Frankly, you're giving them too much credit on having a defined Step 3 as well. I doubt Trump actually cares about whether Iran becomes democratic--he'd be perfectly happy to restore the a Western-aligned Shah and call it a day--which makes it even easier for him to stay slippery on Step 2, since the means-ends fit assumes a particular end that he is, at best, loosely attached to.
Spot on. In Trump world, there is not even a step 3.
Trump just has vague ideas of things he wants to do, and just does them with no conscious thought or end goal. It's like a toddler or a dog grabbing a toy. They just do it, and then grab another one (Tariffs! Maduro! Iran! Immigrants!)
Even if you have a really detailed “step 2” model, things can and do frequently go wrong. Having some humility about this is why (traditionally) policymakers take small incremental steps, and study the results carefully, and not big leaps. But since the Trump team is utterly convinced they are the only smart people in the world with agency, here we are.
I think a key feature of the Underpants Gnomes is that they steal underpants because it is what is in their nature to do. They want to believe it serves some goal, but really they just want to do it. I think of them whenever I see a person or group who always want to do the same thing (lower taxes, create a regulatory agency, throw a brick at a Starbucks) and then rationalize why it is the correct thing to do in this particular crisis.
The unifying inclination with Trump is "bully others with executive power".
I think the issue is that every step 3 you've put here isn't the actual goal of the admin.
What's the point of tariffs? Personal enrichment, and a way to give favors to cronies!
What's the point of Venezuela and Iran, toppling hostile dictators and restoring deterrence! You really think they care about nation building to make Iran a democracy? Of course not.
What's the point of ICE? Political theater! They want to make people think they're dealing with the problem, but illegal immigrants form a shadow economy of ultra cheap labor and that's far too valuable to directly threaten.
feel l like a lot of the pro-intervention discourse ends up centering how "successful" the operations (kidnapping Maduro and taking out Iranian leadership) are, but like, I already knew American had impressive intelligence and military capabilities, much more so than Venezuela or Iran. This feels kind of "everyone's 12" adjacent where we are meant to clap like seals at them pulling off a technically difficult operation with big, cool guns and planes without asking follow-up questions like, what's the plan now?
The one possible silver lining is that Trump appears to have no patience to follow up even if things don't work out. In Venezuela, the government didn't substantially change but he seems ready to move on and I suspect the same thing might happen with Iran in a few weeks. That's not good (it is really bad), but at least it could mean we don't get stuck in another forever war.
Maybe; Trump often finds ways of being worse than even your already lowered expectations.
Ancient Near Eastern kings practiced all kinds of divination. Look to the stars, look to the birds, look to smoke and oil and dice. But the world-class stuff was entrails, opening up a harmless animal and examining its liver: extispicy. I studied extispicy in grad school, but it wasn't to make decisions about how I should behave, nor was it to understand why a king made the decisions he did. It was to understand what the king and his counselors told themselves, their peasants, and their soldiers about why they did what they did. A king might genuinely make a decision based on divination in the sense of they take X or Y route or go on Z day, but he won't generally accept "Go home and let the Hittites live in peace" as an answer.
I don't think the plan is step 2, the question mark. I think the plan is step 1, the method. Step 3 is just the sheep guts they hold up to the cheers of the army.
I love this comparison and it's absolutely true. What's baffling to me is the number of people who will watch this clown show play out over and over and over again and somehow fall for the same trick every single time.
The point in the last footnote isn't clear or may be missing information?
"An alternate explanation for action against Iran is that it’s to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This still fails the underpants gnomes test. After the capture of Maduro and the death of Khamenei, it’s clear that a nuclear weapon is the only thing that will make America reluctant to go after you. There’s a reason that the US doesn’t try this with North Korea."
So, the US is reluctant to go after a country possessing a nuclear weapon like North Korea, but the US will take military action against countries without nuclear weapons, such as Iran and Venezuela. That follows. Why does it fail the underpants gnome test?
I think the context and purpose are getting mixed up. The context is we *can* get away with it, but that doesn't lead to the purpose. The conclusion the footnote is drawing is, "If a future regime doesn't want to lose its head, it better knuckle down and start working on those rockets because that's the only thing that will keep them safe." The logic works if you need to make the strikes safe, but not if you need to make them purposeful for deterrence. Unless, of course, the US doesn't believe in diplomacy as deterrence at all and plans to regularly bomb military facilities to prevent proliferation instead.
Well said on the impotent rage this administration induces. I go beyond that to a sense of rage at the people who voted for this and desperately want Americans to get severe consequences from what they did
Frankly, you're giving them too much credit on having a defined Step 3 as well. I doubt Trump actually cares about whether Iran becomes democratic--he'd be perfectly happy to restore the a Western-aligned Shah and call it a day--which makes it even easier for him to stay slippery on Step 2, since the means-ends fit assumes a particular end that he is, at best, loosely attached to.
This is so spot on!! Like Step 3 almost always does not seem to exist maybe except “I look strong”
If anything I feel like a bunch of progressives orgs and activists fall under “Step 1 and Step 3 exist but no Step 2” lol
If Step 3 is Shah 2.0, Step 2 is still ????
