B (5:12)

A follow up question. I don't need to do the whole part. I can just begin with it. I'm wondering if Sam has any regrets about his hawkish stance possibly giving the US Administration coverage for what looks to be naked aggression without a plan, essentially that. Do you have any regrets about hawkish stance?

A (5:27)

On what?

B (5:27)

Yeah, on giving the U.S. administration coverage, you know, for feeling supportive for what's happening in Iran right now?

A (5:34)

Well, no. I mean, everything I said around that first thought is true. It's what I believe now. It's what I believed before this war started. It's what I will believe really, whatever happens here. Because I think it is just in fact true that if you look back at the protests, the Iranian women some years ago crying out for their civil rights and risking torture and death merely to take off their hijabs in public, if you care about women's rights, if you care about human rights, you should care about those women. Right. And it's completely intolerable that we have acquiesced to this meme that is somehow a sign of bigotry to express how evil it is that under this version of Islam, women are subjected to what is in reality gender apartheid. I mean, it's just. And obviously this is not the only concern I have with the Iranian regime. But that concern alone should have led to much greater support from us. There is no outcome other than regime change that should have or would have in reality ever been acceptable here. With respect to Iran. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon because it's a jihadist regime. And I can make the generic case we are perpetually at war with jihadism, whether we want to state it that way or not. And Iran almost uniquely was a proper jihadist regime that was within reach of developing nuclear weapons. And so it's just there's no world in which we can negotiate with a regime like that, even though we can pretend to to as the Obama and Biden administrations did and as Trump may yet pretend to. I mean, that's the other thing that we have to realize is that Trump may decide that he's going to try to create some Venezuela like endgame here where he's just going to install somebody who will claim to be pliant, but in this case really can't be because all of the people who would follow from the ranks of the surviving mullahs in Iran are in fact religious maniacs. It's a very different situation than Venezuela. So I think it's just an absolute mirage to think that we could ever have negotiated any sort of proper peace with Iran, given the actual religious commitments of the regime. And that's a fairly unique case. I would not say the same thing of Saudi Arabia or many of these other Muslim states. I wouldn't say the same thing of Pakistan in its current form. And Pakistan has nukes, but if Pakistan ever got taken over by a real jihadist regime, we would have a full on emergency with Pakistan. Right. So nukes and jihadism just do not play well together. Together. And we can never lose sight of that. And we were on the verge of losing sight of that with respect to Iran. But I don't think I gave anyone cover for anything. I just think this is just true. And yet it's also true that the way Trump has done this is authoritarian. Right. This is not the way a US President should take our country into war without explaining anything, without consulting anyone, with having cartoon characters, you know, running the effort. You just listen to Pete Hegseth talk about anything and you know, you're not in good hands. So there's nothing optimal about this. But that also doesn't mean that the aftermath of this might not be better than what preceded it, because what preceded it was just about as bad as can be.

B (8:54)

Yeah, so I was interpreting the question as what you addressed was being hawkish given this administration and the way that they might go about doing this in all the wrong ways. And your comment on jihadism might answer this next question. Why isn't anyone calling out the Trump administration on the double standard of our enthusiastic military defense of the Iranian people and our lack of resolve to militarily defend the people of the democratic country of Ukraine?

A (9:19)

Well, yeah, it is a. Again, I think we've been bad on Ukraine too. Right. I mean, it's understandable that we're not enthusiastic about stumbling into a direct conflict with Russia. Right. So that, you know, the moment of nuclear blackmail, all of that was sobering for a reason at this distance from the start of the war. I think it was a bluff that we essentially called and it proved to be a bluff. I'm not actually worried about a nuclear war with Russia, really over Ukraine. But yeah, I think we should have always given Ukraine more support, and Europe should have as well. And it's understandable. War is awful. And we fought some bad ones. Right. And we've fought ones that, in retrospect, look totally pointless and horrible. So it's easy to see how we. I mean, we basically have a renewed version of Vietnam syndrome to some degree, which makes it impossible to notice necessary wars early. Right. And I think we should have helped Ukraine earlier more than we did. And I don't know, it remains to be seen what's going to happen there, but.

B (10:22)

Hi, Sam. Having watched Donald Trump in his court ride roughshod over every norm, convention, and more recently, international laws are the rules of engagement around war. My question to you is, what is the point of any of them?

A (10:34)

What's the point of any of what? Wars?

B (10:35)

No, no. Of every norm, convention and more recently, international laws. What are the point of any of these rules of engagement around war? What is the point of any of this stuff if the question is if Trump and his cohort just completely ignore it and go about their own way?

A (10:50)

Well, the point is we used to have a liberal international order that was anchored to our being a good and viable and respectable superpower. Right. So that has changed radically, and we have alienated pretty much all of our allies except for Israel. I think that's. While there's a silver lining, perhaps, to some of it, the net result is quite bad. And I think we're going to discover what it's like to live in a world where our country stands for nothing other than its own power and its own interests. Right. I mean, we're now a country that has declared to the world that we are fundamentally amoral. Right. We're not going to judge anyone else for being imperialistic and savage on the world stage. I mean, as long as it doesn't conflict with our interests. We have a country now, we have an administration now that expresses more or less nothing but contempt for our democratic allies and a very strange admiration for our actual enemies like Vladimir Putin. All of that's just bizarre and corrosive, and I think we have horrified much of the free world for good reason. I mean, this is just alarming. And there's been a few silver linings. One is that now Europe is taking more responsibility for its own defense. I think that is a good thing, all things considered. I think that could have been engineered without us destroying our soft power for a generation. And you're just announcing to everyone that we're purely transactional and purely corrupt. And what you really have to do is pay backsheesh to our first family to get what you want from the United States. I mean, all of that's just awful. Right. So I think we want all those norms back. We want a sane president in 2028 that can offer a full mea culpa for the last decade, really, and try to find some reset button with the world. I don't know how easy that would be to accomplish, but I think we need a president that will limit the powers of the presidency against his or her seemingly short term interests in 2028. That's probably too much to hope for. But, yeah, those norms were there for a reason and we wanted more of them. Right. We want to be able to coordinate, to solve global problems, and we have taken a massive step back there. Yeah.

