vox--2020-01-08--7 things everyone should know about Australia’s wildfire disaster

Since September , 15.6 million acres of Australia have burned in one of the country ’ s worst fire seasons on record .
That ’ s an area larger than West Virginia , and more than eight times the area that burned in California in 2018 , the state ’ s most destructive year for wildfires .
The fires have now killed at least 25 people and destroyed almost 2,000 homes .
The blazes turned skies orange and made breathing the air in Sydney as bad as smoking 37 cigarettes .
Those are just the impacts to people .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and biodiversity is harder to fathom .
An estimated 1 billion animals have been lost , and scientists fear long-term damage to many sensitive ecosystems .
Though rain brought firefighters a slight reprieve Wednesday , the AP reports that hot and windy conditions that will keep the fires burning are expected to return later this week .
It ’ s a disaster that ’ s particularly ominous : In a warming world , extreme fire events like this one will only grow more likely to occur .
Here ’ s what everyone should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fires are concentrated along Australia ’ s southeast coast , in the states of New South Wales and Victoria .
The southeast is the most severely affected , but fires have also hit every Australian state and territory this season .
The fires started in various ways : some by lightning , some by human actions , including arson .
However , it ’ s the climate conditions that provide ample fuel for the fires to grow and spread .
Before the fires ignited , Australia was already enduring its hottest and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s summertime in the southern hemisphere , and the heat keeps rising .
Over the weekend , Sydney experienced its highest temperature on record .
So did Australia ’ s capital Canberra .
And triple-digit temperatures continue to bake huge swaths of the country .
Much of the severe heat was accompanied by brisk winds across much of Australia , which exacerbates fire risks and spreads blazes .
Over the weekend , wind gusted up to 80 mph , fanning flames and pushing heavy smoke over major cities .
“ The intensity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to the creation of their own weather systems , ” the Red Cross reports , “ generating pyrocumulonimbus clouds , trapping heat and generating strong wind and lightning strikes , in turn sparking further fires.
” High temperatures , dry weather , and wildfires are not unusual this time of year .
But the severity and continued persistence of these fiery conditions are alarming and fit the pattern of what scientists expect as the climate changes .
2 ) Climate change is partly to blame .
But so is weather variability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent fires are linked to climate change , which drives long-term warming trends and makes these kinds of events more severe .
Australia is also facing a severe drought , spurred by three winters in a row with very little precipitation .
With drought conditions , there is less moisture evaporating in the heat , a phenomenon that usually has a cooling effect .
But the country ’ s geography is also a factor , as well as the unfortunate alignment of a few short-term weather patterns .
One sign a huge heatwave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dipole , the cycle of the temperature gradient between the eastern and western parts of the Indian Ocean , was in its positive phase in 2019 .
That led to much less rainfall over Australia as prevailing winds pushed moisture gathering above the Indian Ocean away from the continent in the spring .
Another alarm bell was the Southern Annular Mode .
This describes the movement of the circular belt of wind around Antarctica as it shifts north or south .
It ’ s in its negative phase right now , bringing dry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s annual monsoon rains in the northern part of the country packed a devastating wallop in February , causing dangerous flooding in the state of Queensland , they were also behind schedule this year .
That allowed more heat to accumulate over the central part of the country .
“ So there was lots going on in terms of natural climate variability for this season to be quite hot , ” Perkins-Kirkpatrick , a senior lecturer at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales , Sydney , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Australia ’ s fire season is getting longer and more dangerous Wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem in Australia .
Many plants and other organisms even depend on regular blazes to germinate , cycle nutrients , and clear decay .
That said , the climate is getting hotter due to human activities .
And that extra heat makes fires more likely .
“ Australia ’ s climate has warmed by just over 1° C since 1910 , leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2018 State of the Climate report .
This has also led to more rainfall in northern Australia , but less in the southeast , where most Australians live , and where some of the most intense fires are burning .
The combination of rising heat and drier weather has turned vegetation into tinder , leaving trees , shrubs , and grass ready to ignite near some of the most densely populated parts of the country .
“ There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather , and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large parts of Australia , ” according to the climate report .
These fires may not be 100 percent attributable to climate change .
But you can look at them and , at least , see a vision of the future : Scientists expect to see more extreme wildfires in Australia in the latter part of this century .
4 ) Australia is a biodiversity hotspot and millions of plants and animals are in danger Australia is one of the great biodiversity hotspots in the world .
The island continent was isolated from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of years , allowing evolution to take strange new paths , and until fairly recently , with little human influence .
Around 244 species of mammals are found only in Australia .
Before the fires , its great diversity of life was already threatened due to invasive species , habitat destruction , and climate change , according to Australia ’ s science research agency , CSIRO .
Now , ecologists are fearing severe ecological consequences from so much land being burnt at once .
“ The whole concept of an ecosystem is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecologist at the University of New England in Australia , says .
“ Across whole forests there are millions of individuals , and hundreds of different species in those forests that all rely on each other .
And if you lose one , it ’ s like a link in a chain , you then lose the others that it is connected to.
” The loss here is almost hard to fathom .
A staggering 1 billion animals are now estimated dead , though there ’ s a good deal of uncertainty in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some farm animals have been killed directly by the flames .
We can see the evidence with our own eyes : Distressing images of burned kangaroos and koalas , and videos of dead animals on the sides of the roads , have circulated online over the past week .
Other animals have not been burned alive but have faced death due to the destruction of their natural environment , which they rely on for food and shelter .
Initially , the number of animals killed was put at 480 million , an estimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biodiversity expert at the University of Sydney , last week .
The truth is , it ’ s hard for anyone to know the precise impact of the fires at this stage , not least because many animals that survive the flames will likely die later due to lack of food , water , and shelter .
Regardless of the exact numbers , this is a crisis for biodiversity in Australia , which is home to some of Earth ’ s most distinctive animals , like marsupials .
But it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which around 8,000 have died , while others are desperate for water ) .
Even the loss of insects matters .
“ Invertebrates are absolutely critical for ecosystem function , ” Saunders reminds .
