Post New

Cuomo's take,

https://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com/p/what-h...

Corporate Taxes stay low.

Taxes on the rich stay low.

White Liberals continue to get tax advantages that poorer people of color can't utilized.

He might renew the Racist Democrat wish to spend billions to keep Mexican immigrants out.

The world will be reminded, from the President's podium that America's economy is superior to their filthy inferior European systems.

Record Defense Spending continues.

Russians and Ukrainians will continue to die with not much endgame accomplished - but Liberal corporate friend make money and they can sit around, not giving a shit about killed people but happy they're sticking it to Putin from Starbucks half a world away.

America First, PROTECTIONIST NATIONALIST POLICIES - be it Infrastructure, CHIPS act, or tariffs will continue.

With any luck, World War 3 will continue to get closer as Liberals and NeoCons want.

Driven by globalism and decayed culture and march away from traditional family structures - America's poor and UNDERCLASS will not only grow, but become more permanent and entrenched.

Political violence will increase and grow more normalized. (haha....yeah I couldn't hold it in).

It's Reaganism, Trumpism, and Wolfowitz-ism that Liberals can be ok with.

If Biden wins?
China will get even more aggressive, and a number of Filipinos will die.
The war in the Ukraine will grind on.
There will be more violence in the Middle East.

al Qaeda - now reforming in Afghanistan - will strike and kill Americans. It's inevitable.

The economy will limp along, burdened by out of control spending and choked by excess regulation.

The border will remain open and many thousands will die by fentanyl.

These are all facts and every Biden voter is sentencing the country to this, all because Orange Man Bad. They'll do this while loudly proclaiming what righteous and moral people they all are.

China will get even more aggressive, and a number of Filipinos will die, and Trump will say 'Not our problem.'

The war in the Ukraine will end because Trump will side with Russia.

There will be more violence in the Middle East because Trump doesn't care if the shithole countries are violent.

al Qaeda - now reforming in Afghanistan - will strike and kill Americans. It's inevitable because the Islamic schism can't prevent it, and Trump can't either.

The economy will limp along, burdened by out of unsustainable income inequity and choked by predatory capitalism.

The border will remain open and many thousands will die by fentanyl same as it did under trump because Trump told his minions to defeat a bipartisan border act that Homeland Security and CBP endorsed.

If Trump wins?

China will invade Taiwan after they give Ivanka 18 more trademarks to sell things in China. China will then announce they own the Philippines and Trump will say what a smart that was.

Trump will send US troops to fight along side the Russians in exchange for a Trump hotel in Moscow. Then Trump will allow Putin to invade any NATO country that doesn’t pay him enough money.

Trump will either help or hurt Israel, depending on the highest bidder.

Apparently, al Qaeda will strike and kill Americans because it’s inevitable.

The economy will nose dive and unemployment will skyrocket as Trump lowers the tax rates for billionaires to zero and gives them a YUGE refundable tax credit for being smart. Middle class taxes will go up to squeeze as much money from them as he can.

Trump will build another quarter of a mile of fence on the border which will be paid for by the Mexican drug cartels in order to do business in the U.S. Trump will also separate immigrant families and jail babies because Jesus told him it was the right thing to do.

Benjamin Franklin once said we “have a Republic, if you can keep it.” If Trump wins, it means we couldn’t.

China will invade Taiwan

2027 is the year things get spicy although the PLA's recent problems with their Rocket Force might push that back a bit.

I realize you're trying to be snarky...but the simple fact of the matter is that we've seen a Trump Presidency already. I'll do a TL;DR for you:

The world wasn't on fire then.

We've also lived through 3 years of a Biden Presidency. Here's the TL;DR: The world is on fire.

Your mileage may vary, but most people want a world that's not on fire. Maybe liberals are made of different stuff.

The POTUS is not necessarily responsible for the world being on fire. The universe doesn't revolve around us. The actions of a POTUS can have influence.

Likely nothing could have stopped Hamas.

Ditto with Putin (and Trump would have done less or nothing had he won a second term).

China was asserting control over the South China Sea at least since Obama, and Trump did nothing about it while he was in charge.

