NY Times columnist Bret Stephens joins to discuss the Iranian threat (to Israel and the US), the amazing Israeli penetrations of Hezbollah and Iran, and the fate of NATO, Ukraine, etc in a Trump 2.0 world.
TV Recommendations of the panelists:
Mona: Call My Agent
Damon: Game of Thrones
Bill: Babylon Berlin
Linda: Slow Horses / Pachinko
Update: in today's NY Times Stephens finally admits he will vote for Harris. I think he finally realized that his positions in maintaining his absurd "I can't vote for Harris even though I despise Trump" were so vacuous and illogical that his future career as a "respected" conservative journalist was in jeopardy. Too little too late for Nikki's #1 fanboy IMHO, but hey, I'm sure Bret will get a nice book deal out of it.
I've seen Bret Stephens speak many times, usually about Israel and the Middle East. He is knowledgeable on those subjects, even if I don't always agree with him. But his position on Harris has become increasingly incomprehensible. He's a NY Times columnist and therefore has a high profile. He claims he's a "Never-Trumper" but he can't bring himself to publicly say he will vote for Harris. At various points he's claimed he's like Bartleby the Scrivener and chooses not to speak about who he will vote for, or that he will write in Mr. Magoo. He's also used the cheap dodge that because he lives in NY it doesn't matter who he votes for, as if (to channel Sarah) his prominent position doesn't provide a permission structure for normal Republicans in swing states to also avoid viting for Harris (does Nikki Haley ring a bell? Oh wait, I forgot Bret was Nikki's #1 fanboy until she did the inevitable Trump endorsement). Bret may have some creditbility to speak on Ukraine and the Middle East (although he is an unreformed neocon and Iraq War cheerleader), but he has zero credibility on domestic politics.
To Linda, and anyone else who enjoys Apple’s Slow Horses… The dramatizations are excellent, with great performances by the cast, especially Gary Oldman and Kristin Scott Thomas. But I highly recommend reading the original Mick Herron books, of which there are eight in the Slough House series itself plus five novellas and two “adjacencies”, Nobody Walks and The Secret Hours. Read them in order, including the novellas/adjacencies as information in them plays into the main series books. Mick Herron is a brilliant writer and the books are so well plotted, suspenseful, and can be very funny.
Bret assumes that Trump’s second term will be just like his first term. The first term includes January 6 for god’s sake.
Bret also said that he’s been working so much lately that he can’t name a single book or tv show.
I’ve admired Bret for decades, but the man is not well. He says that if we take Trump at his word, it’s “terrifying” for our future. Yet he’s happy to roll the dice and hope the world survives.
The man needs a sabbatical before he loses his reputation altogether.
Brett Stephens couldn’t be any more deliberately obtuse if he were a three-sided polygon. His apparent glee with being a contrarian is really off-putting and unproductive.
What I did enjoy about this podcast was Damon and Bill really bringing the heat from the 40:00 mark until Brett went full ‘turd in the punch bowl’ during the ‘favorite tv show’ closing sequence.
that kitty is so cute!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Opd5LQP8l0 - James O'Brien: Israel has been given a 'free pass to continue the carnage' | LBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwNAe-Rj20 - Israel Attacks U.N. Peacekeeping Forces as U.S. Sends 100 Troops Anticipating Conflict with Iran
One quick thought on the war in the Middle East. I'm not Jewish but I've always been rather struck by the beauty of much of the founding tenets of Judaism. October 7th saw acts of unspeakable atrocity committed. totally agree Israel has a right to defend itself. Yet, I do fear Israel may be risking its heart, its humanity, its very soul as the war in Gaza continues unabated and the hostages remain in peril. I wonder if the world needs a little less Netanyahu, Ben-Givir and Smotrich and a little more Rabin, Frankl and Oz.
Outstanding pod! Mona, as usual, rocked. I'll note this fabulously exclamatory query among other great moments, "...why either or?" in response to Stephens' astonishingly rigid and narrow view that ..."We've got to decide whether the problem is fundamentally that he (Trump) is a sinister Mussolini wannabe or he's a colossal horse's ass." The idea that this is an either/or scenario is ludicrous and I was frankly dumbfounded that a mind such as his could offer such an inflexible and limited choice of alternatives. Mona's startled amazement was priceless. Not long after, my dumbfounded-ness deepened with this gobsmacking opinion from Stephens', "... I suspect that Trump 2.0 will be pretty much in the form of Trump 1.0. Maybe you disagree." Oh. My. Effing. God! (I screamed to myself internally as I took my morning walk). This is why he cannot endorse Harris. He actually thinks Trump, at the end of the day, in a second term, will be no big deal. So I just want to take a moment to offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mona, Linda, Bill and Damon for absolutely, positively, having none of that. None.! The four of you together eviscerated this in a notably 'civil' fashion in keeping with the pod's values. Well done. This, from Damon, deserved a bloody standing ovation ...." I do think it is accurate to say that during his first administration, he was outmanoeuvred by his staff. They did what they thought needed to be done... And he didn't really know what was going on. And they outsmarted him. That is not going to happen again." This to you, Mr Stephens, Wake the eff up! Vote Harris, you lunatic.
