It’s thorough analysis as always but I think many Dems miss 2 things.
First, In the mind of core MAGA folks the Ukraine war was money laundering for Zelenskyy and sanctioned by Biden. They see billions of dollars wasted. To the mind of the next circle out they see Ukraine as a quagmire that is untenable and needs resolution but Eurocentric Democrats obstruct any real progress - and again a money pit.
In the face of Ukraine waste and dithering, nothing Trump has done looks very expensive of plodding. The Iran Strike and Venezuela strikes were one day events leaving no American presence behind. Drone strikes and bombings of ISIS in Syria might raise some eyebrows but they mostly produce indifference.
Secondly, analysts continually use the phrase “Regime Change” to describe Venezuela and Iran strikes. It’s a perfectly fine phrase and has a negative valence for nearly all Americans because of the Iraq war. But using it is a mistake.
When I hear regime change (maybe you as well) I think of the quagmire of the Iraq war and the trillion dollars spent there. I think of the zigzagging political attempts to tamp down violence and impose democracy. Democrats and many republicans have emphasized the ugly results of regime change over and over in subsequent campaigns.
But to most Americans (at least those without TDS) this doesn’t feel like that. It may be regime change but it isn’t your Mamma’s recipe. Whatever Trump is doing, it’s cheaper. It’s clear he isn’t going to spend a decade occupying Venezuela — or even put any forces in country, except perhaps a few oil fields. It’s also clear that he’s not THAT concerned about the government of Venezuela as long as they play nice in the region and do things in US interests. That’s not really regime change as it’s been preached to us for 2 decades (pacification, terrorist hunting, debathification, fortified military bases on the ground, etc).
By using the phrase “regime change” commentators invite comparison with the Iraq war. Trump, in these early stages, appears to come out with shining colors. He’s clearly NOT producing a quagmire.
Trump’s foreign policy is “Sprawling” as Justin points out and its incoherence is a feature not a bug. But TLP (which is my favorite substack by far) often discounts or downplays Trump’s successes or the possibility of success. What should scare the Dems is that his foreign initiatives have the smell of strength and success. Do you really want to be arguing against the foreign policy of the president who defanged Iran? I know it remains to be seen but why not hedge your bets?
But to your point about regime change, Trump hasn't done much of anything here beyond theatrics--and while theatrics have a short-run 'wow!' effect, long-run they get tiresome, and not only to isolationists. They also produce diminishing returns. (and, if you're unlucky, backfire spectacularly)
In Venezuela, for example, Maduro is gone, but the underlying regime has not changed at all--meaning the situation likewise remains pretty much unchanged. (One can see why--Trump's claim that he's "running" Venezuela makes it clear he hasn't really thought his policies through past the "wow!" theatre stage) The Iranian instability, similarly, had nothing to do with Trump's interventions, but internal instabilities within the Iranian ruling class.
The only long-lasting foreign-policy accomplishment to date, really, is the masterful undermining of NATO he has achieved, and the massive boost he has given to China, not only in terms of room to dominate the BRICS and get ahead of the US technologically and geopolitically, but now in terms of having carte blanche to take Taiwan. And honestly my hunch is that, despite what core MAGA and America Firsters alike say, they will not be happy with losing the privileges of Western hegemony as a bulwark against Chinese ascendance.
Fortunately I don't think he'll dare to do something especially crazy like take Greenland by force, but if he does that will be the end of NATO, full-stop, and the consequences will be more disastrous than any political coalition is willing to tolerate.
Maduro is gone, oil is restricted. I’m willing to bet the Chinese are on notice in the region and i’m willing to bet that cocaine is down to a trickle. The problem that pundits have is they focus on Venezuela. “Running”Venezuela is Trump trolling or grandstanding. But you can’t think in old geopolitical ways with him. If Venezuela turns back to legitimate democracy, well and good but in his mind he is already getting the things he set out to accomplish.
I hear what you are saying. You believe Trump is staging theatrics for his own ego. Maybe true. But This is kind of a trap. He HAS had legitimate successes that leave pundits scratching their head. You can say “short run wow effect” but that is convenient. It says sure, it looks good now but just wait. And THAT seems to be the D attitude. It’s short sighted and a mistake. It gives up any influence for the sake of a soapbox.
"It looks good now but just wait" is more or less just what you do when you're out of power in the American system, aside from brainstorming future policies in committees. There's not much else that can be done.
When the Democrats are back in power they will have the task of crafting their own foreign policy, and there is no guarantee they will succeed there either, but until then they will gain from Trump's losses--which is the central question of the article.
You're misapprehending my point on China--it's not just about military power in their own sphere, but global geopolitical power. They are already the de facto leader of the BRICS, and they are already ahead of the US technologically. The massive cuts to R&D carried out since January 2025 will only cement that advantage. And now they have free reign to take Taiwan and essentially rule over East Asia. They and the BRICS will thus gain at NATO and the U.S.'s expense, and Eurasia will exercise the global geopolitical hegemony the West is voluntarily destroying. This will not sit well with the West, and much less America, particularly if the dollar loses GRC status and the global monetary regime collapses into a more multipolar shape. And in the long long-run *that* may be the most consequential accomplishment that comes out of all this.
The underlying Venezuela regime is changed, in that they now exist in fear of US reprisal. It was recently reported the former VP , now Pres, no longer bothers changing residences, because she believes it accomplishes nothing. If the US wants hers, we will take her at the time and place of our choosing, and there is nothing she can do about it.
Iran falling, if Trump should be so lucky, would be immense. The 90 million + Iranians are not Arabic, they are Persian. Let's see Dems spin, the end of regime that hung young women off cranes, for the crime of showing their hair, as a Trump failure.
Indeed. And hezzbollah and hamas have been neutered for the time being and Syria is playing nicely (nicely for Syria). these are long-standing goals of admins on both sides of the isle. It’s hard to see it otherwise even if it grates some people.
Yes. And don’t forget the border problem that Democrats claimed they could do nothing about without more laws from Congress. The border was closed within a month of Trump taking office.
Democrats are dreaming if they think they can paint decisive action as the problem and a return to their hand wringing dithering as the solution.
It's fascinating that almost as soon as Ezra Klein declared the vibe shift to be over, the left reverted to 2021 form.
