Author: Daniel Larison

Garry Kasparov calls for more regime changes in The Wall Street Journal:

A war can’t be won by following the rules set in peacetime. The only way to win this long war is through regime change in Moscow and Tehran. Such change will be brought closer by isolating Russia and Iran politically and economically and by halting their foreign aggression.

Kasparov’s argument is deranged, but it is useful in reminding us how extreme and dangerous this worldview is. If hardliners like Kasparov had their way, they would unleash chaos and instability unlike anything most of us have seen in our lifetimes. The same people that want to set the world on fire are constantly warning us that if we don’t do what they want that we face “a global catastrophe the likes of which we have never seen,” but it is clear that they are the ones demanding that the U.S. initiate such a catastrophe with overly aggressive policies.

Continue reading “The Insanity of the Regime-Changers”

The head of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain, acknowledged the famine in Gaza in an interview on Meet the Press:

“What I can explain to you is – is that there is famine – full-blown famine – in the north, and it’s moving its way south,” she said.

McCain called for a ceasefire to allow for humanitarian relief to reach the population. That is what humanitarian agencies have been demanding for the last six months to no avail. All of them could see what would happen to the people of Gaza if the war was allowed to continue, and they have been shouting from the rooftops that famine was coming. This famine was the most readily foreseen and most easily prevented famine in decades, and that makes the shame of failing to stop it all the greater. The international response to these warnings has been pitiful, and the response from our government has been downright criminal.

Continue reading “The Most Preventable Famine in the World”

Tom Friedman just can’t stop shilling for Mohammed bin Salman:

The crown prince wants as peaceful a region as possible, and a Saudi Arabia as secure from Iran as possible, so he can focus on making Saudi Arabia a diversified economic powerhouse.

Continue reading “Tom Friedman Writes Another Love Letter to Mr. Bonesaw”

The Guardian reports that the Saudis are looking to make a separate deal with the U.S. in which Washington gives them everything they want in exchange for nothing:

All three parts of the draft deal involve the US giving vital strategic assistance to Saudi security. In place of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian peace, the Saudi monarchy is presenting a purely bilateral deal as a US win in its efforts to contain Iranian expansionism and in Washington’s “great-power competition”, particularly with China.

This “less for less” agreement is no better for the U.S. than one that also involves Israel. In both arrangements, the U.S. is expected to hand out major favors and commitments and gets nothing for its trouble except extra burdens in the future. The Saudis don’t want the free giveaway to be put at risk by tying it to an agreement with Israel, and they are naturally still happy to accept the bribe that Biden was going to give them for normalization. It is clearly a bad, one-sided deal that creates new obligations for the U.S. that we can’t afford.

Read the rest of the article at Eunomia

Daniel Larison is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

Jonathan Katz discusses what Biden told him in a recent interview and compares it with the administration’s record:

But his avoidance of specifics spoke to the other side of that coin: the fact that there has been zero evidence of any serious consequences in the seven months of this ungodly war. So far the U.S. response to countless war crimes in Gaza has been to briefly threaten symbolic sanctions against individual Israeli units and officials, then reverse them immediately. And to allow a weakened ceasefire resolution to pass the U.N. Security Council, then pretend like the resolution doesn’t count.

Continue reading “Gaza’s Famine and Biden’s ‘Extreme Pressure’”

Michael Sobolik wants us to be very afraid of Chinese expansionism:

For all of Beijing’s legitimate and long-standing security concerns, however, the sheer scope of China’s expansion is undeniable. Western leaders often deny or ignore it, usually at the behest and prodding of Chinese leaders. When Nixon finally gained an audience with Mao Zedong, he reassured the chairman, “We know China doesn’t threaten the territory of the United States.” Mao quickly corrected him: “Neither do we threaten Japan or South Korea.” To which Nixon added, “Nor any country.” Within the decade, Beijing invaded Vietnam.

Sobolik’s argument relies on a lot of unsupported assertions and distortions. This anecdote about Nixon and Mao is a good example of the latter. The Sino-Vietnamese War was a punitive campaign that China launched in response to Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge. It was hardly a war of expansionist conquest, and it didn’t result in any territorial gains for China. In fact, the war didn’t go well for China at all, and that was the last time that the PRC waged a major war outside its borders. It has been generations since Chinese forces have engaged in anything more than border skirmishes. Whatever else one wants to say about Chinese foreign policy, calling it expansionist is simply inaccurate.

Continue reading “Hawks Inflate the Threat from Chinese ‘Expansionism’”