At least Biden isn't threatening to leave NATO, like Trump did. And issuing open invitations to invade NATO countries is just stupid.

Etc.

Yeah, I've seen a Trump presidency. And a Biden presidency. I'll take the latter in a heartbeat, imperfect though it may be.

The POTUS is not necessarily responsible for the world being on fire. The universe doesn't revolve around us. The actions of a POTUS can have influence.

Likely nothing could have stopped Hamas.

Wrong and wrong. Hamas wouldn't have dreamed of doing 10/7 with a strong US President who would provide unwavering support for Israel.

How many places did Putin invade?

China was asserting control over the South China Sea at least since Obama, and Trump did nothing about it while he was in charge.

Oh? Sure about that?
Trump made moves to fortify the Navy. Biden's done 1 reasonable thing in the Pacific and been the beneficiary of China's aggression. Other than that he's done very little to counter China.

At least Biden isn't threatening to leave NATO, like Trump did. And issuing open invitations to invade NATO countries is just stupid.

I would just say that's it's a better idea to not take Trump literally.

And a Biden presidency. I'll take the latter in a heartbeat, imperfect though it may be.

If you're a fan of border chaos, open warfare across the planet and a whack economy, then Biden's your guy.

Ditto with Putin (and Trump would have done less or nothing had he won a second term).

-----------

I'm not totally sure that Putin would have invaded Ukraine if someone else had been President from 2017 to 2021. If ANYONE else had been President between 2017 and 2021, they would not have publicly extorted Ukraine's President by soliciting dirt on political opponents in exchange for weapons Congress had already authorized for delivery and were not the US President's to use as a bargaining chip for his own INDIVIDUAL political gain.

Russia had already been causing trouble in the far east portion of Ukraine but seeing Trump's cynical attempt to extort Zelenskyy likely accelerated Putin's thinking that he might get away with a grab of the rest of the country with a bit of 2020s style "blitzkrieg" (using broken down 1960s vintage tanks...) that would simply shock Ukraine into surrendering.

With that thought already percolating in his head from 2019 and 2020, Putin then saw the US government paralyzed by the failed coup attempt on January 6, efforts to impeach Trump BEFORE he left office and a successful effort to impeach Trump AFTER he left office. At that point, Putin likely assumed America would be distracted indefinitely with domestic political squabbles triggered predominately by MAGA advocates who already expressed SUPPORT for Putin's totalitarian style and pandemic response efforts which were also proving politically divisive. Mobilization for the February 2022 invastion of Ukraine began in earnest in March of 2021. I don't think that's any coincidence.


WTH

Dope: "Hamas wouldn't have dreamed of doing 10/7 with a strong US President who would provide unwavering support for Israel. "

Dementia Dope seems to have forgotten Hamas' response to Trump's signing ceremony that netted Javanka $2,000,000,000.00 after he left office.


"JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military struck Hamas militant sites in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday in response to rocket fire toward Israel the previous night that coincided with the signing of normalization agreements between Israel and two Arab countries at the White House.

The barrage against Israel began Tuesday night just as the ceremony in Washington was getting underway to formalize the new agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

The rocket fire continued overnight, with sirens sounding across southern Israel. The military said five projectiles landed in open areas with the rest intercepted by Israel’s rocket defense system. In response, the military said it struck about 10 sites belonging to Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers, including a weapons and explosives manufacturing factory, underground infrastructure and a military training compound."

At that point, Putin likely assumed America would be distracted indefinitely with domestic political squabbles triggered predominately by MAGA advocates who already expressed SUPPORT for Putin's totalitarian style and pandemic response efforts which were also proving politically divisive. Mobilization for the February 2022 invastion of Ukraine began in earnest in March of 2021. I don't think that's any coincidence.

So Putin invading the Ukraine in 2022 is the result of Trump in 2020.

Sure, makes perfect sense.

Hamas wouldn't have dreamed of doing 10/7 with a strong US President who would provide unwavering support for Israel.