- they're defending dictators who oppress their people (Maduro)
- they're defending an Iranian theocracy (or at least silent about the protests, just like Obama)
- they're defending the right of white women to ram Federal officers with their cars
- they've been attacking Nicki Minaj for speaking up positively about Trump's efforts to stop the genocide of Nigerian Christians
It also shows how the left's preferred worldview, ostensibly based on liberation of the oppressed, leads them into defending oppression. There is an article that many readers here would enjoy: "liberal democracy vs. transnational progressivism"* and it does a great job of extracting key principles from the word salads found in postmodernism and critical theory. A few of them are:
- the group you belong to is more important that the individual
- groups are categorized into oppressor groups and victim groups, with oppressor groups being automatically evil and victim groups being automatically good.
- immigrants (legal or illegal) are automically members of victim groups
Once you understand this framework, the left's seemingly crazy position become logical. They all follow from their fundamental premises.
- the left defends Maduro because the capitalist bourgeoisie are oppressor groups and socialists are victim groups
- the left defends Islamic theocracy because Islam is a victim group, and there is a growing Christian presence in Iran, and Christianity is an oppressor group
- the left defends white women who (intentionally or accidentally) use force against ICE because they are defending victim groups
- Nigeria is a reset of Iran: Christianity is an oppressor group and Islam is a victim group
"- the left defends white women who (intentionally or accidentally) use force against ICE because they are defending victim groups"
Setting the interpretation of that video aside, I would note that it is not at all a 'crazy position' (nor a position only a leftist should hold) to object to a masked paramilitary force answerable only to a strongman leader and essentially operating outside the law swarming around the streets of your city harassing its citizens with impunity. (Or the deployment of the *actual* military to do such a thing) As much as it is to be expected, given the common historical elements of authoritarian regimes, it is certainly not insane to be unhappy with such a thing.
"interpretation" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ICE is a federal agency with jurisdiction. They are also the leading three-letter agency stopping human trafficking, by far. Unfortunately the left has an assassination problem.
- they assassinated a CEO who did have slimy business practices, but that doesn't justify murder
- they tried to assassinate Trump twice.
- they assassinate a podcaster for the crime of not agreeing with the left
- they assassinate Jews when the globalize the intifada
- they tried to assassinate a Supreme Court justice
- they assassinated a National guard member
- they've tried repeatedly to assassinate ICE agents
ICE *was* simply a federal agency--*now* it is a federal agency that has been expanded into a paramilitary group full of poorly trained officers that answers only to Trump and essentially operates outside of the constraints of the law, who have been sent into the cities of his political enemies to harass and intimidate their citizens.
This arrangement was created by the precedent set by Trump's pardoning of the J6 criminals, in which he made quite clear that as long as they do what they do in his name, he will wield the federal pardon power to protect them. As such, U.S. law does not really bound this new militia in any way. And it's quite clear (given how the death in Minneapolis was approached by Vance and the admin in the media) that if you or I were to wind up on the wrong end of the gun barrel, we'd be labeled a 'domestic terrorist' before an investigation into how we wound up dead was even underway. (and apparently a good portion of MAGA would nod along without questioning it--even after all that talk about 'defeating the Deep State')
Perhaps you are comfortable with this illiberal mafia state arrangement--but it is entirely reasonable *not* to be, especially if you believe the U.S. to be at heart a liberal democratic state, and especially when history is fairly clearly about what winds up happening when these organizations are normalized and tolerated for too long. The Blackshirts (which this new iteration of ICE now strikingly resembles) got rid of the Communists, yes, but they also got rid of the liberal Italian state, and it took a whole of death and destruction to shake off the authoritarianism that followed.
At least two things the democrats have to do: 1. stop letting the TDS sufferers drive the bus. They can’t evaluate what Trump does on the merits and this allows Trump to lead them around by the nose with his nonstop psyops. 2. Construct, embrace and FOLLOW a set of principles instead of adopting the marketing slogan of the month…and then work with other elected GOP to implement them.
Not complex at all but, given the current democrat leadership, a mission too far.
A good Democratic foreign policy might be Liberal Realism - a belief in freedom balanced by a recognition of American limits (and of the dark side of human nature, without rejecting belief in a light side like Trump and Miller do). For example:
-We will help peoples who fight for their own freedom from tyranny (both with weapons and with financial aid), but we won't keep large forces of US troops abroad for years on end.
-We will stand by our allies in Asia and Europe if they are attacked by China and Russia, but to push them to shoulder more of the burden we will limit how much of our forces we will deploy.
-We will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, through bombs if necessary, but we will keep drilling for oil and gas at home so we can pay less attention to the Persian Gulf.
Along with rejecting Trump's vision of the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive American sphere of influence, Democrats should reject the idea that China and Russia should be granted their own such spheres by virtue of their size and power.
Going to war in Afghanistan was not a mistake. Nation building was. It was right and good to destroy al Qaeda after 9/11, but the US should have limited itself to counterterrorism, and should have started withdrawing after bin Laden was dead. It's not an idea that's gotten much traction, but a US Foreign Legion, modeled on the French one, would be a good option to have for long deployments to stamp out future enemies like al Qaeda and ISIS.
As for Gaza: as long as Hamas still exists, there will be no ultimate security for either Israelis or Palestinians. If Arab countries won't send any of their own forces to eradicate Hamas, then Israel will have to, even if more Gazan civilians die. The IDF plays an important, positive role in the Middle East (https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-essay/2024/12/the-tragedy-of-greater-syria), and the US should continue to arm it. Indeed, the US could offer to increase aid to Israel in exchange for dismantling West Bank settlements. There's more than one way for Democrats to win Michigan.
I think liberal realism is a good framework. Ukraine is a quagmire that will go on for years, so we're not going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. But Venezuela is low-hanging fruit. A few airstrikes to stop the genocide of Nigerian Christians is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully Trump can also do something easy in Iran, because a liberal democracy in the Middle East that stands with Israel would be a "fall of the Berlin Wall" moment in history.