B (13:01)

I remember when you were talking to Sarah Longwell at Bulwark and she had made a comment about the Democrats being able to learn something from Trump in that he just proved that things could get done. And the Democrats shouldn't fight in their other direction. They should take that lesson and get things done on their side. And given the way that Trump's been doing many things, but especially this war, how into this next question, how will you view Trump if he turns out to be the one who finally brings peace to the Middle East?

A (13:26)

Having done it well, again, I certainly hope for that. Right. And it's not impossible. I can't say I'm optimistic about that. But I do not want him to fail on this front. I hope that's obvious. And it is true that some of our norms and some of our kind of slavish devotion to process and multilateralism and everything else has produced friction where we probably didn't want friction. Right. I mean, so it's not that there's no silver lining to any of this, you know, norm breaking, but for the most part, I think it's terrifying and demoralizing. Right. I just think it's bad. I think Trump has revealed, you know, if we could do a proper post mortem on his two terms, I think we would, you know, nine times out of 10, we would find that, okay, here's the thing that he broke that we didn't want broken, and we need to figure out how to shore this up so that a president can't break this again. But 10% of the time, I think we might reconsider the norm. Right. We might say, okay, his recklessness or his selfishness, his impulsivity, his character flaws revealed something about this norm over here that we didn't need it in the first place. We didn't want it. And even a dummy like him got something done that should have been done, should have been easier to do. Right. So here were regulations that we really didn't need and we shouldn't have had them in the first place, et cetera. I think there are probably honest discoveries of that sort to make, but for the most part, I think what we need to do is restore trust in institutions and processes. And we need a clean house. And I'm very worried that any sort of house cleaning after 2028 is going to look like more hyper partisanship, and that's going to be a problem.

B (15:13)

Are you worried about antisemitism on the rise? It seems there are sort of now two camps of Jews. Probably could have used a better word for that. One that seeks to avoid the Tall Poppy syndrome and the other that says, you know, fuck you, we're not hiding or apologizing anymore. Where are you on that? Or how do you feel about all this? And which approach do you think is in the right direction?

A (15:34)

Yeah, well, I am increasingly worried about anti Semitism. It just, you know, is now, you know, fully burgeoning on, on the left and the right to a degree that I wouldn't have thought possible. And the alarming thing on the right when you look at what the Trump administration does and doesn't do about it and doesn't say about it, is that clearly Republicans from Trump on down feel like they can't be too clear on this topic, even if they don't share any of these poisonous views. So you're not getting a very clear condemnation of people like Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, people who are doing more than dog whistleblowers, but just they're holding open the tent for white supremacy and anti Semitism. It's the fact that Trump and J.D. vance and everyone who's truly in power can't say, okay, this is awful, we want nothing to do with it. That's, I think, quite alarming. I mean, they clearly think they need the anti Semitic white supremacist vote on some level. God only knows why, but you'd think they'd be more worried about alienating independents. So, yeah, I am worried about it. I think you might be referring to the talk that Bret Stephens gave at the 92nd Street Y about his views on how doomed it is to fight anti Semitism explicitly.

B (16:51)

Well, that talk. And then there was a Super bowl commercial that was sort of on the other side that was very.

A (16:57)

I didn't See that. I heard about it, but it sounded. Sounded terrible. Yeah. So, I mean, Brett gave a very thought provoking talk, which I don't think I agree with in the end. I certainly don't agree with his conclusion. I mean, his conclusion is to the only real remedy is to double down on Jewish identity. Right. So he seemed to be arguing for a Jewish identity politics that is much more muscular than it has been in the past. Then needless to say, I'm allergic to that for reasons that I could spell out if anyone's interested. But the first part of his talk, he said, listen, this has failed. There's no way we can successfully fight antisemitism by being more philanthropic or being more apologetic or by arguing rationally against various conspiracy theories. We have to just recognize that this is a mind virus for which we don't have an inoculation. And we essentially just have to tell the antisemites of the world to go fuck themselves. I mean, he was more eloquent and less scatological than that, but that was his punchline, just like unapologetic. We're just going to succeed in the face of this hatred. Realizing we don't have a remedy for the hatred. We're just going to. Our success is going to be our rejoinder to this. And so it is with Israel. Israel's success and successful defense of itself is going to be its rejoinder to this. I think I agree with that. But I'm as you know, just very reluctant to endorse anything like a Jewish politics of identity around this. I think we just, we have to fight for enlightenment values and the values of open societies. Right. And that for me is a post racial, post identity politics future that we have to keep in sight.

B (18:33)

I think what's so scary now is that having grown up experiencing anti Semitism, you know, it was the David Duke types or it just always felt like it was in small corners. And today you have unbelievably gifted people from Nick Fuentes, Tucker to Candace who have studios, they can reach the world and they're really good at what they do. And that's. That makes it a lot for the first time, where I have a different feeling about the narrative around Judaism. And then I want to hit a sort of devil's advocate question that just came in.

A (19:04)

Okay.

B (19:04)

The thing about anti Semitism is a lot of anti Semitism is just valid critique of Israel. On this note, what do you think about the obvious power the Israel lobby has on our country's foreign policy?

A (19:15)

If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe@samharris.org Once you do, you'll get access to all full length episodes of the Making Sense Podcast. The Making Sense Podcast is ad free and relies entirely on listener support and you can subscribe now at samharris. Org.