And they ’ re in harm ’ s way too .
“ They are the ones that build ecosystems from the ground up .
They decompose decaying matter , they aerate the soil , they pollinate the plants , which then create the forests .
The invertebrates are the ones that are structuring those systems , even though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think about them so much.
” Where there ’ s fire , well , you know ...
Smoke : It ’ s hard to overstate just how much smoke has been created .
Compare the NASA Landsat satellite image on the left of the southeast coast on July 24 , 2019 , to the same region on New Year ’ s Day , during some of the most intense fires this season : The smoke is so plentiful that NOAA reports it ’ s “ in the process of circumnavigating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America after being pushed there by the wind .
Smoke is a hazard in itself .
It ’ s an irritating pollutant that exacerbates respiratory illnesses and heart problems .
Fine particles from the smoke and soot can be smaller than 2.5 micrometers — tiny enough to lodge themselves into the crannies of the lungs and pass into the bloodstream .
“ The biggest health threat from smoke comes from fine particles , ” the US Environmental Protection Agency explains .
“ These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as burning eyes , runny nose , and illnesses such as bronchitis .
Fine particles also can aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases — and even are linked to premature deaths in people with these conditions.
” 6 ) Thousands of people ’ s lives are being massively disrupted , and the government ’ s response hasn ’ t been inspiring The pace of destruction of Australia ’ s wildlife is eye-popping .
Thousands of people are suffering , too .
States of emergency have been declared in New South Wales and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been called up to assist in recovery efforts .
Australia ’ s firefighting force is largely made up of volunteers , many of whom have had to forgo weeks of work at their regular jobs to fight the blazes .
Their work has been very difficult .
“ The pace at which the bushfires have spread and the subsequent heavy smoke have made it difficult for emergency services to access and evacuate some communities , at times forcing residents to flee to beaches and other water bodies to avoid impact and await rescue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In one case , 4,000 people in Mallacoota , Victoria , headed to the beach to be rescued .
The main road heading into their town had been closed off .
“ Power , fuel , and food supplies have been severely interrupted to some communities and road closures have been common , ” the Red Cross continues .
“ This has resulted in some communities being isolated , or only accessible by air or sea ( when smoke conditions allow ) .
” Australia ’ s government created a new National Bushfire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and authorized payments to volunteer firefighters , some of whom have now spent months on duty .
However , Australia ’ s elected leaders have been reluctant to confront the country ’ s contributions to climate change , a major factor in the bushfires .
Australia is the world ’ s largest exporter of coal and both of Australia ’ s major parties are courting support from the country ’ s powerful mining industry .
Prime Minister Scott Morrison in particular has refused to connect the dots between Australia ’ s reliance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ongoing blazes , and the consequences for Australians .
Beyond the destruction from the bushfires , Australians face other risks to their well-being .
The extreme stress of losing homes , livelihoods , pets , and property can be difficult to cope with .
As always in a natural disaster , mental health is a concern .
After a major disaster , studies find a 5 percent to 15 percent increase in the incidence of mental health problems among survivors .
That means the impacts of these devastating blazes will linger long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
7 ) You can help • If you ’ re in Australia , Givit has a list of specific items needed by people and organizations affected by the bushfires .
• People with emergency response training can sign up to volunteer in Queensland .
• The World Wildlife Fund is collecting donations to restore habitats for koalas impacted by the fires .
• You can donate to the Australian Red Cross ’ s fire recovery and relief fund .
• You can also donate directly to the New South Wales Rural Fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Australia , and the Country Fire Authority in Victoria .

Since September, at least 27 million acres of Australia have burned in one of the country’s worst fire seasons on record. That’s an area larger than Portugal, and more than 14 times the area that burned in California in 2018, the state’s most destructive year for wildfires.
The fires have now killed at least 29 people and destroyed some 2,500 homes. The destruction to the country’s land and biodiversity is harder to fathom. An estimated 1.25 billion animals have been lost, and scientists fear long-term damage to many sensitive ecosystems.
The severity of the widespread fires is a symptom of global warming, and the blazes may even contribute to it — at least in the short term. Australia’s bushfires have released 400 megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service. Burning huge swaths of forest introduces carbon stored in biomass back into the atmosphere, and that carbon will stay there essentially as long as it takes the forest to regrow.
Meanwhile, some of the fires are under better control after some flooding rain and golf ball-sized hail (Melbourne was hit with a month’s worth of rain in one day over the weekend). But others are burning on.
On Wednesday, a fire near the airport in the capitol, Canberra, forced evacuations in the city. Weather conditions still favor fire in many parts of the country. Parts of New South Wales is forecast to be over 100°F on Thursday. In Victoria, 40 mph wind gusts are expected this week, and they may fuel more flames.
At 6:15pm there's currently 64 bush and grass fires burning across NSW, 16 yet to be contained. Tonight, more than 1,100 personnel continue work to slow the spread of fire and strengthen containment lines ahead of deteriorating weather later this week. #NSWRFS pic.twitter.com/oYYNzJFZz4 — NSW RFS (@NSWRFS) January 21, 2020
It’s a disaster that’s particularly ominous: In a warming world, extreme fire events like this one will only grow more likely to occur.
Here’s what everyone should know about the crisis down under.
1) The fires ignited amid a record-breaking heat wave
The fires are concentrated along Australia’s southeast coast, in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. The southeast is the most severely affected, but fires have also hit every Australian state and territory this season.
The fires started in various ways: some by lightning, some by human actions, including arson. However, it’s the climate conditions that provide ample fuel for the fires to grow and spread.
Before the fires ignited, Australia was already enduring its hottest and driest year on record. It’s summertime in the southern hemisphere, and the heat keeps rising.
On Saturday, January 4, Sydney experienced its highest temperature on record. So did Australia’s capital Canberra. And triple-digit temperatures continue to bake huge swaths of the country.
Much of the severe heat was accompanied by brisk winds across much of Australia, which exacerbates fire risks and spreads blazes. “The intensity and size of bushfires in some areas has led to the creation of their own weather systems,” the Red Cross reported on January 8, “generating pyrocumulonimbus clouds, trapping heat and generating strong wind and lightning strikes, in turn sparking further fires.”