As one inside MAGA I can say there is no "schism." There are a few anti-Israel voices, but here's the key: no one minds "expansionism" if it comes at no cost. Trump has realigned all of Latin America save Brazil and Colombia to us, and even Colombia is on the phone with him. The military missions in Iran and Venezuela has zero U.S. deaths due to incredible planning. Moreover---although this isn't your point---they have set back the ChiComs by decades, completely undoing their rare earth minerals stranglehold and their access to oil. With the economy now hitting 5.4% growth, 1.9% inflation, well, ANY party that "runs" on expansion or anti-expansion will lose. People will be focused on the economy, but in the meantime two major health hazards have diminished significantly, obesity and drug overdoses. Rightly or wrongly, Trump will get credit for that. The only way Democrats can leverage the anti-Israel people is by becoming PRO-Israel, and that won't happen with the next presidential candidate, The Amazing Zohran, in the wings. It goes back to my Democrat Civil War #1 from last year (Jews/Israel v. Hamas/Pales). There is no way for Ds to use this. Meanwhile, two more Ds announced retirements and the numbers now are 30 Rs and 24 Ds. I predict by mid-year, those will be even.
Meanwhile, here are the things Ds apparently really are running on: illegals, SNAP for illegals, transsexual child mutilation. As I said, foreign policy isn't among 'em, pee wee. (Old Dizzy Dean line)
Larry, I also have a low opinion of what the Democratic party currently is - a group dominated by its far Left wing that loathes their own country and that supports many crazy ideas. At the same time, I gently caution anyone against blindly supporting everything that Trump says or does. In recent days, he has proposed two very un-conservative things:
(1) Capping credit card interest rates at 10% for one year. This is price control, which
if enacted will result in banks canceling or reducing credit lines for tens of millions
of customers. Few businesses can obtain 10% rates for unsecured loans, and even
most secured business loans are close to or over 10%. There are big losses on
credit cards which are compensated for by high rates. It's a bad policy to cap rates;
Trump is either being demagogic on this issue or he is truly ignorant of how bank
credit cards work. This is my field: I was a bank examiner for 12 years and I've
worked to some degree in business lending for 20+ years.
(2) He is trying to bully the Federal Reserve into rapidly decreasing interest rates. For
short term rates, that is possible but unwise. For long term mortgage rates, that is
impossible for the Fed to do without igniting very high inflation as they greatly
increase the money supply. High inflation by 2028 means a Democratic sweep and
the entire left-wing agenda enacted with the country pulled hard Left forever.
Without specifics to interest rates or the Fed, the whole notion of a MAGA army blindly following Trump over a cliff, into Hell, or anywhere else, has always been vastly oversold , in my opinion.
For the non ruling class, Biden was a historically horrendous President, along the lines of Carter. Most did not vote for Trump out of worship, but survival.
Dems have successfully, thus far, managed to sidestep Biden's policies, without disavowing them. That cannot last. With regards to the border, Dems demand all 10-12 million non criminal Biden new arrivals be allowed to stay in the US forever, regardless of immigration status or the lack of a valid asylum claim.
Dems cannot bend on their belief 90% of US immigration law no longer exists. Without the new bodies, Blue states would bleed even more House districts in 2030.
John, the usury law is in effect in 49 states as I understand it. States don't think high confiscatory interest rates are a good idea, only Delaware and the banks. This is a political winner. Inflation dropped to 1.9% so not concerned about that. And, now, almost every job added in America goes to an American in the private sector. Everyone has been looking at D.C., but the STATES have shed another 45,000 government jobs added to the 293,000 feds. This is all working to form a very powerful economy.
Stagflation isn't going anywhere, unfortunately. The dollar is down 11% since January--the worst devaluation since 1973. There's no way to get below the Fed's target with that kind of inflationary push. Thence why big banks like J.P. Morgan have announced that they don't expect any rate cuts in '26, and a rate hike in '27. (You can tack that on to nine straight months of contracting industrial output, btw--not the basis for campaigning as a successful protectionist)
And the investigation into Powell might very well make things much, much worse. The DOJ can only overreach so much--before pride goeth the fall.
States do have usury rates, which is why all the major credit card issuers - probably all credit card issuers - are nationally-chartered banks with federal regulations superseding state usury laws. Capping rates is a political winner in the same way that giving people free stuff is a political winner: people want the benefits but don't think the downsides will apply to them. My concern about inflation is longer-term. Once Trump's ultra-low interest rates became effective, inflation would race to levels beyond those in the Biden era. Trump's economic advisors know this reality, and I hope they can restrain his terrible impulses in this area.
I'm curious what will happen with January's registration numbers. The shift seems to slowed to a trickle recently, perhaps because of GOTV efforts around the 2025 election, or perhaps because the left won the shutdown. But they really are back to their old Biden-era tricks these days.
"Democrats must map a path to security, peace and prosperity". I read this entire article for the pay off of a Democratic position on the issues and threats of the day and arrived at this pablum. The remainder of the ink was spent criticizing Trump. The Liberal Patriot tells us constantly that trashing Trump without clearly articulated policy positions is a losing recipe for the Democrats. And here we go again.
It’s been hilarious watching the left embrace MTG, arguably the biggest clown in the GOP’s clown caucus, as if she’s had some kind of Saul on the road to Damascus kind of conversion. She hasn’t. She is simply lashing out at Trump, because he decided not to forgo a winnable Senate race in GA to satisfy her ego.
All of this talk about “regime change” causing some kind of a rift in Trump’s coalition is also a complete misreading of the room. Trump’s coalition is overwhelmingly Jacksonian not isolationist. The opposition is to the feckless Wilsonian “nation building” and the quagmires it inevitably devolves into.
By refusing to applaud the potential end of the Mullahs in Iran and the removal of Maduro from Venezuela, the Democrats are placing themselves on the wrong side of more 80/20 issues. Even worse they look like they are rooting against America because they don’t want Trump to win.
What I’m still missing, no matter who’s in power, is a foreign policy the public can actually audit.
Not just values and intentions, but a simple doctrine: who our main competitors are, what outcomes we’re trying to secure, what we’ll tolerate and what we won’t, and what events would trigger U.S. force versus diplomacy or sanctions.
Give us an end state in 3–5 concrete conditions, a few red lines/tripwires stated plainly, and an annual scorecard that shows whether we’re moving toward the end state. If the world changes, show how the same principles drive the next decision. That’s how you build trust: clarity, consistency, and measurable progress.
