This Fucking Guy: Bret(bug) Stephens
Bret Stephens once again shows why he's an NY Times DEI hire. He's thrilled with the Iran war, and praises Trump for his "instincts" Barf
Front matter: I have some new subscribers, including my first paid subscriber. I want to welcome you here, and as always, if you want to get to me directly, just reply to this email. I love hearing from my readers!
I have a long history of fucking hating Bret Stephens of the NY Times. I have written about him three times directly, two "Human Garbage of the Week's" and one "This Fuckin' Guy". Each time it was because of some particularly noxious ooze from his front-anus. He is just a king of bad takes[1].
First, why do I call him "Bret(bug) Stephens"? Glad you asked. One of the writers I follow I discovered a long time ago when Twitter didn't suck. Dave Karpf, a professor of political comms (tenured), got into a tiff with Bret, and called him a "bedbug" likening him to an annoying biting insect. Of course Bret(bug) couldn't let that huge hit to his ego go by, so, he struck back trying to get him disciplined or fired (and not understanding the concept of "tenure" clearly). Anyhow, Bret(bug) got a lesson in the Streisand Effect.
Hilarious.
Anyhow, what did Mr. Stephens do to catch my eye?
As you can likely guess, he starts with how we usually go to war with allies by our sides who aren't as fully vested, listing Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Germany in Kosovo. Whoop de doo. In those cases, we lobbied, and earned their cooperation. And since the US spends more n defense than the next 6 countries combined, one doesn't expect the same financial and materiel contributions.
Then he drops this turd in the punchbowl:
The war against Iran is different. As of Monday, Central Command reports that the United States had struck over 7,000 targets inside Iran. Israel, for its part, had carried out some 7,600 strikes, according to a representative of the Israeli military. This may be the first time since the Second World War that Washington has had an equal partner with which to share the burdens of war.
Oh wow, Iran has actually struck more than us. (I suspect this also counts the Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, but who's counting...)
Remind me, does Israel pay for all their armaments? Are they self sufficient in their military spending? And are they self sufficient in their regional sorties?
From the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, I found this:
The United States has provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since the start of the war in Gaza on October 7, 2023. However, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, an additional tens of billions of dollars in arms sales agreements have been committed for weapons and services that will be paid for in the years to come. This report covers the spending streams that have gone into that $21.7 billion, as well as detailing the billions in commitments that the U.S. government has promised for arms to be supplied in the future, much or all of which will be paid for by additional appropriations for military aid to Israel.
Given the scale of current and future spending, it is clear the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) could not have done the damage they have done in Gaza or escalated their military activities throughout the region without U.S. financing, weapons, and political support.
According to a companion report by Linda J. Bilmes, the U.S. has spent an additional $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in Yemen and the wider region sparked by or in support of Israeli military operations since October 7, 2023, for a total of $31.35 – $33.77 billion and counting in U.S. spending on two years of war.
So, just during the Gaza excursion, the US (under both Biden and Trump) provided an amazing amount of aid and aid in kind for regional conflicts.
In fact, without the US, Israel would struggle to exist[2].
Back to Bret:
In 1990, Patrick Buchanan insisted that the only groups in favor of a war against Saddam Hussein over his invasion of Kuwait were “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” (That amen corner, Buchanan later indicated, consisted of the columnists A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, the defense expert Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state. Spot the commonality.) Opponents of the later Iraq war also spun a tale that the Bush administration was mostly doing Israel’s bidding.
Did he really pull up the absolutely fucktacular Pat Buchanan? Why yes, yes he did. The "amen" corner of the UN, clearly that is a coven of Neocon fuckery.
Anyhow, he's not exactly countering the claim that Israel dog-walked Trump into this conflict.
Look, I am almost 61, and for much of my adult life, I have read and heard about the volatility of the middle east, the fragility of Israel's position, and how the tensions (cultural, and religious) are on a knife's edge of balance, always threatening to tip over into potential world ending violence. Even more so than the cold war, the fact that so much of the energy of the planet was concentrated in the gulf made it a tinderbox.
And it was always understood that Israel's leaders pushed US Presidents to partner with Israel to deal with Iran, the sorest spot of the region. But until Trump, all our leaders had listened to their Intelligence and foreign affairs analysts and avoided the temptation.
And Bret is all in. Some more drippling off his chin, he gets to this:
Whatever one thinks about the wisdom or the timing of Trump’s decision to go to war, it was, plainly, his decision — one for which he needed little convincing from Netanyahu, or, for that matter, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who, The Times reports, is urging Trump to “keep hitting the Iranians hard.”
He actually thinks this is a good thing, Trump being full throated all in.
Alas, not long after the war began, I got into a comment war thread on Substack, where I was arguing (I think it was at the 7th day, before it got stupid) that Israel wouldn't let Trump TACO[3], until they had completed their mission, that being to ensure that Iran was unable to resume its campaign of state funded terrorism, and sporadic lobbing of rockets at Israel. My foil was arguing that if Trump pulled out, Netanyahu would half to deescalate.
I doubted that, and that regardless of Trump's desire to make this an in-n-out operation, that the chaos that Iran would project would force his hand.
And low and behold, now that the Strait of Hormuz is (effectively) closed, and the price of oil is up bigly, Trump's option to declare "victory" and pull back is not a viable option[4]. That ship has sailed folks.
I will pull the last 'graph to save you from having to read the whole thing:
The killing of Larijani may help dispel the odd gloom that’s descended on a war that is persistently dismantling Iran’s ability to put up a meaningful fight, beyond the desperate play of seeking to shut the Strait of Hormuz. That, too, won’t last long, thanks to the United States achieving what’s known among war planners as “escalation dominance.” Good thing that, in this war, the United States for once had a bold and competent ally to help us achieve it.
Yeah, sure, "escalation domination", that's sure to be the ticket. And "odd gloom" that is a take for sure.
Once again, Bret(bug) Stephens, the ultimate DEI hire proves why he is this week's "This Fucking Guy".
Thanks for reading!
1 - the three are below, so you don't have to search.
Geoff Anderson
and
Geoff Anderson
and
Geoff Anderson
2 - Note: I do not think we should not provide military aid to Israel, and Israel does have a right to exist. I just wish they could solve the issue with Hamas and the Palestinians. It is truly tragic.
3 - TACO is Trump Always Chickens Out
4 - To be clear, Trump might do it anyway, but the escalation of the chaos in the region, and the economic pain would be something that can't be ignored. He's stuck