Why not? 10/7 was a "tragic success" for Hamas. They didn't expect that it would be the greatest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust - that was entirely unanticipated. The US response almost certainly didn't play any role in their thinking, and nor would they have had any reason to suspect that Biden would have had any different response than Trump to the attack that they thought they were making.

"The full episode is only available to paid subscribers of The Chris Cuomo Project."

HC - set you hair on fire and run down the block.

Get the episode out of this mode before you post it. I don't want the video stopping half way and wanting me to subscribe.

Not worried one bit about any potential succession event.

The camps are being readied in the Mexican Highlands, etc. After Biden takes power all MAGAts will be rounded up into the camps while we bring in cooperative immigrants and create a progressive Social Democrat State. Resistance is futile. The Latinos get all the Southern States from Southern California to Texas/ The Indians get Florida, Georgia and the rest of the South, which they share with the blacks. Most of New England remains New England. Whatever mental asylums we have get dumped into the West.

We appoint 6 more liberal progressive Supreme Court Justices, disband the electoral college, take a cue from China and retrain all the deported MAGAts and after 20 years repatriate the reformed and turn the unreformed loose in one of the -stan countries.

That is all.

Why not? 10/7 was a "tragic success" for Hamas.

Because US weakness is signal to others to act, and Hamas read (correctly) that Joe Biden wouldn't exact have a spine made of iron with this.

And they were right.

Biden would have had any different response than Trump to the attack that they thought they were making.

The North Vietnam playbook o has been the manual of choice for 50 years for small countries and terrorist armies to fight bigger and/or more well equipped foes. Winning on the battlefield is only part of it; winning in the media is the other. It helps when you, like the North Vietnamese and Hamas, have a lot of bodies you can throw at your enemy and you don't mind losing them.

Israel is 100% losing the propaganda war. That's been helped along in no small way by a feckless US President in Biden who should have told the (sadly, growing) minority wing of his party to shut up and stop paying lip service to terrorists.

Let's play this out and say Trump is President. In the immediate aftermath of a mass casualty attack on Israel by Hamas, would Trump be more likely to:

a) Issue a call for restraint while saying, "You know, there have been tragedies on both sides..."
b) Call up Netanyahu and tell him to Get Some while promising all the aid he needs, including intel sharing.

a) or b)?

You might say, "But Dope, Trump would have done b) but Biden did that as well". Perfect.

Now advance the clock by 6 months and The Squad and various media outlets are pushing Hamas' talking points about " " Famine " " and what not.

Would Trump

a) say "That's fake news, and Hamas' numbers are complete BS. Only terrorist sympathizers would repeat that stuff. The Israelis take care to avoid civilian casualties while the Hamas animals deliberately target women and little kids. The Israelis need to completely destroy Hamas".

b) say "We are extremely concerned with the reported casualty figures and urge Israel to come to the bargaining table. To encourage this we're considering slowing our support in terms of arms shipments".

What do you think the effect of a) vs. b) is on the media coverage? On campus protests? On the willingness of other countries to wag their fingers at Israel? On Hamas' fighting spirit?

China will get even more aggressive... etc...

BUT...it can all be blamed on the Democrats...somehow. Remember, as Trump has said, "I don't take responsibility at all"

And following up further: Would Trump ever have said that we need a "political solution" at this moment in time?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2024/05...

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/17901075090...

NSA Jake Sullivan: "Military pressure is necessary but not sufficient to fully defeat Hamas. If Israel's military efforts are not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza and Palestinian people, the terrorists will keep coming back and Israel will remain under threat."

or

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/17901081772...

"This is all consistent with President Biden's longstanding view that, ultimately, a two-state solution is the ONLY way to ensure a strong, secure, Jewish, democratic state of Israel, as well as a future of dignity, security and prosperity for the Palestinian people."

Would Trump be conflating Hamas with the "Dignity of the Palestinian people"? Errr, no. This is the kind of silly unforced error that Biden's team makes every. single. day.: they casually accept the premise that Hamas == the Palestinians instead of merely saying

"Hamas is a murderous scourge who deserves to be wiped out, and some of the worst crimes they've ever committed have come against the Palestinian people, who don't deserve this".

Would Biden ever say that?