While the above contains many astute observations, the brass tacks of the situation seem to be, which side implodes first?
In our national game of Trump Bingo, few had the square predicting 20 US helicopters landing in a Venezuela military base, in the dead of night, to successfully extract Maduro and the Mrs, without a single loss of American life. As one of my Trump loathing neighbors so eloquently commented, after Trump turned the actual Army Rangers into a Tom Cruise movie, he is "the luckiest SOB on the face of the earth".
If Trump's luck holds and Iran falls without either an effective Iranian response or US military deaths, all bets are off. If the Shaw's son regains power, 50% of the world's oil supply would suddenly either be under Western control or nation's friendly to the West. Meanwhile, the same Dems sure Greenland will soon be under attack, lamented tanks in Vancouver 6 months ago. Like the crowd sure Trump will cancel upcoming elections, they are unserious.
In the Dem column, while screaming "murder" in Minnesota is immensely satisfying for many, had the lunatic "suburban Mother" run over a child while "protesting "with her SUV, Dems would have another Laken Riley adjacent moment, on their hands. And the scenario no longer seems that implausible. The core group of AWFULS appear to grow more unhinged each day. That rarely ends well for political parties.
Based solely on historical norms, Dems are very likely to regain the House in November, if not the Senate by a seat or two. So perhaps the more important question is not Trump's foreign policy, but what happens when Dems impeach Trump yet again? It would effectively end Trump's unleashed walkabout, but it also might elect Vance/Rubio.
Democrat hopes seem to be mostly hoping Trumps voters won't show up to vote for the reasons stated.
What they still seem to miss is that they aren't giving those same voters any reason to vote for a Democrat, except that they may dislike Trump more.
In addition, they are not showing any competence in actually governing, the basic administrative tasks. Minnesota, need I say more. New York City? California, tax proposals that are panicking the highest rate taxpayers to flee with their dollars and potentially a lot of jobs? Social issues?
Then there's Trump. Yes, his personality has "issues", to put it mildly. But the actual economic numbers don't reflect the Democrat marketing claims. Overseas he really hasn't done any long term boots on the ground conflicts. Iran may finally on the brink finally, the Israeli's and their neighbors have settled down a lot, Venezuela, Cuba and other places south of the border could be much improved by the fall. Ukraine, who knows, but it's a lot quieter than a year ago. Gas prices way down, interest rates and inflation are slowing a lot. Tariffs aren't clear but few voters care if inflation is tamed.
The traditional news media is even showing signs of change, maybe the worst of the Democrat scenarios since they provide free marketing for liberal causes and candidates.
So back to the original game plan. Discourage Trump voters, it's the only thing they're doing that makes any sense.
We'll see. When banks flee to one state to avoid all other 49 states' laws, something is wrong. Yes, it's a political winner. No, we aren't having long term inflation.
Need to totally rewrite long-standing economic "principles." For ex., the Phillips Curve was blown away by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. This will be the same rewrite. Tariffs are going to be awesome. "Always works. Just like novocaine."
Short-run gains will be indeterminate, but the Democrats will almost certainly gain in the long-run from Trump's foreign policy here, for at least three reasons, I.) it hasn't really done much beyond provide theatrics, II.) because it is not really (as Mr. Vassallo alludes to) a policy that has been thought-through beyond the shock-and-awe stage, and III.) it has thoroughly undermined NATO, and in turn empowered China.
The ill effects of all three of those may not clearly manifest in the short-run, but they almost certainly will in the medium-term and long-term. Even in America's most isolationist phases, the loss of national prestige has never gone over well with its population--it must track with increases in national prestige to remain popular. And despite what populists say, it never goes over well with them either, as it is precisely the *opposite* of the promise to 'Make [insert country] Great Again'. One need only look at the interwar years, where the key to populists gaining power in the first place was discontent amongst the war's losers over the national disgrace endured by losing.
Most Americans would deem Venezuela a little more than theatrics. Venezuelans morphed from one of the wealthiest nations on earth, into decades of mass poverty under Socialism. Whatever the outcome, it seems their citizens, Americans and the world's poor in need of cheap and abundant energy to develop, will benefit from Maduro's exit.
Cuba leaders are now living on borrowed time, without the little oil they enjoyed under Maduro. For them to survive until the end of the year, let alone the end of Trump's term, seems very unlikely. Their fall will be a huge win for the US and Trump, if the Communists finally exit.
The hand wringing over NATO ignores reality. Without the US, NATO is mostly a slogan. Besides, the US is not going anywhere. We can't. The European Big 3 appear to be melting down in real time. Germany, long the EU economic workhorse, has come up lame. Only newly discovered deficit spending keeps their economy from permanent shrinkage. England seems one gang raped 12 year old away, from the next thing to Civil War. Macron is a political dead man walking. IMF loan papers will occupy the rest of his days in office.
China was always going to take Taiwan, the minute they decided to do so. American parents sacrificing 100K kids to protect the tech stock values of the Mag 7, will always be a bridge too far, regardless of rhetoric. Trump's unpredictable behavior is likely a plus, in keeping the Chinese at bay.
Of course the Dems will gain. The Trump goon squad that is out to make billionaires richer, go against "international" law, appear to be breaking immigration laws - even though they probably aren't - is giving the mainstream media a passel of crap to work with and distort everything the administration is doing, even the 'right' things they are doing, the midterms are looking dour for the Rep's. I like what the administration is doing in many respects. I don't like the manner in which they are doing it, but having had to deal with the disaster of Biden's policies and Dem attitudes that 'orange-man' is wrong in everything, we will see the divide between the two parties grow as the socialist wing gathers more steam and attention to their rantings. As an independent most of my 89 years, I pray for a rational solution to moving this country forward, but don't see it happening in the near future. And it appears America's days are on the wane as happens to all societies through history. Have we built a Tower of Babel?
It’s thorough analysis as always but I think many Dems miss 2 things.
First, In the mind of core MAGA folks the Ukraine war was money laundering for Zelenskyy and sanctioned by Biden. They see billions of dollars wasted. To the mind of the next circle out they see Ukraine as a quagmire that is untenable and needs resolution but Eurocentric Democrats obstruct any real progress - and again a money pit.
