Dexter Filkins, who covered wars in the Middle East for decades, weighs in on Hezbollah, Iran, and what America should do about the brewing conflicts in the region.
I want us to build and stockpile more weapons and grow our military AND stay out of world affairs. We should make it very clear though, that an attack on this country means we will wipe out anyone who dares to do it.
I don't think most readers interested in the coverage of the Middle East go to the New Yorker for that coverage, and those who seek objective coverage of the Middle East certainly don't read The New York Times. I follow the news from that region and the name Dexter Filkins never comes up. Now that I have heard him on this podcast, I can say confidently I learn nothing new except that Mr. Filkins attends a lot of dinners and parties with Hezbollah and talks about it in a very sophomoric way...like like like...immature way? Like, yeah.
"We don’t have American soldiers on the ground there" yes we do, both in Syria and Iraq helping the Kurds against ISIS.
Didn't learn much from this article. Israel will win this war and it will do it much, much quicker if President Trump returns to office. Trump knows how to deal with Iran... with a big fist and starving it. If Harris is installed like Biden we're all in a heap of trouble.
"There’s an increasing trend in both parties to just wash our hands, not just the Middle East, but the whole world. [...] We have tried for years to get out of the Middle East, and we have found ourselves incapable of doing it. It’s hard for me to look at the region right now. It’s imploding. I think it absolutely can get worse, and it will get worse if we walk away from it. That’s just a fact of life that we have to live with."
The dichotomy set-up here is a false one, and betrays a misunderstanding of the nuance that "realist" positions can hold.
The excuse will always be, for a certain type of foreign policy thinker, that if the US doesn't take an active and unipolar role in governing the international sphere, not only will the US suffer but the planet as well. So we just have to keep doing what we're doing, and maybe even MORE, and everything will turn out correctly in the end. The problem is that we lack the moral fortitude to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. And so on.
I disagree with this. You don't have to be an "isolationist" (is anybody actually this?) to question the PRUDENCE with which US foreign policy has been pursued since WWII, especially after the fall of the USSR. Are we not over-extended in our commitments at this point? How did we get here? Why are such commitments simply unquestionable? Why can't they be renegotiated? And all of this especially when these very commitments are (1) dubiously founded and (2) creating more problems than they solve.
Example: We have strategic interests in the Middle East because of oil access. Ok, what's the solution to this? Constantly interfere in the Middle East? Or genuinely seek a sufficient "energy independence," even if it ends up hurting us somewhat materially in the short-term? But in long-term, consider all the benefits, politically and economically, but also morally, culturally, and environmentally. And then maybe we can take a more objective role in the Middle East, once we are less codependently bound with it.
Example: The State of Israel is our "ally" (in what, I don't know, but fine). Ok, but do we have to enable Israel's intransigence by subsidizing its security directly and indirectly as if we have some messianic mission to be its perpetual protector from everyone else in the world who understands that their behavior is ALSO part of the problem of the instability of that region through its own abuses? In turn, does everyone else in the world resent our one-sided support for Israel, impacting their trust in us and disposing them to work against us? I suppose it's just because they're evil antisemites... sort of like DEI critics are all just fragile whites.
Tell me that these scenarios and others like them are not direct contributors to the constantly escalating realignment of the globe against US interests. I maintain that you are thinking too simplistically about these matters. But if it helps you to sleep at night to write off various people as "the evil ones who just need to be defeated" while ignoring the decades of cumulative imprudent foreign policy choices that have gotten us to this point, that's your business. God forbid other nations have their own national interests to pursue: if you're not with (i.e. under) the US, you're not respecting the "rules-based international order."
Whatever "increasing trend" the interviewee is seeing in both Parties, he should make sure that said trend is not simply people realizing we can't keep doing business as usual. Perhaps the American people are finally admitting that for decades their country has been marshalled in pursuit of the global hegemonic dreams of our elite classes while they've been bought-off by being fed with the bread-and-circus of our unrealistic and unsustainable material lifestyle? Maybe the elite classes are realizing that this dream isn't possible any longer, and they either change course or risk falling from power?