High temperatures, dry weather, and wildfires are not unusual this time of year. But the severity and continued persistence of these fiery conditions are alarming and fit the pattern of what scientists expect as the climate changes.
2) Climate change is partly to blame. But so is weather variability.
This summer’s high temperatures and subsequent fires are linked to climate change, which drives long-term warming trends and makes these kinds of events more severe. Australia is also facing a severe drought, spurred by three winters in a row with very little precipitation. With drought conditions, there is less moisture evaporating in the heat, a phenomenon that usually has a cooling effect.
But the country’s geography is also a factor, as well as the unfortunate alignment of a few short-term weather patterns.
One sign a huge heatwave was coming was that the Indian Ocean Dipole, the cycle of the temperature gradient between the eastern and western parts of the Indian Ocean, was in its positive phase in 2019. That led to much less rainfall over Australia as prevailing winds pushed moisture gathering above the Indian Ocean away from the continent in the spring.
Another alarm bell was the Southern Annular Mode. This describes the movement of the circular belt of wind around Antarctica as it shifts north or south. It’s in its negative phase right now, bringing dry conditions to Australia.
And while Australia’s annual monsoon rains in the northern part of the country packed a devastating wallop in February, causing dangerous flooding in the state of Queensland, they were also behind schedule this year. That allowed more heat to accumulate over the central part of the country.
“So there was lots going on in terms of natural climate variability for this season to be quite hot,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a senior lecturer at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, explained.
3) The bigger trend: Australia’s fire season is getting longer and more dangerous
Wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem in Australia. Many plants and other organisms even depend on regular blazes to germinate, cycle nutrients, and clear decay.
That said, the climate is getting hotter due to human activities. And that extra heat makes fires more likely.
“Australia’s climate has warmed by just over 1° C since 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events,” according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s 2018 State of the Climate report. This has also led to more rainfall in northern Australia, but less in the southeast, where most Australians live, and where some of the most intense fires are burning.
The combination of rising heat and drier weather has turned vegetation into tinder, leaving trees, shrubs, and grass ready to ignite near some of the most densely populated parts of the country. “There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of Australia,” according to the climate report.
These fires may not be 100 percent attributable to climate change. But you can look at them and, at least, see a vision of the future: Scientists expect to see more extreme wildfires in Australia in the latter part of this century.
4) Australia is a biodiversity hotspot and millions of plants and animals are in danger
Australia is one of the great biodiversity hotspots in the world. The island continent was isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years, allowing evolution to take strange new paths, and until fairly recently, with little human influence.
Around 244 species of mammals are found only in Australia. Before the fires, its great diversity of life was already threatened due to invasive species, habitat destruction, and climate change, according to Australia’s science research agency, CSIRO. Now, ecologists are fearing severe ecological consequences from so much land being burnt at once.
“The whole concept of an ecosystem is about connectivity,” Manu Saunders, an ecologist at the University of New England in Australia, says. “Across whole forests there are millions of individuals, and hundreds of different species in those forests that all rely on each other. And if you lose one, it’s like a link in a chain, you then lose the others that it is connected to.”
The loss here is almost hard to fathom. A staggering 1.25 billion animals are now estimated dead, though there’s a good deal of uncertainty in that figure.
Many wild animals and some farm animals have been killed directly by the flames. We can see the evidence with our own eyes: Distressing images of burned kangaroos and koalas, and videos of dead animals on the sides of the roads, have circulated online over the past week.
Other animals have not been burned alive but have faced death due to the destruction of their natural environment, which they rely on for food and shelter.
Initially, the number of animals killed was put at 480 million, an estimate that came from Chris Dickman, a biodiversity expert at the University of Sydney. The truth is, it’s hard for anyone to know the precise impact of the fires at this stage, not least because many animals that survive the flames will likely die later due to lack of food, water, and shelter.
Regardless of the exact numbers, this is a crisis for biodiversity in Australia, which is home to some of Earth’s most distinctive animals, like marsupials.
But it’s not just charismatic animals like koalas (of which around 8,000 have died, while others are desperate for water). Even the loss of insects matters. “Invertebrates are absolutely critical for ecosystem function,” Saunders says. And they’re in harm’s way too. “They are the ones that build ecosystems from the ground up. They decompose decaying matter, they aerate the soil, they pollinate the plants, which then create the forests. The invertebrates are the ones that are structuring those systems, even though they might be invisible, or we don’t think about them so much.”
5) There’s lots of smoke
Where there’s fire, well, you know ...
Smoke: It’s hard to overstate just how much smoke has been created. Compare the NASA Landsat satellite image on the left of the southeast coast on July 24, 2019, to the same region on New Year’s Day, during some of the most intense fires this season:
The smoke is so plentiful that NOAA reported it’s “in the process of circumnavigating the planet,” showing up over South America after being pushed there by the wind.
Smoke is a hazard in itself. It’s an irritating pollutant that exacerbates respiratory illnesses and heart problems. Fine particles from the smoke and soot can be smaller than 2.5 micrometers — tiny enough to lodge themselves into the crannies of the lungs and pass into the bloodstream.
“The biggest health threat from smoke comes from fine particles,” the US Environmental Protection Agency explains. “These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses such as bronchitis. Fine particles also can aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases — and even are linked to premature deaths in people with these conditions.”
6) Thousands of people’s lives are being disrupted, and the government’s response hasn’t been inspiring
The pace of destruction of Australia’s wildlife is eye-popping. Thousands of people are suffering, too. States of emergency have been declared in New South Wales and Victoria, and army reserve troops have been called up to assist in recovery efforts. Australia’s firefighting force is largely made up of volunteers, many of whom have had to forgo weeks of work at their regular jobs to fight the blazes.
Their work has been very difficult. “The pace at which the bushfires have spread and the subsequent heavy smoke have made it difficult for emergency services to access and evacuate some communities, at times forcing residents to flee to beaches and other water bodies to avoid impact and await rescue,” the Red Cross reported January 8. In one case, 4,000 people in Mallacoota, Victoria, headed to the beach to be rescued. The main road heading into their town had been closed off.