Nice post. I enjoyed reading it. I commend your compliment to the regulars for being civil, I’m going past that now. I would love to see the bulwark sharpen its tone and give these individuals their due. Perhaps it’s not possible in the podcast business model, but your challenge to Mr. Stephens … I like the way you put it.
I loved Call My Agent! Excellent!
Does Bret Stephens not understand that his little quip about history being uncertain under socialism actually applies astoundingly well to MAGA Republicanism? For MAGA, the past is whatever Trump claims it was.
People who think the essence of intelligence and seriousness is finding something to assert that is contrary to everything we can see and hear with our own eyes and ears are exhausting. And, yes, this is about Bret Stephens.
Also, nothing wrong with not watching TV or movies but acting like it’s something that makes you better than other people. And bragging about writing over 100 NYT columns so far this year, while other people impliedly waste their time watching TV, is pretentious and annoying. And, yes, this too is about Bret Stephens.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-10-13/ty-article/.premium/hubris-is-back-israels-unchecked-arrogance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster/00000192-825d-dd80-af9a-dfffbc5d0000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Twitter
Hubris Is Back: Israel's Unchecked Arrogance Is a Recipe for Disaster - Gideon Levy
"The Israeli hubris is back, big time. Who would have believed that a year after October 7 it would return, and at such a scale. After we defeated Hamas and destroyed the Gaza Strip, now we are defeating Hezbollah and destroying Lebanon – and we are already turning to Iran.
The Israeli dialogue is already talking about regime change there, discussing the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and deliberating between strikes on nuclear installations and strikes on oil facilities. Israel is in a state of hubris. From the rock bottom and broken spirit of the October 7 rout – it was compared to the Holocaust – to the heights of arrogance of regime change and of moving peoples all over the Middle East. And all within a year. It will end in tears and blood.
It is the nature of hubris, by definition, that it ends in disaster. It is the nature of such extreme volatility, from fictitious Holocaust to fictitious victory, to come crashing down.
Meanwhile, millions of people are fleeing from the Israeli army for their lives, displaced, refugees, destitute, hopeless, wounded, orphans and crippled in endless processions of suffering in Gaza and Lebanon. Soon in the West Bank and maybe also in Iran. Never have so many people fled in terror of Israel, not even in the Nakba of 1948. They will never forget what Israel did to them. Never. To Israel and the Israelis, it brings not only joy, satisfaction and national pride but also a power trip the likes of which they have never seen, certainly not since 1967.
The military successes, impressive as they are, are driving Israel crazy. How we blew up the pagers and how we killed their leaders, high-fives all around. The attack on Iran is liable to demonstrate it. But the military achievements are not the most important thing. What comes next?
Israel feels that the sky's the limit for its attacks, its conquests, the killing and the destruction that it is capable of sowing. And there is no stopping it. Never before has it stood like this in front of an empty goal, convinced that it has been given the kicking opportunity of a lifetime. One after another, we have seen the houses of cards that were feared so much fall before us: Rockets from Gaza, missiles from Lebanon, cruise missiles from Yemen and ballistic missiles from Iran no longer impress anyone.
The helplessness of the international community, especially the United States, reinforces the sense of intoxication. Everything is possible. It seems that Israel can continue its Genghis Khan campaigns of conquest and punishment unhindered. America begs it to stop; its pleas make no impression on the Israelis. Rightfully so.
But Israel may find that its astonishing victories are nothing but a fateful honey trap, like the intoxicating victory of 1967 – the rotting fruits of which we are eating to this day. What is depicted as unlimited military capabilities are liable to end in a pyrrhic victory. In Gaza, Israel continues to mistreat millions of miserable people, even after announcing that Hamas has been militarily defeated. Why continue? Because it can. Soon in Lebanon, as well.