Reality will set in eventually. Something's got to give, and as the US is sapped of its material and moral strength internally and externally, there are only two choices: (1) renegotiate things to give ourselves a softer landing, or (2) have everything crumble in our hands because we refuse to let go of the status quo. The fatalism evidenced in this interview is in keeping with option (2). (1) seems much more reasonable to me, and apparently to a growing number of Americans.
I quote you: "The State of Israel is our "ally" (in what, I don't know, but fine)"
It seems to me that in order to work for the salvation of Mankind, one would need Friends. Not everyone WANTS the salvation of Mankind; in fact, some people, even whole GROUPS of them, want what could be construed to be the opposite -- the destruction of Mankind, or at least a portion of it, which could really be seen as the whole, couldn't it?
Hamas, and an integral part of the Islamic world, wants Israel, and Jews, DEAD. I would put to you that the US and Israel are "allies" in preventing the sworn mission of Hamas & Friends, and in trying to 'negotiate'.
You say "something's got to give." Well, something HAS given, and has been giving way for decades, if not millenia. "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," yes? The readiness is all.
P.S. Snark does not enlighten your otherwise earnest, half-right and sophistically-reasoned message. But thank you for your passion.
I like Michael Moynihan’s interview style. He’s a great addition to The Free Press. It’s just insane that Democrats think the answer is to ease off Iran. How much more evidence do they need that that isn’t working? Trump, whether you like him or not, was better for Israel and wider peace in the Middle East. The proof is right in the front of your face.
Listened to the podcast on the drive to work this morning. Aside: I didn't appreciate the 10 minute opening segment on the new parenting podcast, so if you want to get to this interview FF to 10 minute mark.
Filkins seems to have had a surprising level of access to Hezbollah and areas in Lebanon. He draws some good lines between the leaders who may be calculating and the fighters who he says all seem to want to go to war with Israel. Near the end, they finally get to the point that doesn't seem to sink in across the western leadership, the fighters are raised from childhood to want to fight Israel and the US and don't have the same view of death as we do. I did think there was a little too much chuckling about how all the Iran-backed militias, that often have fought each other, are all united by hating Israel. But Filkins describes the tunnel networks and how difficult it is/will be to defeat them even though the scale is pretty small, also what to expect in Lebanon given that Hamas in Gaza was not as sophisticated or well funded as Hezbollah.
Something out of a spy movie? You mean a movie like Munich? Which detailed Israel’s clandestine revenge campaign against terrorists. No, with Israel this sort of thing is par for the course.
I have yet to see anyone explain the Democrats love affair with Iran. Particularly John Kerry is so heavily invested in making and supporting a deal to pay Iran Danegeld to stop a nuclear weapon program that they are making and laughing in our faces about it.
Is there big payoffs to Dem leaders for this? Do they hate not only Israel but the USA so much that they fawn over the one country that is both rhetorically and actively trying to destroy us? And a country that's domestic policies is the opposite of Democrats stated love for the lgbtq+ community and women's rights.
Somebody please explain this frankly traitorous behavior.
I don’t think it’s sensible, but here’s my best steelmanning: It’s a divide-and-conquer, balance-of-power thing. The Sunnis are the biggest Islamist faction, and the ones behind 9/11. The Shi’ites in Iran, if properly played, could serve as a counterweight to keep the Sunnis from complete dominance in the Middle East. It’s like Britain’s successful foreign policy for centuries to keep any single European power from dominating the continent.
This might make sense if (a) the Shi’ites weren’t even worse enemies of Israel, the only democracy in the region, (b) Iran were stupid enough to be played, (c) the American foreign service were smart enough to play them, and (d) America had enough consensus to follow through on such an effort from one administration to the next. Since none of those are remotely true, it’s bonkers.
“ To paraphrase our friend Trotsky, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you.”
This is key in trying to explain,sin to isolationists why abandoning an Israel is suicidal policy for the USA.
The jihadis will come for America.Better to fully support Israel and stipe zIRGC nuclear program, than to have them bring their hatred and violence full force to the United States
I want us to build and stockpile more weapons and grow our military AND stay out of world affairs. We should make it very clear though, that an attack on this country means we will wipe out anyone who dares to do it.