“Power, fuel, and food supplies have been severely interrupted to some communities and road closures have been common,” the Red Cross continues. “This has resulted in some communities being isolated, or only accessible by air or sea (when smoke conditions allow).”
Australia’s government created a new National Bushfire Recovery Agency to help fund fire relief and authorized payments to volunteer firefighters, some of whom have now spent months on duty.
However, Australia’s elected leaders have been reluctant to confront the country’s contributions to climate change, a major factor in the bushfires. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal and both of Australia’s major parties are courting support from the country’s powerful mining industry. Prime Minister Scott Morrison in particular has refused to connect the dots between Australia’s reliance on coal, its greenhouse gas emissions, the ongoing blazes, and the consequences for Australians.
7) The disaster won’t end when the fires go out
Beyond the immediate destruction from the bushfires, Australians face other risks to their well-being — which will persist long after the fires are subdued.
The extreme stress of losing homes, livelihoods, pets, and property can be difficult to cope with. As always in a natural disaster, mental health is a concern. After a major disaster, studies find a 5 percent to 15 percent increase in the incidence of mental health problems among survivors. And there will be a lot of rebuilding to do.
The environmental crisis doesn’t end either when the fires go out. When rains come, all the charred debris from the fire may wash into freshwater sources, polluting it for both aquatic life and human consumption.
On dry land, animals will continue to suffer, too. “There’s going to be ongoing mortalities [i.e. deaths] as the result of starvation — there will be nothing to eat — and the lack of shelter,” says Sarah Legge, an ecologist at the Australian National University who studies how species respond to fire. Feral predators like cats and foxes will be attracted to burned areas she says, and they’ll “mop up all the native animals that are left there over the next few months.”
Which is all to say: Even after the fires cease, don’t turn your attention away from Australia.
Related The challenge of disaster relief
8) You can help


vox--2020-01-08--Dominance and reputation: How Trump thinks about Iran

What was President Donald Trump thinking when he made the shocking decision to order the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani ?
One interpretation of Trump , popular among some of his critics , is that he lashes out wildly without any calculation whatsoever .
But having covered Trump for years , I believe that assessment is incomplete .
The killing could well have been reckless and poorly thought-out , and could well lead to disaster .
But it does fit fairly coherently into Trump ’ s worldview and a pattern of his calculated behavior as president — in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dominance play .
Trump views the world in terms of zero-sum conflict , dominance vs. weakness , leverage , and reputation .
He believes that by making threats , the US ( the most powerful country in the world ) can intimidate other countries into changing their behavior at least somewhat .
He ’ s spent years making wild threats against foreign rivals .
But he mostly hasn ’ t followed through on them , hoping the threats will be enough .
The problem was that , after the recent Iranian-backed violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump appears to have concluded that his reputation — at home and abroad — was at risk .
He feared being humiliated , and looking weak .
So he decided it was time to show he wasn ’ t all bark and no bite .
And he did so by doing something truly unexpected and risky — ordering the assassination of an extremely powerful Iranian military leader ( a step rejected by the two previous administrations , though reportedly proposed earlier this year by Trump administration officials ) .
Many quickly speculated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or had chosen it for political reasons .
But while Trump did follow up the strike with more extreme threats , he also made sure to insist he does not support war or “ regime change ” in Iran .
And when the Iranian response came in the form of missile strikes on US facilities in Iraq that produced no deaths , Trump deemed it sufficiently nonthreatening , and declared victory .
It ’ s a dangerous game .
But Trump ’ s behavior , though it may well be hideously irresponsible and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deliberate stampede toward war but as an attempt to assert his dominance over Iran .
He wanted to make sure Iran thought twice before further humiliating him with stunts like the embassy attacks , or by killing Americans — by proving that , sometimes , he does indeed follow through on his threats of retaliation .
Trump has long made wild threats .
But he often hasn ’ t followed through .
What does Trump actually want ?
In my view , he ’ s chiefly concerned with his own political interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to start a new war in the Middle East ( he ’ s said George W. Bush ’ s Iraq War was an utter disaster that only weakened the US ) .
But he also doesn ’ t want to look weak , be humiliated , or “ lose ” in his dealings with foreign adversaries .
Trump doesn ’ t particularly care about establishing a reputation for the US as a morally upstanding actor in the world .
( “ We ’ ve got a lot of killers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency in 2017 .
“ What , do you think our country ’ s so innocent ?
” ) Both at home and abroad , Trump is obsessed with strength , weakness , and dominance .
He also fancies himself a master negotiator and “ dealmaker , ” and often uses extreme tactics in the hopes that they will improve his leverage or convince his opponent to back down .
Trump followed this playbook by threatening to bring “ fire and fury ” to North Korea in 2017 — but he followed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the two nations .
Also , in June of last year , Trump came very close to striking Iran ( in retaliation for Iran ’ s downing of a US drone ) but called it off at the last minute , saying he wanted to avoid a broader war .
In theory , what Trump wants is to just make the threats , and get what he wants — or at least , to get something that could let himself declare victory — without having to follow through on them .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s been happening lately , to Trump ’ s ire , is that other nations have concluded these threats are in fact empty — and they ’ ve called Trump ’ s bluff .
Kim Jong Un , for instance , has signaled he may soon restart long-range missile or nuclear tests .
Trump ’ s decision to kill Soleimani was reportedly in response to Iran-backed attacks on the US embassy in Iraq Regarding Iran specifically , the US has for some time been locked in a shadow conflict with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the region .
The US foreign policy establishment cares deeply about combating this Iranian influence campaign , but Trump cares little about it in and of itself .
Again , he is mainly concerned with his own political interests and reputation .
He knew he wanted to rip up the nuclear deal with Iran , but mainly because it had been made by President Barack Obama .
As far as broader ambitions for the region , Trump would prefer the US to cut back its involvement .