The unnecessary and dangerous punishment of Iran has been publicly discussed for days, as if there is no country besides Israel, no limit to its possibilities and no one who will stop its lust for power. In the absence of a true friend who would do so, it will never stop on its own accord, until disaster befalls it. And it is liable to come. Military successes tend to be deceptive and fleeting.
The abhorrence of the world's masses will eventually be joined by their governments, and one (distant) day they will be sick of it. Israel has no international backing except for the United States and Europe. True, they haven't yet lifted a finger, but one day public opinion there could change that.
History is full of power-drunk countries that didn't know how to stop in time. Israel is approaching this. Meanwhile, the thought of millions in the Middle East fleeing in terror before it, suffering indescribable pain and humiliation under our boots, should cause every Israel to shrink in shame and fear. Instead, they fill the Israeli heart with pride and encourage them to seek more of the same. And there's no stopping it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW5P-hYC-NQ - Thomas Friedman: This is the most dangerous time in the modern Middle East
Trump is mentally ill
Bill Galston’s point on Ukraine victory was the most important and rationale thing said here.
Brett Stephens did not disappoint. He’s incomprehensible.
And Damon I think you let him off easy on Israel. It’s not at all clear to me that he is among the ‘moderate’ thinkers on Mideast policy.
To quote Charlie Sykes's many morning newsletters:
"A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower"
Mr. Stephens seems to want to only allow this dichotomy of buffoonery or sinisterism. It is extremely easy to be both. Jair Bolsonaro is a very good example of this. You know who else is a great theoretical example of this: 2016-2020 Donald Trump!
Election stealing had it's hilarious moments when that drunken train wreck Melissa Carone was testifying in Michigan or when Rudy had hair gel running down his face trying to keep his face from melting. It also had dead police officers and a trashed capitol building. Mr. Stephens at this point is being a Trump level narcissist by trying to square a circle that simply can't be done.
Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful push back on Bret. While he certainly is remarkably gifted, I actually felt empathy for him towards the end of the podcast he struck me as somewhat miserable, isolated, and overworked. The look on his face said it all. Could David Brooks and David French do an intervention over at NYTimes? Once again, the caliber of dialogue was first-rate.
With all do respect, I winced when you sort of lumped Stephens, Brook s and French together. I often disagree with French (particularly about abortion and the Supreme Court), but he is a deep intellectual thinker. Brooks has increasingly become a quasi-mystical hack (maybe finding religion in late middle age isn't good for the soul) and should retire. Stephens is an unrepentant neocon, and while I sometimes I often with him about antisemitism and Israel, he's almost always wrong on dometic political issues and unwilling to say publicly that he will vote for Harris. Oh and by the way you can throw Ross Douthat into the imx as another overrated NY Times conservative.
About 22% of Nobel laureates identify as Jewish, making this an immensely gifted intellectual group. Most of our greatest intellects shared several things, including atheism (or at least “Spinoza’s God) and compassion. Israel stumbles when it loses its compassion, as brutally difficult as that is at times to maintain. I think a challenge for me and perhaps others is that we have always looked to Israel as a model of compassionate intellectual brilliance. I fear the current government has wandered far from that ideal. Doing so simply gives Israel the same status as the rest of us nations, so perhaps it’s time for people like me to take them off the pedestal, rather than continue with this endless unreasonable disappointment.
I think too of the brilliant lyrics of Leonard Cohen’s song, Story of Isaac:
And if you call me brother now
Forgive me if I inquire
"Just according to whose plan?"
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must
I will help you if I can
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must
I will kill you if I can
And mercy on our uniform
Man of peace or man of war
The peacock spreads his fan
This is the human condition, I guess.
i always chuckle at the thought that some nuclear scientists wife, has been spared death but is able to be siting next to her husband as his body parts explode all over the car....its the way i express my humanity? [sarcastic sigh] :(
I think I have more contempt for those of Brett Stephens' ilk than I do for the MAGA cultists. Stephens is well aware of the danger a 2nd Trump term poses, but yet can't quite bring himself to follow through and vote for Harris. Give me a break.
Absolutely.
