discipline that is his hallmark. He creates confusion in press gaggles and on Truth Social that muddy waters that seemed pretty clear in his first speech. He should say less, rather than more, and he shouldn’t speak extemporaneously, which is one place he gets into trouble.
Of course Iran has a say in how the war proceeds as well, so we shouldn’t expect the operation to follow exactly the same path that was devised at the start. But, it seems to me that the overall goals remain the same, or nearly the same.
I do think that Harris is right; It’s a just war prosecuted by a deeply flawed President.
I agree with Sam, but I’d clarify that a war against the Iranian regime could be a just war, but this war that is actually occuring is not a just war. A subtle difference perhaps, but important to make a point. Or several.
One thing that Sam didn’t talk about is what a just war against Iran would look like. He mentioned the goals, free the Iranian people, end the regime’s terror and terror support operations and end the regime’s nuclear weapons threat. All laudable and morally justified, I think. But, how to accomplish those goals?
The last is the easiest I think. Maybe not as easy to end, but at least to seriously delay Iran’s nuclear weapons program. All that’s needed for that is to blow up the right shit.
But the other goals? How do we do that? Have we ever managed to accomplish that? We didn’t accomplish that in Afghanistan or Iraq despite all the years we spent there and all the help we had. To have any chance at all it would require lots of “boots on the ground” for a long time, and lots of other kinds of aid. It would be the kind of project that is only likely to succeed if we had the aid and goodwill of many allies working together. None of that is happening here.
No, the most likely outcome of this war is that we will make things worse for the Iranian people and the current regime will either survive or be supplanted by a very similar one. Like what has happened in Venezuela. Perhaps the new regime leader will pay tribute to Trump like the new Venezuelan regime’s leader has done.
What is the basis for the universal assumption that the majority of Iranians, not just the intellectual elite, disapprove of the government? An Iranian leader killed by Israel/USA was a few days earlier walking freely in the streets in front of a huge supportive crowd, something Trump would not be willing or able to do.
Hopefully, there can be an informed discussion of Israel on this site. As a start, antisemitism should not be conflated with hostility or disapproval of Zionism, Israelis, settlers, or the current Israel Government.
I think the basis of that is how badly the regime has governed the country.
The regime appears to be deeply corrupt and incompetent: inflation hit 40%, plus there are persistent water shortages. The latter is partly but not wholly global warming related (it’s always been a dry country).
These two problems brought ordinary people into the streets earlier this year.
Any authoritarian regime knows how to assemble an impressive crowd of the faithful, or the cowed, for a staged demonstration. The remarkable thing about protests in Iran over the last year is that they happened in every city and region, so it’s no longer a situation of an educated metropolitan population supporting change while the provinces support the regime, as previous protests have been characterized. There has been a decisive shift.
In America there was considerable popular support for the Vietnam war at a time there were widespread demonstrations by the same demographic as in Iran now. Street protesters are not a representative sample. The US government should of course have known the facts here.
But America, after sneering at hippie/student demonstrations for years, did turn against the war when the news media convinced them that the Tet Offensive had made it unwinnable (not unjust.) These were the parents of the young men who actually went to fight, not the ones who got deferments and protested on campus. LBJ announced his decision not to run for re-election almost immediately after Tet was put down. Things can tip when defeat is staring you in the face.
“What is the basis for the universal assumption that the majority of Iranians, not just the intellectual elite, disapprove of the government?”
The polling that has been done shows only 15% to 20$ want the Islamic Republic to continue. Support for “the principles of the Islamic Revolution and the Supreme Leader” fell to 11% in 2024. This was from internet polling. There has not been any face-to-face polling by independent sources. I doubt the Islamic Regime would allow it.
A leaked official Iranian Ministry of Culture poll (reported 2025) found 72.9% agreed that “religion must be separated from the state”. See:
https://agsi.org/analysis/official-government-poll-72-9-of-iranians-favor-separation-of-religion-and-state/
” As a start, antisemitism should not be conflated with hostility or disapproval of Zionism, Israelis, settlers…”
You have come to the wrong place if that is your base position. Just a friendly warning.
Perhaps the 10s of thousands of citizens they are killing to maintain their grip on power? Or the large celebrations in major Iranian cities on the death of Kahmenei, as well as among the diaspora?
Well, Brother Coward, you have been labeled a “coward” from an earlier posting for speaking your mind. Obviously, name-calling constitutes logical, rational and reasonable argument, analysis and disagreement. Perhaps you might change your posting moniker to one not so easily appropriated for the purpose of name-calling. 😉
I have been under the (apparently erroneous) impression that, under Da Roolz, it was permissible to direct name-calling at third parties so long as they didn’t post on a thread. Apparently I was wrong. I gather that posters are qualified and privileged to be subjected to that sublime, congenial treatment. I guess the “living room” is no longer characterized by civil and congenial discourse.
You’re right and I have removed my comment.