The US-Iran shadow conflict has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under certain understood “ rules of the game ” ( involving , for instance , deniable operations or proxy groups rather than direct combat ) .
But Trump ’ s hawkish advisers , particularly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , have made the case that Iran started pushing the envelope more and more since the US pulled out of the nuclear deal — for instance , by attacking Saudi ships in the Persian Gulf and downing a US drone this June .
That latter incident led Trump to threaten major reprisals ( though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
According to the Washington Post , Pompeo has long insisted that Trump ’ s well-understood desire to pull out of the Middle East has emboldened Iran — and that this was exacerbated when Trump backed down from the planned June strike .
Iran did indeed seem to conclude Trump ’ s threats were largely empty , with the country ’ s supreme leader tweeting at him , “ You can ’ t do anything.
” According to the New York Times , the key turning point — the thing that finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things Pompeo ’ s way — was Iranian-backed attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad in late December .
Why ?
Because Trump ’ s political reputation was at risk .
You see , some Trump critics had begun referring to those attacks as “ Trump ’ s Benghazi ” ( a reference to the 2012 attacks on American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi , Libya , that Republicans harshly criticized the Obama administration for failing to prevent ) .
So after the attacks , per the Times , Trump approved the “ extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the decision left top Pentagon officials “ stunned.
” Trump likely intended this as an attempt to try and assert his dominance , and to prove that he really will act in outrageous and shocking ways sometimes .
His reputation for dangerous unpredictability ( which he evidently sees as an asset ) had waned somewhat since he took office .
And this was indeed a stunning move that appeared to violate norms against targeting foreign leaders .
And Trump then threatened that he was ruthless enough to go even further , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a response from Tehran he deemed unacceptable , including against Iranian cultural sites .
Yet Trump accompanied this by saying he did not support “ regime change ” and doesn ’ t want war .
So he seemed to be sending a message — that Iran had gone too far with the embassy attacks , and that they should show more restraint in the future , or else — but , if they did show more restraint , this wouldn ’ t be the start of a larger US war .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , at least , it appears that Iran doesn ’ t want war — the regime responded , but in a way that didn ’ t kill any Americans .
Yet in asserting his dominance in the short term , Trump could be creating more problems for the US in the longer term .

What was President Donald Trump thinking when he made the shocking decision to order the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani?
One interpretation of Trump, popular among some of his critics, is that he lashes out wildly without any calculation whatsoever. But having covered Trump for years, I believe that assessment is incomplete. The killing could well have been reckless and poorly thought-out, and could well lead to disaster. But it does fit fairly coherently into Trump’s worldview and a pattern of his calculated behavior as president — in that it seems to have mainly been a dominance play.
Trump views the world in terms of zero-sum conflict, dominance vs. weakness, leverage, and reputation. He believes that by making threats, the US (the most powerful country in the world) can intimidate other countries into changing their behavior at least somewhat.
He’s spent years making wild threats against foreign rivals. But he mostly hasn’t followed through on them, hoping the threats will be enough. The problem was that, after the recent Iranian-backed violent protests outside the US embassy in Iraq, Trump appears to have concluded that his reputation — at home and abroad — was at risk. He feared being humiliated, and looking weak.
So he decided it was time to show he wasn’t all bark and no bite. And he did so by doing something truly unexpected and risky — ordering the assassination of an extremely powerful Iranian military leader (a step rejected by the two previous administrations, though reportedly proposed earlier this year by Trump administration officials).
Many quickly speculated that Trump was now eager for war or had chosen it for political reasons. But while Trump did follow up the strike with more extreme threats, he also made sure to insist he does not support war or “regime change” in Iran. And when the Iranian response came in the form of missile strikes on US facilities in Iraq that produced no deaths, Trump deemed it sufficiently nonthreatening, and declared victory.
It’s a dangerous game. But Trump’s behavior, though it may well be hideously irresponsible and misguided, should be understood not as a deliberate stampede toward war but as an attempt to assert his dominance over Iran. He wanted to make sure Iran thought twice before further humiliating him with stunts like the embassy attacks, or by killing Americans — by proving that, sometimes, he does indeed follow through on his threats of retaliation.
Trump has long made wild threats. But he often hasn’t followed through.
What does Trump actually want? In my view, he’s chiefly concerned with his own political interests and reputation. He truly doesn’t want to start a new war in the Middle East (he’s said George W. Bush’s Iraq War was an utter disaster that only weakened the US). But he also doesn’t want to look weak, be humiliated, or “lose” in his dealings with foreign adversaries.
Trump doesn’t particularly care about establishing a reputation for the US as a morally upstanding actor in the world. (“We’ve got a lot of killers,” he famously said shortly after assuming the presidency in 2017. “What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”)
Both at home and abroad, Trump is obsessed with strength, weakness, and dominance. He also fancies himself a master negotiator and “dealmaker,” and often uses extreme tactics in the hopes that they will improve his leverage or convince his opponent to back down.
Trump followed this playbook by threatening to bring “fire and fury” to North Korea in 2017 — but he followed that up with the first-ever direct top-level talks between the two nations. Also, in June of last year, Trump came very close to striking Iran (in retaliation for Iran’s downing of a US drone) but called it off at the last minute, saying he wanted to avoid a broader war.
In theory, what Trump wants is to just make the threats, and get what he wants — or at least, to get something that could let himself declare victory — without having to follow through on them.
But this doesn’t always work out. What’s been happening lately, to Trump’s ire, is that other nations have concluded these threats are in fact empty — and they’ve called Trump’s bluff. Kim Jong Un, for instance, has signaled he may soon restart long-range missile or nuclear tests.
Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani was reportedly in response to Iran-backed attacks on the US embassy in Iraq
Regarding Iran specifically, the US has for some time been locked in a shadow conflict with Iran for influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
The US foreign policy establishment cares deeply about combating this Iranian influence campaign, but Trump cares little about it in and of itself. Again, he is mainly concerned with his own political interests and reputation. He knew he wanted to rip up the nuclear deal with Iran, but mainly because it had been made by President Barack Obama. As far as broader ambitions for the region, Trump would prefer the US to cut back its involvement.