I don't think most readers interested in the coverage of the Middle East go to the New Yorker for that coverage, and those who seek objective coverage of the Middle East certainly don't read The New York Times. I follow the news from that region and the name Dexter Filkins never comes up. Now that I have heard him on this podcast, I can say confidently I learn nothing new except that Mr. Filkins attends a lot of dinners and parties with Hezbollah and talks about it in a very sophomoric way...like like like...immature way? Like, yeah.
"We don’t have American soldiers on the ground there" yes we do, both in Syria and Iraq helping the Kurds against ISIS.
Didn't learn much from this article. Israel will win this war and it will do it much, much quicker if President Trump returns to office. Trump knows how to deal with Iran... with a big fist and starving it. If Harris is installed like Biden we're all in a heap of trouble.
This supports my decision as a one issue voter. Avoiding WW 3 Trumps every other issue. Pun intended.
escalate, escalate,
dance to the music... dum dee dum...
.
"There’s an increasing trend in both parties to just wash our hands, not just the Middle East, but the whole world. [...] We have tried for years to get out of the Middle East, and we have found ourselves incapable of doing it. It’s hard for me to look at the region right now. It’s imploding. I think it absolutely can get worse, and it will get worse if we walk away from it. That’s just a fact of life that we have to live with."
The dichotomy set-up here is a false one, and betrays a misunderstanding of the nuance that "realist" positions can hold.
The excuse will always be, for a certain type of foreign policy thinker, that if the US doesn't take an active and unipolar role in governing the international sphere, not only will the US suffer but the planet as well. So we just have to keep doing what we're doing, and maybe even MORE, and everything will turn out correctly in the end. The problem is that we lack the moral fortitude to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. And so on.
I disagree with this. You don't have to be an "isolationist" (is anybody actually this?) to question the PRUDENCE with which US foreign policy has been pursued since WWII, especially after the fall of the USSR. Are we not over-extended in our commitments at this point? How did we get here? Why are such commitments simply unquestionable? Why can't they be renegotiated? And all of this especially when these very commitments are (1) dubiously founded and (2) creating more problems than they solve.
Example: We have strategic interests in the Middle East because of oil access. Ok, what's the solution to this? Constantly interfere in the Middle East? Or genuinely seek a sufficient "energy independence," even if it ends up hurting us somewhat materially in the short-term? But in long-term, consider all the benefits, politically and economically, but also morally, culturally, and environmentally. And then maybe we can take a more objective role in the Middle East, once we are less codependently bound with it.
Example: The State of Israel is our "ally" (in what, I don't know, but fine). Ok, but do we have to enable Israel's intransigence by subsidizing its security directly and indirectly as if we have some messianic mission to be its perpetual protector from everyone else in the world who understands that their behavior is ALSO part of the problem of the instability of that region through its own abuses? In turn, does everyone else in the world resent our one-sided support for Israel, impacting their trust in us and disposing them to work against us? I suppose it's just because they're evil antisemites... sort of like DEI critics are all just fragile whites.
Tell me that these scenarios and others like them are not direct contributors to the constantly escalating realignment of the globe against US interests. I maintain that you are thinking too simplistically about these matters. But if it helps you to sleep at night to write off various people as "the evil ones who just need to be defeated" while ignoring the decades of cumulative imprudent foreign policy choices that have gotten us to this point, that's your business. God forbid other nations have their own national interests to pursue: if you're not with (i.e. under) the US, you're not respecting the "rules-based international order."
Whatever "increasing trend" the interviewee is seeing in both Parties, he should make sure that said trend is not simply people realizing we can't keep doing business as usual. Perhaps the American people are finally admitting that for decades their country has been marshalled in pursuit of the global hegemonic dreams of our elite classes while they've been bought-off by being fed with the bread-and-circus of our unrealistic and unsustainable material lifestyle? Maybe the elite classes are realizing that this dream isn't possible any longer, and they either change course or risk falling from power?
Reality will set in eventually. Something's got to give, and as the US is sapped of its material and moral strength internally and externally, there are only two choices: (1) renegotiate things to give ourselves a softer landing, or (2) have everything crumble in our hands because we refuse to let go of the status quo. The fatalism evidenced in this interview is in keeping with option (2). (1) seems much more reasonable to me, and apparently to a growing number of Americans.