I don't think Trump or anyone else knows how, or if regime change is going to happen.
Step 3 is not democracy - it’s “Trump Nobel Peace Prize”
Spot on. In Trump world, there is not even a step 3.
Trump just has vague ideas of things he wants to do, and just does them with no conscious thought or end goal. It's like a toddler or a dog grabbing a toy. They just do it, and then grab another one (Tariffs! Maduro! Iran! Immigrants!)
Even if you have a really detailed “step 2” model, things can and do frequently go wrong. Having some humility about this is why (traditionally) policymakers take small incremental steps, and study the results carefully, and not big leaps. But since the Trump team is utterly convinced they are the only smart people in the world with agency, here we are.
I think a key feature of the Underpants Gnomes is that they steal underpants because it is what is in their nature to do. They want to believe it serves some goal, but really they just want to do it. I think of them whenever I see a person or group who always want to do the same thing (lower taxes, create a regulatory agency, throw a brick at a Starbucks) and then rationalize why it is the correct thing to do in this particular crisis.
The unifying inclination with Trump is "bully others with executive power".
Yes.
Step 1: Bully.
Step 2: Justify Step 1 to the smallest possible group while maintaining the ability to continue.
Go to Step 1.
I think the issue is that every step 3 you've put here isn't the actual goal of the admin.
What's the point of tariffs? Personal enrichment, and a way to give favors to cronies!
What's the point of Venezuela and Iran, toppling hostile dictators and restoring deterrence! You really think they care about nation building to make Iran a democracy? Of course not.
What's the point of ICE? Political theater! They want to make people think they're dealing with the problem, but illegal immigrants form a shadow economy of ultra cheap labor and that's far too valuable to directly threaten.
feel l like a lot of the pro-intervention discourse ends up centering how "successful" the operations (kidnapping Maduro and taking out Iranian leadership) are, but like, I already knew American had impressive intelligence and military capabilities, much more so than Venezuela or Iran. This feels kind of "everyone's 12" adjacent where we are meant to clap like seals at them pulling off a technically difficult operation with big, cool guns and planes without asking follow-up questions like, what's the plan now?
The Anthroporic drama also feels like the epitome of this dynamic!!
Like, their logic of “supply chain risk” but “essential for us” is completely broken and “we want to mog” feels like the only motivation…
I remember this episode from Southpark back in the 90's. Very jazzed that someone has finally decided to use this in an article/argument.
Another banger.
The one possible silver lining is that Trump appears to have no patience to follow up even if things don't work out. In Venezuela, the government didn't substantially change but he seems ready to move on and I suspect the same thing might happen with Iran in a few weeks. That's not good (it is really bad), but at least it could mean we don't get stuck in another forever war.
Maybe; Trump often finds ways of being worse than even your already lowered expectations.
A more laborious model would be sheep entrails.
Ancient Near Eastern kings practiced all kinds of divination. Look to the stars, look to the birds, look to smoke and oil and dice. But the world-class stuff was entrails, opening up a harmless animal and examining its liver: extispicy. I studied extispicy in grad school, but it wasn't to make decisions about how I should behave, nor was it to understand why a king made the decisions he did. It was to understand what the king and his counselors told themselves, their peasants, and their soldiers about why they did what they did. A king might genuinely make a decision based on divination in the sense of they take X or Y route or go on Z day, but he won't generally accept "Go home and let the Hittites live in peace" as an answer.
I don't think the plan is step 2, the question mark. I think the plan is step 1, the method. Step 3 is just the sheep guts they hold up to the cheers of the army.
I love this comparison and it's absolutely true. What's baffling to me is the number of people who will watch this clown show play out over and over and over again and somehow fall for the same trick every single time.
The point in the last footnote isn't clear or may be missing information?
"An alternate explanation for action against Iran is that it’s to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This still fails the underpants gnomes test. After the capture of Maduro and the death of Khamenei, it’s clear that a nuclear weapon is the only thing that will make America reluctant to go after you. There’s a reason that the US doesn’t try this with North Korea."
So, the US is reluctant to go after a country possessing a nuclear weapon like North Korea, but the US will take military action against countries without nuclear weapons, such as Iran and Venezuela. That follows. Why does it fail the underpants gnome test?
I think the context and purpose are getting mixed up. The context is we *can* get away with it, but that doesn't lead to the purpose. The conclusion the footnote is drawing is, "If a future regime doesn't want to lose its head, it better knuckle down and start working on those rockets because that's the only thing that will keep them safe." The logic works if you need to make the strikes safe, but not if you need to make them purposeful for deterrence. Unless, of course, the US doesn't believe in diplomacy as deterrence at all and plans to regularly bomb military facilities to prevent proliferation instead.
Now I see. Thank you.
Part of the gimmick of being a Dem is pretending we never had bad presidents before
Well said on the impotent rage this administration induces. I go beyond that to a sense of rage at the people who voted for this and desperately want Americans to get severe consequences from what they did
I love how even that '5D chess' thing follows the pattern. Step 1: Acquire Greenland. Step 2: ?????? Step 3: No more sea-level-rise.