For what it’s worth, an Iranian Armenian friend of mine believes that it is unlikely Iran could descend into the same degree of vicious interethnic conflict that happened in Iraq during and after the Gulf War. He thinks that the majority Persians of Iran and the various Turkmen and Azeri and Kurds and Armenians and Assyrians etc. simply don’t have the same degree of animosity that existed between Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds. We may soon find out if he’s right.
With respect for Mr. Harris’s smarts, this makes no sense and is just rhetoric:
If the war is right (i.e. jus ad bellum is satisfied), and I believe it is and am ashamed of my country for polling 7 to 1 against lifting one pathetic finger to help in “Trump’s war”*, then the time is right by definition. (You can’t fight the right war at the wrong time. Then it wouldn’t be a just war in the temporal circumstances.) The war then has to be fought by the leadership you elected to power at this time. If you waited for the right people to take power, then it would be the wrong time (i.e., not now, which we’ve established is a necessary criterion for a just war.) And if you waited for a different gang of leaders more to your taste, then you would be failing to go to a just war and do what you ought to when you ought to, i.e., now.
Nor can it be the right war for the wrong reasons, another contradiction in terms. A just war requires that it be for (or at least include) the right reasons. Without the right reasons it can’t be a just war. If it includes some “wrong” reasons, let’s look at them and see if we think they overwhelm the right ones. For example, if the wrong “reason” was to commit genocide against Persians, that would make the war wrong. But if the wrong reason is to grab Iran’s oil, that would be merely some moral collateral damage against the reasons that make it a just war. (And Iran’s oil might even be a legitimate war prize. I mention “oil” because that is the knee-jerk objection to anything America does abroad: “Oh, it’s really all about oil, of course.”)
If it’s the right war, it’s being prosecuted by good-enough people for good-enough reasons. For Hell, that’s as good as you get.
(* This is going to come back to bite us if the Prime Minister doesn’t swim against public opinion, which shouldn’t be obeyed in matters of state anyway.)
Based, indeed – Mr. Gilinsky’s take as well.
There will never be – nor was there ever – a world in which a “Dream Team” of elected heads of State are fully justified by an Absolute moral Spirit (I’m suggesting Hegel here as I like to do) to apply force by means of some sort of Elect “Glass Bead Game” (H. Hess).
“Nor can it be the right war for the wrong reasons, another contradiction in terms.”
Try on: Attacking the Iranian regime (good thing) to inflate your sense of self-aggrandizement, to distract from his domestic worries (including his exposure in the Epstein files, which his DOJ is vigorously trying to cover up), and to distract voters for the midterms.
You can’t possibly believe Trump does anything for good, moral, logical reasons (well, aside from the logic of enriching himself and his family)?
There’s a lot of speculation here. I understand where you’re coming from, but that he’s just doing it for his own personal gains and couldn’t have any decent motive mixed in seems intemperate.
You lost me dragging Epstein into it, again.
If you believe all that then you can’t agree with Sam Harris that it is “the right war.”, which is fine. Say it is a purely evil war with bad people motivated by bad reasons if you like. Then you should argue that the war should be stopped, by America’s utter humiliating defeat if necessary as long as it takes Donald Trump down before he does any more damage. I’m not addressing people like you who are beyond reason anyway. I’m addressing Sam Harris who is trying to say it is the right war prosecuted by people he doesn’t like.
As for what I can’t believe, since you raise it, I care only about the results. I don’t care what’s in Donald Trump’s mind. I really don’t.
Agreed.
First of all, it would be difficult to find a war that is more justified: the Iranian Islamic leadership is as evil as they come.
Second of all, we don’t know Trump’s reasons for the war. I am gone that there are many. It is difficult to get into the mind of a normal person, and ?Trump is far form that. Aside from being mercurial and narcissistic, he delights in misleading people and keeping them guessing about his intentions.
But as you say, the intentions do not matter. No one thinks that Stalin fought Hitler to free Europeans from tyranny. But, tyrant and murderer that he was, he did fight Hitler, and without the Red Army, WWII would have been very different.
The phrase (or book chapter) “the humanitarian with the guillotine” comes to mind.
On Luana’s reportage of Muslim mass public prayer in Washington Sq. Park, 15 minutes from my home: yes.
This is becoming more common in the west everywhere (UK, Australia, Italy..now NYC).
Notable also – the two coincidental bombings of Islamists against a demo the other day in uptown Manhattan – were bombing a protest against the Azzam prayer at sunrise in public through Brooklyn streets. Not “far right racists” as reported. Just NYers not being happy with “ALLAH AKBAR!” at 5am.
These things are excellent – they’re doing more than even Bin Laden could do to teach us what Islam in the west is all about.
D.A.
NYC
Your phraseology never fails to bring me a smile and chuckle. Thanks, David.
Oy, #10 was supposed to be a reply to your post.