The camps are being readied in the Mexican Highlands, etc. After Biden takes power all MAGAts will be rounded up into the camps while we bring in cooperative immigrants and create a progressive Social Democrat State. Resistance is futile. The Latinos get all the Southern States from Southern California to Texas/ The Indians get Florida, Georgia and the rest of the South, which they share with the blacks. Most of New England remains New England. Whatever mental asylums we have get dumped into the West.

We appoint 6 more liberal progressive Supreme Court Justices, disband the electoral college, take a cue from China and retrain all the deported MAGAts and after 20 years repatriate the reformed and turn the unreformed loose in one of the -stan countries.

That is all.

LOL. If this leaks out to the QAnon/MAGA world you will be responsible for starting a bunch of new conspiracy theories. None of this is a whole lot crazier than the shit that gets passed around in the MAGAverse.

Because US weakness is signal to others to act, and Hamas read (correctly) that Joe Biden wouldn't exact have a spine made of iron with this.

It's not a signal to others to act if their actions don't depend on US weakness. Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 in order to disrupt the normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia and other actors, and to try to increase their relevance in regional power struggles again. Their decision had nothing to do with US weakness, because at no point did they expect their attack to be successful enough to garner an Israeli response beyond the resources presently available to the Israelis.

Hamas planned a significant attack, but one that they expected would be far more limited than it turned out to be. They didn't plan on killing so, so many Israelis. So they didn't anticipate a full-on invasion of Gaza. So they couldn't have possibly been deterred - or encouraged - by any assessment of how the U.S. would respond to a full-on invasion of Gaza. Which means it really didn't matter who was President of the U.S., because the U.S. wasn't relevant to their planning or decision to attack.

It's not always about us.

Their decision had nothing to do with US weakness, because at no point did they expect their attack to be successful enough to garner an Israeli response beyond the resources presently available to the Israelis.

Not correct. They would have had to have known there would have been a battlefront for public opinion. Biden's weakness is helping them win it.

Hamas planned a significant attack, but one that they expected would be far more limited than it turned out to be.

Not sure how you can say that; they specifically targeted a music festival they knew would have thousands of attendees right across the border. They planned in advance to massacre whomever they could find in the kibbutzes that were near the border. In short, they planned to kill thousands.

Not correct. They would have had to have known there would have been a battlefront for public opinion. Biden's weakness is helping them win it.

So what? They knew there would be a battlefront for public opinion, but they wouldn't have refrained from the attack simply because the President was a different person. They're not exactly a conflict-avoidant group.

Not sure how you can say that; they specifically targeted a music festival they knew would have thousands of attendees right across the border. They planned in advance to massacre whomever they could find in the kibbutzes that were near the border. In short, they planned to kill thousands.

They didn't expect the plan to be nearly that successful. They hoped it would, of course - but they didn't expect that Israel would have pulled so many of its troops to the other side of the country, or would be so sluggish in responding. So Hamas had free reign over the area for far longer than they could have imagined. So they ended up with a "catastrophic success":

Hamas’s commitment to international law is, of course, questionable. But the group appeared genuinely stunned by the temporary collapse of Israel’s defenses. In an interview with the New Yorker, Moussa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas political leader, said his group “never expected” to wreak the havoc it did. One anonymous diplomat told Al Monitor that Hamas’s success “surprised” the group—and worried it. “With two abductees, they could have negotiated with Israel for permission to build a seaport and freedom for hundreds of prisoners held in Israeli jails,” the diplomat said. “With more than 100 abductees, they will face the entire Israeli army inside Gaza.” What is more, judging by the public interviews Hamas’s leaders have given, they do not appear to know the total number of hostages Palestinian fighters captured, suggesting a lack of coordination among militant groups in Gaza.

https://archive.ph/ATJcN#selection-1783.0-1787.690

This was a complete botch-up for Hamas - so it would have happened with or without Trump.

So what? They knew there would be a battlefront for public opinion, but they wouldn't have refrained from the attack simply because the President was a different person. They're not exactly a conflict-avoidant group.

I think you're wrong here.

This was a complete botch-up for Hamas - so it would have happened with or without Trump.