In the face of Ukraine waste and dithering, nothing Trump has done looks very expensive of plodding. The Iran Strike and Venezuela strikes were one day events leaving no American presence behind. Drone strikes and bombings of ISIS in Syria might raise some eyebrows but they mostly produce indifference.
Secondly, analysts continually use the phrase “Regime Change” to describe Venezuela and Iran strikes. It’s a perfectly fine phrase and has a negative valence for nearly all Americans because of the Iraq war. But using it is a mistake.
When I hear regime change (maybe you as well) I think of the quagmire of the Iraq war and the trillion dollars spent there. I think of the zigzagging political attempts to tamp down violence and impose democracy. Democrats and many republicans have emphasized the ugly results of regime change over and over in subsequent campaigns.
But to most Americans (at least those without TDS) this doesn’t feel like that. It may be regime change but it isn’t your Mamma’s recipe. Whatever Trump is doing, it’s cheaper. It’s clear he isn’t going to spend a decade occupying Venezuela — or even put any forces in country, except perhaps a few oil fields. It’s also clear that he’s not THAT concerned about the government of Venezuela as long as they play nice in the region and do things in US interests. That’s not really regime change as it’s been preached to us for 2 decades (pacification, terrorist hunting, debathification, fortified military bases on the ground, etc).
By using the phrase “regime change” commentators invite comparison with the Iraq war. Trump, in these early stages, appears to come out with shining colors. He’s clearly NOT producing a quagmire.
Trump’s foreign policy is “Sprawling” as Justin points out and its incoherence is a feature not a bug. But TLP (which is my favorite substack by far) often discounts or downplays Trump’s successes or the possibility of success. What should scare the Dems is that his foreign initiatives have the smell of strength and success. Do you really want to be arguing against the foreign policy of the president who defanged Iran? I know it remains to be seen but why not hedge your bets?
But to your point about regime change, Trump hasn't done much of anything here beyond theatrics--and while theatrics have a short-run 'wow!' effect, long-run they get tiresome, and not only to isolationists. They also produce diminishing returns. (and, if you're unlucky, backfire spectacularly)
In Venezuela, for example, Maduro is gone, but the underlying regime has not changed at all--meaning the situation likewise remains pretty much unchanged. (One can see why--Trump's claim that he's "running" Venezuela makes it clear he hasn't really thought his policies through past the "wow!" theatre stage) The Iranian instability, similarly, had nothing to do with Trump's interventions, but internal instabilities within the Iranian ruling class.
The only long-lasting foreign-policy accomplishment to date, really, is the masterful undermining of NATO he has achieved, and the massive boost he has given to China, not only in terms of room to dominate the BRICS and get ahead of the US technologically and geopolitically, but now in terms of having carte blanche to take Taiwan. And honestly my hunch is that, despite what core MAGA and America Firsters alike say, they will not be happy with losing the privileges of Western hegemony as a bulwark against Chinese ascendance.
Fortunately I don't think he'll dare to do something especially crazy like take Greenland by force, but if he does that will be the end of NATO, full-stop, and the consequences will be more disastrous than any political coalition is willing to tolerate.
Maduro is gone, oil is restricted. I’m willing to bet the Chinese are on notice in the region and i’m willing to bet that cocaine is down to a trickle. The problem that pundits have is they focus on Venezuela. “Running”Venezuela is Trump trolling or grandstanding. But you can’t think in old geopolitical ways with him. If Venezuela turns back to legitimate democracy, well and good but in his mind he is already getting the things he set out to accomplish.
I hear what you are saying. You believe Trump is staging theatrics for his own ego. Maybe true. But This is kind of a trap. He HAS had legitimate successes that leave pundits scratching their head. You can say “short run wow effect” but that is convenient. It says sure, it looks good now but just wait. And THAT seems to be the D attitude. It’s short sighted and a mistake. It gives up any influence for the sake of a soapbox.
"It looks good now but just wait" is more or less just what you do when you're out of power in the American system, aside from brainstorming future policies in committees. There's not much else that can be done.
When the Democrats are back in power they will have the task of crafting their own foreign policy, and there is no guarantee they will succeed there either, but until then they will gain from Trump's losses--which is the central question of the article.
You're misapprehending my point on China--it's not just about military power in their own sphere, but global geopolitical power. They are already the de facto leader of the BRICS, and they are already ahead of the US technologically. The massive cuts to R&D carried out since January 2025 will only cement that advantage. And now they have free reign to take Taiwan and essentially rule over East Asia. They and the BRICS will thus gain at NATO and the U.S.'s expense, and Eurasia will exercise the global geopolitical hegemony the West is voluntarily destroying. This will not sit well with the West, and much less America, particularly if the dollar loses GRC status and the global monetary regime collapses into a more multipolar shape. And in the long long-run *that* may be the most consequential accomplishment that comes out of all this.
The underlying Venezuela regime is changed, in that they now exist in fear of US reprisal. It was recently reported the former VP , now Pres, no longer bothers changing residences, because she believes it accomplishes nothing. If the US wants hers, we will take her at the time and place of our choosing, and there is nothing she can do about it.
Iran falling, if Trump should be so lucky, would be immense. The 90 million + Iranians are not Arabic, they are Persian. Let's see Dems spin, the end of regime that hung young women off cranes, for the crime of showing their hair, as a Trump failure.
Venezuela has been about two weeks ago, maybe give it a little time to see how things shake out.
Iran? he ended, for the foreseeable future anyway, their nuclear program and they are internally fighting for the regimes survival.
Both have been big problems and unresolved by a the previous administrations for several decades.
Indeed. And hezzbollah and hamas have been neutered for the time being and Syria is playing nicely (nicely for Syria). these are long-standing goals of admins on both sides of the isle. It’s hard to see it otherwise even if it grates some people.
Yes. And don’t forget the border problem that Democrats claimed they could do nothing about without more laws from Congress. The border was closed within a month of Trump taking office.
Democrats are dreaming if they think they can paint decisive action as the problem and a return to their hand wringing dithering as the solution.
No… Republicans. 😁 But there is a pre Trump and post Trump GOP. Not sure there’s much left of the former.
It's fascinating that almost as soon as Ezra Klein declared the vibe shift to be over, the left reverted to 2021 form.