“A competent leader would have made the case for this war on its merits . . .. Instead, Trump has offered a jumble of contradictions. . .”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand. As Norman points out in more diplomatic fashion, Trump was quite clear and uncharacteristically on message in his original announcement. Moreover, his team has repeatedly and consistently outlined the military objectives regarding Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones, its Navy, and its nuclear capability. Yet mere seconds after Rubio, Bessent, or another delivers this message, then Democrats, their media mouthpieces, and partisans all exclaim: “You haven’t told us what your objectives are or why we are fighting!” This is politics, not an alternative policy grounded in complex reality.
Sam’s partisan stance peeks through when he questions whether Congressional Democrats “can impose constitutional oversight on an administration that started it without asking anyone’s permission.” The answer is “Yes,” provided enough Republicans agree. Otherwise, it is a matter of congressional oversight that is not favorable to Sam Harris, which is not quite the same thing as no oversight.
There is much in Trump’s characteristic blathering and apparent careening from one alternative to the next that undermines his public support even when the overall course of his actions is correct. It is unfortunate that we can’t separate these shortcomings of the man from his conduct of war. I find it settles my frustration to watch his Administration’s actions rather than listen to his words, but I understand how people for whom words are their principal form of action might find this incomprehensible.
I’ll stop here mindful of Jerry’s admonition to post comments rather than essays. In short, I welcome Sam’s critique of the moral obtuseness of many of Trump’s critics, but I find the overall piece devolves into a more sophisticated form of the tiresome “even a broken clock is right twice a day” refrain. Somehow, I doubt Sam’s preferred framing of humanitarian intervention rather than cold realism would suffice for him if the much-despised Trump and Netanyahu were enacting the policy.
” I understand how people for whom words are their principal form of action might find this incomprehensible.” EXACTLY. Wordolatry, also known as “postmodernism”, “postcolonialism”, “critical theory”, and other pretentious labels,, is what infected Academia, with near-fatal consequences. Dismaying to see the same infection amongst political spokespeople—but, then again, James Carville has long warned the Democrats against sounding like blather in the faculty lounge.
This is becoming more common in the west everywhere (UK, Australia, Italy..now NYC).
Indeed. Just a few days ago the German Greens had the first Iftar in the parliament building. Of course, the obligatory prayer was separated by the sex of the participants, which didn’t seem to have bothered anyone from the Green Party (but I bet if it did, then the fact that there were only two sexes would have taken the top spot).
And this is just the tip of the iceberg: a bit earlier, they also unveiled a 24-point programme titled “Promoting Diverse Muslim Life in Germany,” aimed at expanding the role of Islamic institutions and practices within the state.
Well, you gotta admit it’s a pretty good fit, if you consider that one of the practices of every Muslim state has been the reduction of its Jewish population.
I’m here all night…
I am happy to pay higher gas prices for a few months if we can prevent Iran from getting a nuke.
This is an easy call.
I completely agree.
Just as apparently Europeans were (or ought to have been) glad to pay for higher priced Amuricun LNG after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Antony Blinken waxed rhapsodically about the “opportunities” for U.S. LNG suppliers in the aftermath of negating the availability of (“cheap”) Russian natural gas.
‘…gave mainstream respectability to the conspiracy theory that most of our wars are fought at the behest of perfidious Jews.” An old story, one that haunted even WWII, perhaps the best example we have of a “just war”. Fear of precisely this attitude is probably the reason that the NYT—itself owned by a Jewish family—shamefully minimized reporting of the holocaust during WWII, as analyzed by Laura Leff in “Buried by the Times” (2005).
At the end of the day, I don’t think that one can have a bad reason for doing the right thing. One can merely have a reason-that-isnt-mine. So imagine that a nation entered into WW2 fighting the Nazis, liberating concentration camps, and then at the end, someone said “Hey, why did your country get involved?” and the answer was “our leader had a vision from an extraterrestrial life force”, would anyone say “well we all wish you stayed home”? You, me, anyone can think that the decision to decimate Iran’s military was done for less than noble intentions. But the intentions don’t matter, unless the reason that one approves of an action is not for those on the receiving end of the action, but for the people who witness the approval.
If you look at Trump’s decisions wrt Israel, they have been brave, long overdue, and strategic.
My theory is that he defers to Kushner, who we know was the architect of the “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People” on matters Israeli.
That plan had big carrots but also some very large sticks. It was infused with a rational distrust of the Palestinians. That Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA in his first term indicates, to me, that Kushner’s influence has been long-standing.
There’s a hard edge to this piece that refuses easy answers, and that’s what gives it weight. It steps straight into the moral tension of war, holding two conflicting truths at once that a regime can be dangerous while those waging war against it may be driven by flawed motives. That central idea that “the right war is being waged by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons” carries a kind of uncomfortable clarity, forcing the reader to confront complexity instead of retreating into simple sides. It doesn’t comfort or persuade so much as it challenges, demanding that you think beyond loyalty and outrage. That kind of writing has backbone, because it doesn’t aim to please it aims to make you wrestle with what you believe and why it matters.