The US-Iran shadow conflict has often been violent but it has proceeded under certain understood “rules of the game” (involving, for instance, deniable operations or proxy groups rather than direct combat).
But Trump’s hawkish advisers, particularly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have made the case that Iran started pushing the envelope more and more since the US pulled out of the nuclear deal — for instance, by attacking Saudi ships in the Persian Gulf and downing a US drone this June. That latter incident led Trump to threaten major reprisals (though, as mentioned, he backed down).
According to the Washington Post, Pompeo has long insisted that Trump’s well-understood desire to pull out of the Middle East has emboldened Iran — and that this was exacerbated when Trump backed down from the planned June strike. Iran did indeed seem to conclude Trump’s threats were largely empty, with the country’s supreme leader tweeting at him, “You can’t do anything.”
That guy has tweeted that we see Iran responsible for the events in Baghdad & we will respond to Iran.
1st: You can’t do anything.
2nd: If you were logical —which you’re not— you’d see that your crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan… have made nations hate you. https://t.co/hMGOEDwHuY — Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) January 1, 2020
According to the New York Times, the key turning point — the thing that finally seems to have convinced Trump to see things Pompeo’s way — was Iranian-backed attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad in late December.
Why? Because Trump’s political reputation was at risk.
You see, some Trump critics had begun referring to those attacks as “Trump’s Benghazi” (a reference to the 2012 attacks on American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that Republicans harshly criticized the Obama administration for failing to prevent).
So after the attacks, per the Times, Trump approved the “extreme option”: a strike on Soleimani. And the decision left top Pentagon officials “stunned.”
Trump likely intended this as an attempt to try and assert his dominance, and to prove that he really will act in outrageous and shocking ways sometimes. His reputation for dangerous unpredictability (which he evidently sees as an asset) had waned somewhat since he took office. And this was indeed a stunning move that appeared to violate norms against targeting foreign leaders. And Trump then threatened that he was ruthless enough to go even further, by saying he’d overwhelmingly retaliate against a response from Tehran he deemed unacceptable, including against Iranian cultural sites.
Yet Trump accompanied this by saying he did not support “regime change” and doesn’t want war. So he seemed to be sending a message — that Iran had gone too far with the embassy attacks, and that they should show more restraint in the future, or else — but, if they did show more restraint, this wouldn’t be the start of a larger US war.
It was a dangerous gamble. But for now, at least, it appears that Iran doesn’t want war — the regime responded, but in a way that didn’t kill any Americans. Yet in asserting his dominance in the short term, Trump could be creating more problems for the US in the longer term.


vox--2020-01-08--I’m Iranian American. I’m tired of being treated like a political pawn.

I have long feared a US-Iran war .
As an Iranian American , I ’ ve spent my life watching both nations ’ political volleying with trepidation .
But Thursday ’ s assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani left me in the greatest panic yet — not only for my loved ones in Iran , but also for my community in the United States .
I was right to worry .
As a community leader , I ’ ve often been one of the first to learn of and respond to community crises .
I ’ ve been on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other advocates after the first version of President Trump ’ s Muslim travel ban and fighting for my community as a plaintiff against the third iteration .
But this week has been harder .
Over three days , the Trump administration propelled its domestic campaign for war against Iran .
On Friday , Vice President Mike Pence began weaving a narrative for escalation by making new claims about Iran ’ s links to 9/11 .
By Saturday , Trump threatened potential war crimes against 52 Iranian cultural sites in honor of 52 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution in 1979 .
Conservative pundits and media outlets emphasized the warmongering efforts , attempting to steer attention away from the assassination .
They have framed the “ imminent threat ” of an Iranian attack as justification for the “ preemptive strike.
” I can ’ t be the only one who feels like I ’ m reliving the lead-up to the Iraq War 17 years ago .
Yet now there is the added toll of social media .
Scanning through Twitter the night after the strikes , I saw hundreds of memes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circulating on platforms .
Our worst-case scenario , that our families would be killed in a catastrophic war , became the butt of internet humor .
Those were the less offensive reactions .
Worse still were the calls to kill Iranians and decimate our homeland .
While we became the focus of propaganda , our Iraqi American neighbors were further made invisible .
The fate of Iraqis , trapped in a nearly 20-year US-led war , continues to be largely ignored despite Iraq becoming ground zero in this conflict .
Torture at Abu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of civilians , the cause of sectarian conflict — all of it feels long forgotten as our nation stands on the brink of repeating the same mistake .
While our leaders share messages of support and prayers for Americans , Iraqi deaths remain invisible .
In America , our communities are otherized or demonized , fetishized or deemed dangerous .
The only constant is the denial of our humanity and dignity .
It is no wonder that Americans who have no direct experience with armed conflict have done so little to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American history — being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Veterans are nearly as invisible in mainstream America as civilians killed overseas .
Americans return home to neglect by a system that fails to meet their most basic needs .
How , then , could Americans understand the cost of war ?
For Gen Z and younger millennials , endless overseas wars are their norm .
News of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq , including terrorist attacks on holidays and weddings , rarely make headlines anymore , though they occur often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetual conflict in the background — the US government exploits this American indifference and disregard for our humanity to perpetuate wars that might spark anger , but not enough outrage for true disruption in the United States .
After Thursday ’ s attack , law enforcement in cities like Washington , DC , and Los Angeles , home to the largest Iranian diaspora community in the world , promised to boost security , which has historically meant the monitoring and surveilling of my community .
Instead of assuaging our fears , our local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat .
How , then , could Americans understand the cost of war ?
Then when reports surfaced this past weekend about US citizens and residents of Iranian heritage being detained by Customs and Border Protection , I feared it would only get worse .
Along with dozens of organizers and lawyers , I scrambled to support Iranian American families and protect our civil liberties — calming frightened travelers , triaging and supporting people who were detained , and gathering data to understand the full scope of the problem .
( CPB has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heritage and claims it was operating with an “ enhanced posture ” due to current threats . )
Our status in America had changed overnight .