All of this
I'm a chess player...and the game teaches you to see things from the other side...yes we can all laugh at brett wit about knocking out irans economy....but what do we think iran thinks of israels actions? ....and what are the lessons learned? if you are a country where another country[you consider a enemy] is killing people at random, threatening your power sites ,your oil sites, even threatening toppling the government....what can they do other than move to nuclear weapons? this was the lesson from ukraine was it not? and trump cancelling the nuclear deal[thank sheldon! -sighs] it just shows that those without nuclear weapons will be bullied, humilated, threatened, punched around.....so the more you do these things, the more motivation they will have to get nuclear weapons, thinking we need this to get back our deterrence , our pride etc.....people always seem to look at their own angle...and forget to look at it from your opponents angle :(
So Brett is effectively saying that Israel must have effective deterrence but Iran cannot? [shudders] if this is what you are gambling on to stop a war in the middleast,you must be out of your mind[heard this kinda talk for worldwar one].....for iran have said they will ramp up their escalation and i think they will[just for the fact that people like brett are saying they cant and cant do much damage?they might have something to prove as well?]...last time it was military bases and they got thru? what will it be this time however? and what happens if american troops get caught in the crossfire? Yes, i thought the issue would be how to restrict this war...not how to get into the "mystical" one sided fight where only one side inflicts damage on the other....the realisation that if you hit someone, they will hit back, and his reading that "they can do very little damage" always seems to backfire in their faces :(
I seem to remember a certain missile crisis that equally got out of control , for both sides wanted to maintain deterrence and didnt want to appear weak? where did that lead?
Re: today’s discussion with Brett Stephens I have two thoughts.
First, his stance that he can’t vote for Trump but isn’t convinced he’ll vote for Harris strikes me as foolish. Does he think there’s a third option (maybe if nobody gets a majority we have a do-over)?
As it stands either Trump or Harris will be president, making his position the equivalent of having a choice between pancreatic cancer and the flu and wavering because the flu might upset your stomach.
Second, none of you discussed the domestic problems of a Trump administration. Take, for example, his vow to deport 15 or more million immigrants. How will he do this? By deploying a million soldiers? By deploying the entire nation’s National Guard? If so, who’ll defend the county? By deploying a million state and local law enforcement officers? Who’ll protect our cities? By using vigilante posses? What could possibly go wrong?
Russia has mored towards cooperation with Iran. I am not sure at all Trump would support Israel retaliating against Iran if provoked. I am not even sure he would defend it if Putin says no. I think your guest is rather naive in his portrayal of the Trump administration towards Ukraine. This time both Trump and Vance are against Ukraine.
Can we get some speakers on beg to differ that have differing views? It seems like every time I try to watch it’s more like the views are center right to right right …
its what the panels are happy with....they had Ed luce last time, who probably disagrees with the current panels talk about israel..but he ducked out when he realised the panel didnt really what to hear his views..but good olde brett, is right up there street, so plenty of extra questions here on subjects, they all agree on...its a pro conservative ,pro israel fest :(
I just mean, it’s broadcasted as “center left to center right”. But every time I watch it, it’s Very RW- every speaker. Would be nice to have at least one person that wasn’t so far in the tank
Ugh... the Bret Stephens types are unbearable. The guy threatening to withhold aid for dirt on Hunter was the one making sure Ukraine was ready for an invasion. Pretend there was some level of thought and competence while Trump is basically promising handing over parts of Ukraine to Putin. It would be more tolerable if it wasn't so obvious he knew better.
Unlike men like Brett there are millions of us who will be so negatively affected by a trump win I can’t begin to describe it. He may not be upset too much to have a theocratic autocracy but I am.
I would vote for a lettuce before I would vote for trump. I see him Trump for what he is. Either these anti-anti’s refuse to or are lying either to themselves or others.
Bret Stephens seems way too attached to what he perceives is a good attention getting tactic, that is, withholding his support for VP Harris. As we confront the undeniable danger of a return of Trump to the presidency, this is dangerously irresponsible of Stephens.
Fi just don’t understand how Bret or anyone doesn’t understand how that the American people want nothing to do with a conflict with Iran. The idea that telling them that they are bad means nothing after the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes you can blab on and on about their nuclear program. The issue is fundamentally: America will not go to war to stop it that’s why Obama was right to negotiate a deal. The fact that we weren’t willing do shit about Syria and chemical weapons shows just how unpopular having American boots on the ground in the Middle East is a no go.
Let’s be clear, the Lebanon attack was an absolute tactical success. No doubt. But that game isn’t done yet. Get ready for a LONG GRINDING process. It’s going to be ugly and it ain’t going to be good for Israel.
If we’re trying to be “in service of intellectual honesty”, Trump unequivocally disqualified himself when he sat watching his mob overrun the Capitol on TV, tweeting encouragement as they chanted Hang Mike Pence. Right now is the exact opposite moment to be weighing debatable standard policy approaches when one major party has nominated a deranged enemy of the U.S. constitution who purposefully directed violence at another branch of the government he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Have an intellectual comparison of what Trump administration policy in a vacuum would bring compared to a Harris administration at any other time in history, not now.