I've outlined how it would have been different under Trump.
As far as this
What is more, judging by the public interviews Hamas’s leaders have given, they do not appear to know the total number of hostages Palestinian fighters captured, suggesting a lack of coordination among militant groups in Gaza.

They don't operate like an army does, that's by design.

I've outlined how it would have been different under Trump.

You've outlined how events under Trump might have been different after the attack. But not how Hamas' pre-attack choices would have been different.

Hamas planned and launched this attack entirely based on local and regional considerations. They were dismayed at the growing rapproachement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which itself was driven by those countries' inherent economic and security interests. They felt domestic political pressures (ie. internal to Gaza) to provide some sort of military action against Israel more effective than just launching a few scattered rocket strikes. They began to recognize that Netanyahu's plan to marginalize them by handing them Gaza in a de facto normalization of the status quo was not working for them. And they believed that they had identified security failures that would be sufficient for them to grab a few Israeli hostages, preferably a member of the military or two, which is currency in their dealings with Israel.

None of those factors involve the U.S., or is in the slightest bit affected by the U.S. There's no reason to assume that the U.S. would be relevant to Israel's response to the attack, since it was expected to respond in some minor border skirmishes and an exchange of hostages - not the full-scale invasion of Gaza.

Again, not everything is about us. Sometimes events happen in the world because of things that don't involve the U.S.

You've outlined how events under Trump might have been different after the attack. But not how Hamas' pre-attack choices would have been different.

Yes. But you've forgotten something very crucial that does involve us.

Which President was it that got the momentum going with respect to the Israelis normalizing ties with many powers in the Middle East? That would be Trump. The other thing you're forgetting is Biden's desire to broker the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran as well as Iran's perpetual links to and funding of Hezbollah and others.

Biden pivoted the US' middle east strategy towards appeasing Iran as opposed to Trump's method of isolating the mullahs. Bad actors immediately picked up on the lack of the US' pushing for more Abraham-like accords as an opportunity to act in the new envrionment...and have.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Hamas does this at the same time Houthi rebels openly attack ships with Iran's help? Or that Hezbollah has been steadily ramping up its activities in southern Lebanon?

Under Trump the Palestinians were being IGNORED until they started acting like adults...which they never did. Under Biden he would have pushed a 2 state deal as well as appeased their silent partners the Iranians no matter what Hamas would do.

And that's exactly as it turned out. Trump's method of squeezing Iran and aligning their natural adversaries the Saudis, Jordanians and Kuwaitis with Israel against the common cause was working. Biden's weakness has set that back a decade, maybe longer.

Is everything about us? No, and no one claims that. But it's folly to say that the absence of US resolve and leadership have no effect.

Biden's weakness is helping them win it.


What a crock.

Biden is vastly more experienced and knowledgable about foreign affairs. Trump is just an unpredictable dufus who loves autocrats. Trump is not someone who has respect in the international community. But I'm sure every corrupt dictator knows he can easily take advantage of him.

Here's the TL;DR: The world is on fire.

Definitely Biden’s fault that Russia invaded Ukraine. Also definitely Biden’s fault that Hamas launched a terror attack on Israel, although I’m surprised about that one. I thought Jared has brought Peace to the Middle East? Guess it didn’t last long.

but just people want a world that’s not on fire.

So did Chamberlain.

Definitely Biden’s fault that Russia invaded Ukraine.

American weakness is acted upon. Not sure why this is mystery, but I guess it is.

Also definitely Biden’s fault that Hamas launched a terror attack on Israel,

I've covered that. International relations is a chess board. Biden decided it would be better to approach Iran and re-energize the Obama-era nuclear deal rather than continue Trump's policy of isolating Iran by unifying its enemies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan et al.) against them.

That plan was working, but since Orange Man Bad we had to go and think we could negotiate with the mullahs.

Who's teh stoopid now?

So did Chamberlain.

Biden isn't as intelligent as Chamberlain was.

Because US weakness is signal to others to act, and Hamas read (correctly) that Joe Biden wouldn't exact have a spine made of iron with this.

