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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.