- they're defending dictators who oppress their people (Maduro)
- they're defending an Iranian theocracy (or at least silent about the protests, just like Obama)
- they're defending the right of white women to ram Federal officers with their cars
- they've been attacking Nicki Minaj for speaking up positively about Trump's efforts to stop the genocide of Nigerian Christians
It also shows how the left's preferred worldview, ostensibly based on liberation of the oppressed, leads them into defending oppression. There is an article that many readers here would enjoy: "liberal democracy vs. transnational progressivism"* and it does a great job of extracting key principles from the word salads found in postmodernism and critical theory. A few of them are:
- the group you belong to is more important that the individual
- groups are categorized into oppressor groups and victim groups, with oppressor groups being automatically evil and victim groups being automatically good.
- immigrants (legal or illegal) are automically members of victim groups
Once you understand this framework, the left's seemingly crazy position become logical. They all follow from their fundamental premises.
- the left defends Maduro because the capitalist bourgeoisie are oppressor groups and socialists are victim groups
- the left defends Islamic theocracy because Islam is a victim group, and there is a growing Christian presence in Iran, and Christianity is an oppressor group
- the left defends white women who (intentionally or accidentally) use force against ICE because they are defending victim groups
- Nigeria is a reset of Iran: Christianity is an oppressor group and Islam is a victim group
* https://sdb.dotclue.org/external/idealogical_war.pdf
This article is right up the alley of most readers here, so I'd recommend taking a look!
"- the left defends white women who (intentionally or accidentally) use force against ICE because they are defending victim groups"
Setting the interpretation of that video aside, I would note that it is not at all a 'crazy position' (nor a position only a leftist should hold) to object to a masked paramilitary force answerable only to a strongman leader and essentially operating outside the law swarming around the streets of your city harassing its citizens with impunity. (Or the deployment of the *actual* military to do such a thing) As much as it is to be expected, given the common historical elements of authoritarian regimes, it is certainly not insane to be unhappy with such a thing.
"interpretation" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ICE is a federal agency with jurisdiction. They are also the leading three-letter agency stopping human trafficking, by far. Unfortunately the left has an assassination problem.
- they assassinated a CEO who did have slimy business practices, but that doesn't justify murder
- they tried to assassinate Trump twice.
- they assassinate a podcaster for the crime of not agreeing with the left
- they assassinate Jews when the globalize the intifada
- they tried to assassinate a Supreme Court justice
- they assassinated a National guard member
- they've tried repeatedly to assassinate ICE agents
ICE *was* simply a federal agency--*now* it is a federal agency that has been expanded into a paramilitary group full of poorly trained officers that answers only to Trump and essentially operates outside of the constraints of the law, who have been sent into the cities of his political enemies to harass and intimidate their citizens.
This arrangement was created by the precedent set by Trump's pardoning of the J6 criminals, in which he made quite clear that as long as they do what they do in his name, he will wield the federal pardon power to protect them. As such, U.S. law does not really bound this new militia in any way. And it's quite clear (given how the death in Minneapolis was approached by Vance and the admin in the media) that if you or I were to wind up on the wrong end of the gun barrel, we'd be labeled a 'domestic terrorist' before an investigation into how we wound up dead was even underway. (and apparently a good portion of MAGA would nod along without questioning it--even after all that talk about 'defeating the Deep State')
Perhaps you are comfortable with this illiberal mafia state arrangement--but it is entirely reasonable *not* to be, especially if you believe the U.S. to be at heart a liberal democratic state, and especially when history is fairly clearly about what winds up happening when these organizations are normalized and tolerated for too long. The Blackshirts (which this new iteration of ICE now strikingly resembles) got rid of the Communists, yes, but they also got rid of the liberal Italian state, and it took a whole of death and destruction to shake off the authoritarianism that followed.
At least two things the democrats have to do: 1. stop letting the TDS sufferers drive the bus. They can’t evaluate what Trump does on the merits and this allows Trump to lead them around by the nose with his nonstop psyops. 2. Construct, embrace and FOLLOW a set of principles instead of adopting the marketing slogan of the month…and then work with other elected GOP to implement them.
Not complex at all but, given the current democrat leadership, a mission too far.
A good Democratic foreign policy might be Liberal Realism - a belief in freedom balanced by a recognition of American limits (and of the dark side of human nature, without rejecting belief in a light side like Trump and Miller do). For example:
-We will help peoples who fight for their own freedom from tyranny (both with weapons and with financial aid), but we won't keep large forces of US troops abroad for years on end.
-We will stand by our allies in Asia and Europe if they are attacked by China and Russia, but to push them to shoulder more of the burden we will limit how much of our forces we will deploy.
-We will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, through bombs if necessary, but we will keep drilling for oil and gas at home so we can pay less attention to the Persian Gulf.
Along with rejecting Trump's vision of the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive American sphere of influence, Democrats should reject the idea that China and Russia should be granted their own such spheres by virtue of their size and power.
Going to war in Afghanistan was not a mistake. Nation building was. It was right and good to destroy al Qaeda after 9/11, but the US should have limited itself to counterterrorism, and should have started withdrawing after bin Laden was dead. It's not an idea that's gotten much traction, but a US Foreign Legion, modeled on the French one, would be a good option to have for long deployments to stamp out future enemies like al Qaeda and ISIS.
As for Gaza: as long as Hamas still exists, there will be no ultimate security for either Israelis or Palestinians. If Arab countries won't send any of their own forces to eradicate Hamas, then Israel will have to, even if more Gazan civilians die. The IDF plays an important, positive role in the Middle East (https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-essay/2024/12/the-tragedy-of-greater-syria), and the US should continue to arm it. Indeed, the US could offer to increase aid to Israel in exchange for dismantling West Bank settlements. There's more than one way for Democrats to win Michigan.
I think liberal realism is a good framework. Ukraine is a quagmire that will go on for years, so we're not going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. But Venezuela is low-hanging fruit. A few airstrikes to stop the genocide of Nigerian Christians is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully Trump can also do something easy in Iran, because a liberal democracy in the Middle East that stands with Israel would be a "fall of the Berlin Wall" moment in history.