I’m not sure how you’ll take a rebuttal from that left-wing rag, The Wall Street Journal, but here it is anyway:

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump claims that neither the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel nor Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine would have happened on his watch, and that the world was an oasis of calm and stability when he was president. The reality was more complicated.

“It would not have happened if I were in office,” Trump said in Schnecksville, Pa. “Today we are considered a joke. It’s not going to be for long, believe me.”

During Trump’s four years in the White House, there was no conflict on par with the Israel-Hamas war or Russia’s war in Ukraine. But Iran, or Iran-backed proxies, did launch attacks on U.S. personnel in the Middle East and against countries across the region while Trump was president, and he was usually hesitant to respond, wary of further attacks.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/str...

“But he was hesitant to respond”

“But he was hesitant to respond”

“But he was hesitant to respond”

Keep saying it over and over perhaps it will penetrate. “But he was hesitant to respond”. Or more succinctly, “he ran from every fight.”

I’m not sure how you’ll take a rebuttal from that left-wing rag, The Wall Street Journal, but here it is anyway:

Playing the Appeal To Authority card is a logical fallacy; you should know that by now. BTW the news division of the WSJ leans left, it's the editorial page that leans right.

During Trump’s four years in the White House, there was no conflict on par with the Israel-Hamas war or Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Hmmm. That doens't seem to fit the narrative you want. Let's see how they try to have their cake and eat it, too in the very next sentence:

But Iran, or Iran-backed proxies, did launch attacks on U.S. personnel in the Middle East and against countries across the region while Trump was president, and he was usually hesitant to respond, wary of further attacks.

So there wasn't a large scale thing...because those folks knew what would happen to them.

You forgot something. Iran fricked around and certain somebodies over there found out.

Remember this? Here, I'll cite a sufficiently left wing source for you:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-5097946...

Iran's most powerful military commander, Gen Qasem Soleimani, has been killed by a US air strike in Iraq.

The 62-year-old spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East as head of Iran's elite Quds Force.

He was killed at Baghdad airport, along with other Iran-backed militia figures, early on Friday in a strike ordered by US President Donald Trump.

This clown, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, is now rotting in hell thanks to Trump.

Keep saying it over and over perhaps it will penetrate. “But he was hesitant to respond”. Or more succinctly, “he ran from every fight.”

I think you're the ones trying to convince yourselves that Biden has a) a spine and b) a functioning brain. He never had the former ever and it's questionable that he ever had b) going for him, either.

Please send the next lib up to the plate.

Oh. Almost forgot.

What did Spine Of Steel Joe Biden have to say about whacking Soleimani?

"I spent my whole life doing national security and foreign policy...and the reason why President Obama picked me is because of my background in national security and foreign policy, and intelligence matters. You don't do things this way," Biden said last year in response to Trump's order to strike Soleimani.

Hahahahahahaha! This guy is a hoot. Been wrong on every major issue for the last 50 years.

He's George Costanza with an adult diaper.

Biden pivoted the US' middle east strategy towards appeasing Iran as opposed to Trump's method of isolating the mullahs. Bad actors immediately picked up on the lack of the US' pushing for more Abraham-like accords as an opportunity to act in the new envrionment...and have.

If anything, had Biden actually done that, it would have made an attack less likely. Again, the primary impetus for Hamas' strike was the continuing expansion of diplomatic ties between Israel and the Saudi-led coalition, combined with (ostensibly) the lack of progress towards a Palestinian state. Those trends began under Trump, and would certainly have continued at least as much in a second Administration - if not more, as you suggest. Having Trump instead of Biden wouldn't have made a Hamas attack less likely, but more.

But we didn't really reverse course on those things. The U.S.' continued support for more Abraham-like accords in the area, and trying to foster greater regional ties among Israel and the other anti-Iran players, kept the pressure on Hamas to do something before Israel was no longer vulnerable.

But it's folly to say that the absence of US resolve and leadership have no effect.