Father Bri,
I quote you: "The State of Israel is our "ally" (in what, I don't know, but fine)"
It seems to me that in order to work for the salvation of Mankind, one would need Friends. Not everyone WANTS the salvation of Mankind; in fact, some people, even whole GROUPS of them, want what could be construed to be the opposite -- the destruction of Mankind, or at least a portion of it, which could really be seen as the whole, couldn't it?
Hamas, and an integral part of the Islamic world, wants Israel, and Jews, DEAD. I would put to you that the US and Israel are "allies" in preventing the sworn mission of Hamas & Friends, and in trying to 'negotiate'.
You say "something's got to give." Well, something HAS given, and has been giving way for decades, if not millenia. "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," yes? The readiness is all.
P.S. Snark does not enlighten your otherwise earnest, half-right and sophistically-reasoned message. But thank you for your passion.
I like Michael Moynihan’s interview style. He’s a great addition to The Free Press. It’s just insane that Democrats think the answer is to ease off Iran. How much more evidence do they need that that isn’t working? Trump, whether you like him or not, was better for Israel and wider peace in the Middle East. The proof is right in the front of your face.
Listened to the podcast on the drive to work this morning. Aside: I didn't appreciate the 10 minute opening segment on the new parenting podcast, so if you want to get to this interview FF to 10 minute mark.
Filkins seems to have had a surprising level of access to Hezbollah and areas in Lebanon. He draws some good lines between the leaders who may be calculating and the fighters who he says all seem to want to go to war with Israel. Near the end, they finally get to the point that doesn't seem to sink in across the western leadership, the fighters are raised from childhood to want to fight Israel and the US and don't have the same view of death as we do. I did think there was a little too much chuckling about how all the Iran-backed militias, that often have fought each other, are all united by hating Israel. But Filkins describes the tunnel networks and how difficult it is/will be to defeat them even though the scale is pretty small, also what to expect in Lebanon given that Hamas in Gaza was not as sophisticated or well funded as Hezbollah.
Thousands of bombs, remotely detonated, blowing up all over Lebanon?
Interesting.
Something out of a spy movie? You mean a movie like Munich? Which detailed Israel’s clandestine revenge campaign against terrorists. No, with Israel this sort of thing is par for the course.
I have yet to see anyone explain the Democrats love affair with Iran. Particularly John Kerry is so heavily invested in making and supporting a deal to pay Iran Danegeld to stop a nuclear weapon program that they are making and laughing in our faces about it.
Is there big payoffs to Dem leaders for this? Do they hate not only Israel but the USA so much that they fawn over the one country that is both rhetorically and actively trying to destroy us? And a country that's domestic policies is the opposite of Democrats stated love for the lgbtq+ community and women's rights.
Somebody please explain this frankly traitorous behavior.
I don’t think it’s sensible, but here’s my best steelmanning: It’s a divide-and-conquer, balance-of-power thing. The Sunnis are the biggest Islamist faction, and the ones behind 9/11. The Shi’ites in Iran, if properly played, could serve as a counterweight to keep the Sunnis from complete dominance in the Middle East. It’s like Britain’s successful foreign policy for centuries to keep any single European power from dominating the continent.
This might make sense if (a) the Shi’ites weren’t even worse enemies of Israel, the only democracy in the region, (b) Iran were stupid enough to be played, (c) the American foreign service were smart enough to play them, and (d) America had enough consensus to follow through on such an effort from one administration to the next. Since none of those are remotely true, it’s bonkers.
But I think that’s the idea.
We have Obama/Biden and their wing of the Nat Scty establishment to thank for the Iranian-backed attacks on Israel. Looks like Trump was right again.
“ To paraphrase our friend Trotsky, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you.”
This is key in trying to explain,sin to isolationists why abandoning an Israel is suicidal policy for the USA.
The jihadis will come for America.Better to fully support Israel and stipe zIRGC nuclear program, than to have them bring their hatred and violence full force to the United States
Hezbollah doesn’t want war? Good to know. 🙄
I wonder if the devices Israel “supplied” Hezbollah provided Israel with a better sense of Hezbollah’s tunnel and bunker system.