My community knows intimately about the violence and atrocities brought on by war .
Each of us , whether we lived through war or with relatives who did , already carries the trauma .
My father refused to go to movie theaters because of a violent attack that killed 377 theatergoers in the ’ 70s .
Most of us have a relative who spent time in political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the current regime , was permanently scarred by war , fled as a refugee , or became an undocumented student overnight in the United States during the hostage crisis .
All of us , no matter our stance on Iran , can ’ t help but recall feelings of loss of home , family , and safety on the brink of another war .
Yet we ’ re too fragmented to come together even now .
Iranian Americans are , and have always been , deeply divided over the Islamic Republic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconcerned with the human toll of war or who leads it .
Those of us who want peace struggle to find a balance between preventing a catastrophic war and acknowledging state repression .
Massive demonstrations and subsequent crackdowns took place in Iran weeks ago , with estimates of deaths higher than initially reported .
Iranian families still mourning must now imagine the deaths of their remaining relatives due to foreign intervention .
Our divisions leave Iranian Americans vulnerable as pawns in either country ’ s political agenda .
We remain fragmented and unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonization harming us no matter where we live .
Our inability to come together prevents us from helping those who need us the most : our loved ones in Iran .
I pray that no more of my fellow Americans learn the true price of war .
For the rest of us , the cost is already too great .
Mana Kharrazi is an Iranian American community leader and organizer .
She is a plaintiff in the case against the third iteration of the Muslim ban .
Find her on Twitter @ ManaKharrazi @

I have long feared a US-Iran war. As an Iranian American, I’ve spent my life watching both nations’ political volleying with trepidation. But Thursday’s assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani left me in the greatest panic yet — not only for my loved ones in Iran, but also for my community in the United States.
I was right to worry. As a community leader, I’ve often been one of the first to learn of and respond to community crises. I’ve been on the front lines coordinating rapid response at airports with other advocates after the first version of President Trump’s Muslim travel ban and fighting for my community as a plaintiff against the third iteration.
But this week has been harder. Over three days, the Trump administration propelled its domestic campaign for war against Iran. On Friday, Vice President Mike Pence began weaving a narrative for escalation by making new claims about Iran’s links to 9/11. By Saturday, Trump threatened potential war crimes against 52 Iranian cultural sites in honor of 52 American hostages held after Iran’s revolution in 1979. Conservative pundits and media outlets emphasized the warmongering efforts, attempting to steer attention away from the assassination. They have framed the “imminent threat” of an Iranian attack as justification for the “preemptive strike.” I can’t be the only one who feels like I’m reliving the lead-up to the Iraq War 17 years ago.
Yet now there is the added toll of social media. Scanning through Twitter the night after the strikes, I saw hundreds of memes about World War III and military drafts circulating on platforms. Our worst-case scenario, that our families would be killed in a catastrophic war, became the butt of internet humor.
Those were the less offensive reactions. Worse still were the calls to kill Iranians and decimate our homeland.
While we became the focus of propaganda, our Iraqi American neighbors were further made invisible. The fate of Iraqis, trapped in a nearly 20-year US-led war, continues to be largely ignored despite Iraq becoming ground zero in this conflict. Torture at Abu Ghraib, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the cause of sectarian conflict — all of it feels long forgotten as our nation stands on the brink of repeating the same mistake. While our leaders share messages of support and prayers for Americans, Iraqi deaths remain invisible.
In America, our communities are otherized or demonized, fetishized or deemed dangerous. The only constant is the denial of our humanity and dignity.
It is no wonder that Americans who have no direct experience with armed conflict have done so little to end two wars — some of the longest in American history — being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Veterans are nearly as invisible in mainstream America as civilians killed overseas. Americans return home to neglect by a system that fails to meet their most basic needs. How, then, could Americans understand the cost of war?
For Gen Z and younger millennials, endless overseas wars are their norm. News of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, including terrorist attacks on holidays and weddings, rarely make headlines anymore, though they occur often. This generation has grown up with perpetual conflict in the background — the US government exploits this American indifference and disregard for our humanity to perpetuate wars that might spark anger, but not enough outrage for true disruption in the United States.
After Thursday’s attack, law enforcement in cities like Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, home to the largest Iranian diaspora community in the world, promised to boost security, which has historically meant the monitoring and surveilling of my community. Instead of assuaging our fears, our local governments stoked them by deeming us the threat.
How, then, could Americans understand the cost of war?
Then when reports surfaced this past weekend about US citizens and residents of Iranian heritage being detained by Customs and Border Protection, I feared it would only get worse. Along with dozens of organizers and lawyers, I scrambled to support Iranian American families and protect our civil liberties — calming frightened travelers, triaging and supporting people who were detained, and gathering data to understand the full scope of the problem. (CPB has denied that it targeted people based on heritage and claims it was operating with an “enhanced posture” due to current threats.)
Our status in America had changed overnight.
My community knows intimately about the violence and atrocities brought on by war. Each of us, whether we lived through war or with relatives who did, already carries the trauma. My father refused to go to movie theaters because of a violent attack that killed 377 theatergoers in the ’70s. Most of us have a relative who spent time in political prison or was executed under the shah or the current regime, was permanently scarred by war, fled as a refugee, or became an undocumented student overnight in the United States during the hostage crisis. All of us, no matter our stance on Iran, can’t help but recall feelings of loss of home, family, and safety on the brink of another war. Yet we’re too fragmented to come together even now.
Iranian Americans are, and have always been, deeply divided over the Islamic Republic. Some support intervention at all costs, unconcerned with the human toll of war or who leads it. Those of us who want peace struggle to find a balance between preventing a catastrophic war and acknowledging state repression. Massive demonstrations and subsequent crackdowns took place in Iran weeks ago, with estimates of deaths higher than initially reported. Iranian families still mourning must now imagine the deaths of their remaining relatives due to foreign intervention.
Our divisions leave Iranian Americans vulnerable as pawns in either country’s political agenda. We remain fragmented and unable to break the cycle of violence and demonization harming us no matter where we live. Our inability to come together prevents us from helping those who need us the most: our loved ones in Iran.