Bret Stephens is someone I respect, but he has been driving me bananas recently with his temporizing about what Harris needs to do/say to get his support. If he does more of that in this ep, it may cause me to throw my phone against a wall and run down the street screaming into the void. Could someone please comment here to tell me if Stephens has reacquired a sense of proportion and reality? I just can not begin to even today, so I would be grateful if others who listen before me can let me know if my fragile sanity can withstand listening to what is usually one of my favorite podcasts today.
I read him in the NY Times and I saw him live a week ago. He is increasingly unhinged and incomprehensible on Harris v. Biden, and I think he knows it. He was made to look foolish on Bill Maher a few weeks ago on the same issue, and I suspect he's licking his wounds and digging in to an untenable position.
I haven’t liked him since I went from Republican to independent to dem. His bar to vote for dems is GIGANTIC and his bar for republicans you could trip over it’s so small.
You noticed how he keeps asking for a plan from Harris on Ukraine or Israel but never does the same for Trump? He just imbues his thoughts on what he would like but on Harris it’s like give me a 90 page plan that I can pick apart.
Yep-you can agree or disagree with him about Israel or the middle east, but his positions on Harris v. Trump are untenable and increasingly sophomoric. He should be embarrassed by it.
Yep. You find this a lot from the anti anti people. It’s like they know that Trump is a dimwit and likely won’t do anything they like but Trump has an R next to his name so they are all good. Harris could give them 90% of what they want/like but she has a D next to her name so they hyperventilate about her.
Did you see Andrew Sullivan (also an idiot) who recently endorsed Harris but is now rethinking because of some admin policy on youth gender affirming care? It’s like, can you pick an issue that literally affects almost no one in the country? I mean I get it you if you are a single issue voter on some issues but at least make the issue important
Andrew Sullivan-a self important dimwit I haven't thought about in a long time.
This! Exactly this! Except for the part about having respect for Bret Stephens, which I absolutely do not. But I just can’t get myself to listen to this - too much trauma available these days to volunteer for more.
I used to respect Bret Stephens.
Back in the late 1980s at the CIA, whenever there was interference on our secure phone lines, we used to joke that Mossad was listening in. While the KGB was the usual target of our in-jokes, we knew Mossad was the only intelligence service capable of doing the impossible.
I agree with Bret on this point: "I don't see a Biden administration that has any kind of plan for victory in Ukraine either, other than to prevent defeat. And I would love to hear from Kamala Harris, as we used to hear from candidates in the past."
Unfortunately, Kamala is constrained by her position as VP under Biden, so she is not able to stake out her own position. (I fear this is a more general problem that is constraining her with regard to policy statements.) But I see no reason to believe she would be much different from the Obama-Trump-Biden consensus that favors timid, non-assertive US foreign policy. For example, they all had/have a tendency to draw red lines and then not enforce them.
Even though the USSR has been defunct for more than three decades, one element of its propaganda is still influential in the US: the lie that dictators are provoked by a rival's strength, so that the best way to handle them is through weakness and appeasement. This way of thinking has always dominated the Democratic left wing, and it is now influential with the Trump cult, as well. Until the US recovers from this Soviet propaganda hangover, the Axis of Autocracy will continue its string of successes.
I think this overlooks the possibility of learning from past mistakes. Harris seems to have some ability to do so. We'll have to wait and see if she can apply this learning as president. Of course she has to win the office first. That should be the focus now.
I can't stomach Bret Stephens. He just comes off as a fool-- to admit how horrible Trump 2.0 would be while refusing to vote for Kamala. He's a great example of an intellectual who can spin florid "idea salad" while completely lacking the basic common sense most mammals use for survival. An idiot.
UPDATE: Well, he said he's voting for Kamala. So, I give him credit for that. It took him too long to get to the right place, but the important thing is, he actually did get to the right place.
I think I finally understand Bret Stephens: he thinks a 100 articles of slapdash mediocrity is especially impressive
As a longtime reader of his NY Times columns, I can say you're not wrong.
Ding ding ding
Brett’s position is indefensible and I’m pretty sure he knows it. Stop playing games.
Laughing about Iran/Israel fight? not funny.
it's not clear to me at all why they want to unilaterally shirk off being the hegemon of the world. what's in it for us? they don't like chipotle in paris? what?