As one inside MAGA I can say there is no "schism." There are a few anti-Israel voices, but here's the key: no one minds "expansionism" if it comes at no cost. Trump has realigned all of Latin America save Brazil and Colombia to us, and even Colombia is on the phone with him. The military missions in Iran and Venezuela has zero U.S. deaths due to incredible planning. Moreover---although this isn't your point---they have set back the ChiComs by decades, completely undoing their rare earth minerals stranglehold and their access to oil. With the economy now hitting 5.4% growth, 1.9% inflation, well, ANY party that "runs" on expansion or anti-expansion will lose. People will be focused on the economy, but in the meantime two major health hazards have diminished significantly, obesity and drug overdoses. Rightly or wrongly, Trump will get credit for that. The only way Democrats can leverage the anti-Israel people is by becoming PRO-Israel, and that won't happen with the next presidential candidate, The Amazing Zohran, in the wings. It goes back to my Democrat Civil War #1 from last year (Jews/Israel v. Hamas/Pales). There is no way for Ds to use this. Meanwhile, two more Ds announced retirements and the numbers now are 30 Rs and 24 Ds. I predict by mid-year, those will be even.
https://x.com/i/chat/1479187478967816193-1673349356043337728
Meanwhile, here are the things Ds apparently really are running on: illegals, SNAP for illegals, transsexual child mutilation. As I said, foreign policy isn't among 'em, pee wee. (Old Dizzy Dean line)
Larry, I also have a low opinion of what the Democratic party currently is - a group dominated by its far Left wing that loathes their own country and that supports many crazy ideas. At the same time, I gently caution anyone against blindly supporting everything that Trump says or does. In recent days, he has proposed two very un-conservative things:
(1) Capping credit card interest rates at 10% for one year. This is price control, which
if enacted will result in banks canceling or reducing credit lines for tens of millions
of customers. Few businesses can obtain 10% rates for unsecured loans, and even
most secured business loans are close to or over 10%. There are big losses on
credit cards which are compensated for by high rates. It's a bad policy to cap rates;
Trump is either being demagogic on this issue or he is truly ignorant of how bank
credit cards work. This is my field: I was a bank examiner for 12 years and I've
worked to some degree in business lending for 20+ years.
(2) He is trying to bully the Federal Reserve into rapidly decreasing interest rates. For
short term rates, that is possible but unwise. For long term mortgage rates, that is
impossible for the Fed to do without igniting very high inflation as they greatly
increase the money supply. High inflation by 2028 means a Democratic sweep and
the entire left-wing agenda enacted with the country pulled hard Left forever.
Without specifics to interest rates or the Fed, the whole notion of a MAGA army blindly following Trump over a cliff, into Hell, or anywhere else, has always been vastly oversold , in my opinion.
For the non ruling class, Biden was a historically horrendous President, along the lines of Carter. Most did not vote for Trump out of worship, but survival.
Dems have successfully, thus far, managed to sidestep Biden's policies, without disavowing them. That cannot last. With regards to the border, Dems demand all 10-12 million non criminal Biden new arrivals be allowed to stay in the US forever, regardless of immigration status or the lack of a valid asylum claim.
Dems cannot bend on their belief 90% of US immigration law no longer exists. Without the new bodies, Blue states would bleed even more House districts in 2030.
John, the usury law is in effect in 49 states as I understand it. States don't think high confiscatory interest rates are a good idea, only Delaware and the banks. This is a political winner. Inflation dropped to 1.9% so not concerned about that. And, now, almost every job added in America goes to an American in the private sector. Everyone has been looking at D.C., but the STATES have shed another 45,000 government jobs added to the 293,000 feds. This is all working to form a very powerful economy.
Stagflation isn't going anywhere, unfortunately. The dollar is down 11% since January--the worst devaluation since 1973. There's no way to get below the Fed's target with that kind of inflationary push. Thence why big banks like J.P. Morgan have announced that they don't expect any rate cuts in '26, and a rate hike in '27. (You can tack that on to nine straight months of contracting industrial output, btw--not the basis for campaigning as a successful protectionist)
And the investigation into Powell might very well make things much, much worse. The DOJ can only overreach so much--before pride goeth the fall.
States do have usury rates, which is why all the major credit card issuers - probably all credit card issuers - are nationally-chartered banks with federal regulations superseding state usury laws. Capping rates is a political winner in the same way that giving people free stuff is a political winner: people want the benefits but don't think the downsides will apply to them. My concern about inflation is longer-term. Once Trump's ultra-low interest rates became effective, inflation would race to levels beyond those in the Biden era. Trump's economic advisors know this reality, and I hope they can restrain his terrible impulses in this area.
I'm curious what will happen with January's registration numbers. The shift seems to slowed to a trickle recently, perhaps because of GOTV efforts around the 2025 election, or perhaps because the left won the shutdown. But they really are back to their old Biden-era tricks these days.
"Democrats must map a path to security, peace and prosperity". I read this entire article for the pay off of a Democratic position on the issues and threats of the day and arrived at this pablum. The remainder of the ink was spent criticizing Trump. The Liberal Patriot tells us constantly that trashing Trump without clearly articulated policy positions is a losing recipe for the Democrats. And here we go again.
One thing Venezuela has done is make many foreign leaders nervous. Like in Iran right now.
Elections are a long time from now, things change.
It’s been hilarious watching the left embrace MTG, arguably the biggest clown in the GOP’s clown caucus, as if she’s had some kind of Saul on the road to Damascus kind of conversion. She hasn’t. She is simply lashing out at Trump, because he decided not to forgo a winnable Senate race in GA to satisfy her ego.
All of this talk about “regime change” causing some kind of a rift in Trump’s coalition is also a complete misreading of the room. Trump’s coalition is overwhelmingly Jacksonian not isolationist. The opposition is to the feckless Wilsonian “nation building” and the quagmires it inevitably devolves into.
This piece makes the point far better than I can. https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/tehran-awakens-jacksonian-giant-mike-watson
By refusing to applaud the potential end of the Mullahs in Iran and the removal of Maduro from Venezuela, the Democrats are placing themselves on the wrong side of more 80/20 issues. Even worse they look like they are rooting against America because they don’t want Trump to win.
No.
What I’m still missing, no matter who’s in power, is a foreign policy the public can actually audit.