No, it's not. Sometimes we're just not a factor. Much more often, who the President is is not a factor - because even though Presidents have different foreign policy positions at the margins, the core position of the U.S. towards most other nations only changes within a narrow range. At the end of the day, at 30,000 feet the U.S. foreign policy in this region that Hamas would base their decisions on is "Israel good, Hamas bad" - they just don't have any intelligence assets or other resources that would allow them to form much more of a strategic parsing of what U.S. policy about Hamas would be.

If anything, had Biden actually done that, it would have made an attack less likely. Again, the primary impetus for Hamas' strike was the continuing expansion of diplomatic ties between Israel and the Saudi-led coalition, combined with (ostensibly) the lack of progress towards a Palestinian state.

That's forgetting something else: Hamas knew damn well that an attack of that magnitude would provoke a response. The attack wasn't what was going to scuttle any relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel; it was always Israel's response and the inevitable pressure among the Arab nations to push back against the horrors Da Joos were unleashing on the hapless Palestinians.

Their plan worked very well.
The world for some reason refuses to admit to itself what Hamas is: It's a death cult. There's no amount of Palestinian kids they won't sacrifice just to get at Israel.

Sometimes we're just not a factor.

Exactly. Now you're getting closer.

Hamas knew damn well that an attack of that magnitude would provoke a response. The attack wasn't what was going to scuttle any relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel; it was always Israel's response and the inevitable pressure among the Arab nations to push back against the horrors Da Joos were unleashing on the hapless Palestinians.

Of course. Hamas expected a response - but they didn't expect their attack would be "successful" enough to prompt a full invasion. Pick up some hostages to trade for things, get some counter-attacks to fire up the Arab street, and give Hezbollah an opening to also poke Israel. Put violence and conflict, rather than peace and cooperation with Saudi, back on the agenda.

But notice that plan doesn't depend on whether U.S. policy towards Israel is Trumpian or Bidenesque. They will make the decision to fire off that plan whether Trump is there or Biden is there, because it doesn't matter whether the President is 100% on board with Israel or not. Since they can accomplish their goals even with a maximalist Israel supporter in office, having a maximalist Israel supporter in office wouldn't stop them from pulling the trigger on the attack.

That's why we're not a factor - not because we've taken ourselves out of the situation, but because it doesn't matter what we're choosing to do in that specific scenario. Hamas' choices are being driven by tons of local and regional factors, and not on any potential future responses by the U.S.

Sometime the world's on fire just because there's a lot of flammable parts - and not because of who the U.S. President is at that moment. It's not something you can control just by turning "Perception of U.S. Willingness to Project Strength" up to 11 (not that I think Trump does that nearly as much as his supporters seem to think he does). Sometimes no matter how high you dial that number up, things will still happen in the world - so pretending they wouldn't have happened if a different person had won an election is foolhardy.

Of course. Hamas expected a response - but they didn't expect their attack would be "successful" enough to prompt a full invasion.

They were ecstatic about that, along with the response of the media, the UN and their ability to win the information war.

But notice that plan doesn't depend on whether U.S. policy towards Israel is Trumpian or Bidenesque. They will make the decision to fire off that plan whether Trump is there or Biden is there, because it doesn't matter whether the President is 100% on board with Israel or not. Since they can accomplish their goals even with a maximalist Israel supporter in office, having a maximalist Israel supporter in office wouldn't stop them from pulling the trigger on the attack.

I disagree. Trump in office means less leverage for Tehran and less emboldening of its proxies. Hamas waited 2 and a half years to act; this was after the Abraham Accord deals started going nowhere after Biden prioritized dealing with the mullahs instead of continuing the momentum in the Middle East.

democrats always fail these things because they never understand who it is that's sitting across from them at the table. The second Tehran knew that Oba-, er, Biden wanted to deal, it sent out orders to its proxies to start trouble. Just to put pressure on American negotiators and extract concessions (that fools like Biden always grant).

As opposed to, say, executing a supersonic low pass over the Iranian naval ship that's giving the Houthi missile shooters their targeting information. You don't reason with maniacs; you let them know that the next time we decide you're up to no good the supersonic flyby won't fly by, it'll contain a live warhead and blow the ship to kingdom come.

Hamas' choices are being driven by tons of local and regional factors, and not on any potential future responses by the U.S.