Not just values and intentions, but a simple doctrine: who our main competitors are, what outcomes we’re trying to secure, what we’ll tolerate and what we won’t, and what events would trigger U.S. force versus diplomacy or sanctions.
Give us an end state in 3–5 concrete conditions, a few red lines/tripwires stated plainly, and an annual scorecard that shows whether we’re moving toward the end state. If the world changes, show how the same principles drive the next decision. That’s how you build trust: clarity, consistency, and measurable progress.
While the above contains many astute observations, the brass tacks of the situation seem to be, which side implodes first?
In our national game of Trump Bingo, few had the square predicting 20 US helicopters landing in a Venezuela military base, in the dead of night, to successfully extract Maduro and the Mrs, without a single loss of American life. As one of my Trump loathing neighbors so eloquently commented, after Trump turned the actual Army Rangers into a Tom Cruise movie, he is "the luckiest SOB on the face of the earth".
If Trump's luck holds and Iran falls without either an effective Iranian response or US military deaths, all bets are off. If the Shaw's son regains power, 50% of the world's oil supply would suddenly either be under Western control or nation's friendly to the West. Meanwhile, the same Dems sure Greenland will soon be under attack, lamented tanks in Vancouver 6 months ago. Like the crowd sure Trump will cancel upcoming elections, they are unserious.
In the Dem column, while screaming "murder" in Minnesota is immensely satisfying for many, had the lunatic "suburban Mother" run over a child while "protesting "with her SUV, Dems would have another Laken Riley adjacent moment, on their hands. And the scenario no longer seems that implausible. The core group of AWFULS appear to grow more unhinged each day. That rarely ends well for political parties.
Based solely on historical norms, Dems are very likely to regain the House in November, if not the Senate by a seat or two. So perhaps the more important question is not Trump's foreign policy, but what happens when Dems impeach Trump yet again? It would effectively end Trump's unleashed walkabout, but it also might elect Vance/Rubio.
Democrat hopes seem to be mostly hoping Trumps voters won't show up to vote for the reasons stated.
What they still seem to miss is that they aren't giving those same voters any reason to vote for a Democrat, except that they may dislike Trump more.
In addition, they are not showing any competence in actually governing, the basic administrative tasks. Minnesota, need I say more. New York City? California, tax proposals that are panicking the highest rate taxpayers to flee with their dollars and potentially a lot of jobs? Social issues?
Then there's Trump. Yes, his personality has "issues", to put it mildly. But the actual economic numbers don't reflect the Democrat marketing claims. Overseas he really hasn't done any long term boots on the ground conflicts. Iran may finally on the brink finally, the Israeli's and their neighbors have settled down a lot, Venezuela, Cuba and other places south of the border could be much improved by the fall. Ukraine, who knows, but it's a lot quieter than a year ago. Gas prices way down, interest rates and inflation are slowing a lot. Tariffs aren't clear but few voters care if inflation is tamed.
The traditional news media is even showing signs of change, maybe the worst of the Democrat scenarios since they provide free marketing for liberal causes and candidates.
So back to the original game plan. Discourage Trump voters, it's the only thing they're doing that makes any sense.
We'll see. When banks flee to one state to avoid all other 49 states' laws, something is wrong. Yes, it's a political winner. No, we aren't having long term inflation.
Need to totally rewrite long-standing economic "principles." For ex., the Phillips Curve was blown away by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. This will be the same rewrite. Tariffs are going to be awesome. "Always works. Just like novocaine."
Short-run gains will be indeterminate, but the Democrats will almost certainly gain in the long-run from Trump's foreign policy here, for at least three reasons, I.) it hasn't really done much beyond provide theatrics, II.) because it is not really (as Mr. Vassallo alludes to) a policy that has been thought-through beyond the shock-and-awe stage, and III.) it has thoroughly undermined NATO, and in turn empowered China.
The ill effects of all three of those may not clearly manifest in the short-run, but they almost certainly will in the medium-term and long-term. Even in America's most isolationist phases, the loss of national prestige has never gone over well with its population--it must track with increases in national prestige to remain popular. And despite what populists say, it never goes over well with them either, as it is precisely the *opposite* of the promise to 'Make [insert country] Great Again'. One need only look at the interwar years, where the key to populists gaining power in the first place was discontent amongst the war's losers over the national disgrace endured by losing.
Most Americans would deem Venezuela a little more than theatrics. Venezuelans morphed from one of the wealthiest nations on earth, into decades of mass poverty under Socialism. Whatever the outcome, it seems their citizens, Americans and the world's poor in need of cheap and abundant energy to develop, will benefit from Maduro's exit.
Cuba leaders are now living on borrowed time, without the little oil they enjoyed under Maduro. For them to survive until the end of the year, let alone the end of Trump's term, seems very unlikely. Their fall will be a huge win for the US and Trump, if the Communists finally exit.
The hand wringing over NATO ignores reality. Without the US, NATO is mostly a slogan. Besides, the US is not going anywhere. We can't. The European Big 3 appear to be melting down in real time. Germany, long the EU economic workhorse, has come up lame. Only newly discovered deficit spending keeps their economy from permanent shrinkage. England seems one gang raped 12 year old away, from the next thing to Civil War. Macron is a political dead man walking. IMF loan papers will occupy the rest of his days in office.
China was always going to take Taiwan, the minute they decided to do so. American parents sacrificing 100K kids to protect the tech stock values of the Mag 7, will always be a bridge too far, regardless of rhetoric. Trump's unpredictable behavior is likely a plus, in keeping the Chinese at bay.
Of course the Dems will gain. The Trump goon squad that is out to make billionaires richer, go against "international" law, appear to be breaking immigration laws - even though they probably aren't - is giving the mainstream media a passel of crap to work with and distort everything the administration is doing, even the 'right' things they are doing, the midterms are looking dour for the Rep's. I like what the administration is doing in many respects. I don't like the manner in which they are doing it, but having had to deal with the disaster of Biden's policies and Dem attitudes that 'orange-man' is wrong in everything, we will see the divide between the two parties grow as the socialist wing gathers more steam and attention to their rantings. As an independent most of my 89 years, I pray for a rational solution to moving this country forward, but don't see it happening in the near future. And it appears America's days are on the wane as happens to all societies through history. Have we built a Tower of Babel?