Hamas played chess here, and the world's media and the progressive American left fell for it. Now it's going to take years to repair the damage.

Who the US President is matters.

We forget that this has been a thing for most of Biden's presidency:
https://apnews.com/article/what-was-the-outcome-of...

What's also been a thing is Biden's disengagement:
The Biden administration, which had hoped to extricate the U.S. from the region’s intractable conflicts to focus on a rising China and climate change, was caught flat-footed and has now been dragged back into the dispiriting role of Mideast mediator.

From the start of the latest war, the U.S. repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself while quietly encouraging cease-fire efforts. On Wednesday, however, President Joe Biden told Netanyahu he wanted to see a “significant de-escalation.”

Talking out of both sides of your mouth was a hallmark of Obama-era foreign policy also. When you don't mean anything you say...pretty soon people don't listen to you.

https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/jo...

Contrast the above to the green light Trump gave the Israelis to PLAY OFFENSE.

This latest Gaza War demonstrated that Biden has no influence over this death. By jumping back into talks to reenter the Iran Deal, he abandoned all leverage over Tehran. And the now emboldened Iran sees an aggressive Hamas as a valuable tool for attacking Israel. The Biden administration has further aggravated matters by reinstating support for UNRWA, the UN relief organization that is little more than an enabler for Hamas’ grip on power in Gaza.

Another problem for Biden, Schanzer points out, are supporters of Hamas and antisemitic voices in the president’s own political party. They have coalesced into a black hole, pulling Democratic politicians away from the historic bipartisan consensus for the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership.

Biden has weakened his own hand in the Middle East at the moment Israel finds itself saddled with a weak coalition government, united by little more than a common concern over the threat posed by Iran and the fear of instability in the Palestinian communities in Gaza and the West bank.

Bear in mind this was written...in 2022.

Who the American President it matters.

They were ecstatic about that, along with the response of the media, the UN and their ability to win the information war.

Again, not relevant to their pre-attack decision-making.

I disagree. Trump in office means less leverage for Tehran and less emboldening of its proxies. Hamas waited 2 and a half years to act; this was after the Abraham Accord deals started going nowhere after Biden prioritized dealing with the mullahs instead of continuing the momentum in the Middle East.

You have it exactly backwards. It was the progress that was being made in knitting together Israeli-Saudi relations that prompted Hamas to act. Israel and Saudi were getting closer to forging new economic and diplomatic relationships, building off the success of the Abraham Accords. It was specifically the threat that KSA might join the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain in normalizing relations with Israel that got Hamas to act.

Again, not relevant to their pre-attack decision-making.

They've been playing on Biden's weakness since 2021, as my next post shows.

It was the progress that was being made in knitting together Israeli-Saudi relations that prompted Hamas to act. Israel and Saudi were getting closer to forging new economic and diplomatic relationships, building off the success of the Abraham Accords. It was specifically the threat that KSA might join the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain in normalizing relations with Israel that got Hamas to act.

Biden emboldened Tehran right from the start of his Presidency, removing any leverage he had over Iran and encouraging them to go on the offensive. Climate change was more important to Biden.

I disagree. Trump in office means less leverage for Tehran and less emboldening of its proxies.

Did you sleep through Trump's first 4 years? He was a total jackass with foreign policy. Too lazy to even read or listen to the daily briefings. A Putin patsy and an apologist, or really more of a fan, of tyrants everywhere.

He was a disaster.

There is a reason historians rate him at or very near the bottom in rankings of US POTUS's. And that is only going to get worse if he gets a second chance at scuttling our Republic.

None of this is a whole lot crazier than the shit that gets passed around in the MAGAverse.

🤪

Sometimes no matter how high you dial that number up, things will still happen in the world - albaby

-------------------

Especially when your track record show there will be either m=no response or a proportional response.


People who long for a cease fire forget that Hamas declared, 10/7 over and over again, a thousand times until every Israeli is dead. Israel is going what MUST be done. If Isralek doesn't get of Hamas, who will?

I know, you can't get rid of Hamas this way. We can't win the war on poverty either, but we don't use that excuse to stop trying.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.