I pray that no more of my fellow Americans learn the true price of war. For the rest of us, the cost is already too great.
Mana Kharrazi is an Iranian American community leader and organizer. She is a plaintiff in the case against the third iteration of the Muslim ban. Find her on Twitter @ManaKharrazi.


vox--2020-01-08--How Trump got suckered by Iran and North Korea

Whenever President Donald Trump does something insane in the realm of foreign policy , which is to say whenever he does anything at all in that realm , his defenders attempt to construct some rational explanation .
Sometimes , this is funny — like when the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump wanted to buy Greenland and his supporters had to pretend that attempting to buy the autonomous territory from Denmark was some stroke of genius .
But mostly , the frantic search for reason amid a sea of nonsense is driven by cognitive dissonance : Americans handed the sole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear weapons to a man who is super interested in nuking the hell out of hurricanes .
When one thinks about it that way , it isn ’ t really funny at all — unless you are really into Tom Lehrer .
When Trump ’ s defenders attempt to package his erratic and impulsive nature as some sort of strategy , they more often than not appeal to the memory of Richard Nixon .
Walking on a beach in California before his election in 1968 , Nixon outlined a novel approach to ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his aide H.R .
Haldeman that the best way to elicit concessions from the Vietnamese would be to act like he was reckless enough to start a nuclear war .
“ I call it the Madman Theory , Bob , ” Nixon told Haldeman .
“ I want the North Vietnamese to believe I ’ ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war .
We ’ ll just slip the word to them that , ‘ for God ’ s sake , you know Nixon is obsessed about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him when he ’ s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button , ’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.
” The notion is comforting .
What if all this — the effort to buy Greenland , the frequent threats to somehow seize oil beneath the Middle East , Trump ’ s bizarre letter to the Turkish president — is just an act , all designed to elicit a better deal for America ?
For Trump ’ s defenders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the argument .
It is merely enough to suggest the possibility that there is some secret genius .
They don ’ t have to prove it .
After all , who wants to believe that there is no plan at all and that the fate of human civilization might depend on whether the president gets one or two scoops of ice cream for dessert ?
The problem with being unpredictable The “ madman theory ” is a nice rhetorical gambit , but it leaves us with an awkward historical fact : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a madman , ordering the secret bombing of Cambodia and placing US nuclear forces on alert just to scare the Soviets .
Of course , Nixon was wrong .
Ho Chi Minh didn ’ t end up in Paris two days later , pleading for peace .
The ailing Ho Chi Minh wasn ’ t even running the show in Hanoi anymore .
Le Duan was .
And he kept fighting until the US withdrew and then until the North Vietnamese overran the country .
Nixon was left to marinate in booze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a monumental failure in Vietnam , but apparently Trump still believes in it .
Or , at least , he believes in the core idea that if other world leaders are afraid of him , then he is more likely to get what he wants .
Here , I think , we have the core of Trump ’ s foreign policy .
It ’ s not a strategy , in the sense of a plan that matches resources to objectives , or even a philosophical outlook .
It ’ s ultimately a pose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rally with thousands of screaming fans or posted on an Instagram account for the Department of Swagger .
Trump himself has argued that it was his threats that brought Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table .
“ And it was a very tough dialogue at the beginning , ” Trump bragged in the Rose Garden .
“ Fire and fury .
Total annihilation .
My button is bigger than yours and my button works .
Remember that ?
You don ’ t remember that .
And people said , ‘ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ended up being ?
A very good relationship .
I like him a lot and he likes me a lot .
Nobody else would have done that.
” That was a few days before Trump flew to Hanoi and then returned empty-handed .
Kim Jong Un didn ’ t give up his nuclear weapons .
Negotiations stalled .
North Korea resumed testing with 22 missile launches and counting , including a new submarine-launched missile with a range of about 2,500 km .
And North Korea , in December , resumed engine testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kim ended the year with a speech in which he announced that he would no longer abide by the moratorium on nuclear and missile testing , that North Korea would “ shift to shocking actual actions to make [ the US ] fully pay , ” and would soon reveal a “ new strategic weapon.
” Yet US officials are still arguing that these threats are little more than bluster and that Kim will soon enough yield to pressure .
On January 7 , a State Department official asserted that there had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of North Korean activity , missiles , tests , and all the rest of that stuff ” and that “ will continue … because the US has taken a solid stand and demonstrated strength and insistence that the agreements be adhered to.
” US officials , of course , said the same thing about Iran .
When a State Department official was asked if he thought Iran would retaliate after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani , the official said , “ No , I don ’ t. ” When reporters pressed the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m just saying that weakness invites more aggression .
Timidity will invite more aggression , ” and “ we ’ re speaking in a language the regime understands.
” That was on January 3 .
Less than a week later , Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US targets in Iraq .
US officials were also skeptical that Iran would respond to Trump withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal , arguing that Tehran would simply agree to a “ tougher ” deal .
Under the agreement reached by President Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Iran agreeing to limits on its civilian nuclear energy program that would help reassure the world that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon .
When Trump reimposed those sanctions , Iran responded by abandoning those limits one by one .
Iran has not completely abandoned the agreement : It is still allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its nuclear programs , remains a non-nuclear member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty , and has offered to return to compliance if the US removes the sanctions again .
But what Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s supporters promised was just around the corner .
And then there are Russia and China .
While much of our attention has focused on Iran and North Korea , Russia and China are both modernizing their nuclear arsenals .
Trump has walked away from the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces ( INF ) Treaty , accused Russia of conducting covert nuclear explosions , and threatened to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty .
All of this has been in service of what Trump claims is a big deal he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just with Russia , but with China too .
But neither Moscow nor Beijing seems terribly interested in talking , although both showed off a wide variety of new nuclear weapons over the course of 2019 to target the United States .
If bullying doesn ’ t work , why does Trump believe in it so fervently ?
I suspect Trump believes in bullying less because he ’ s had much success as a bully and more because bullying works so well on him .
Trump claims he bullied Kim Jong Un @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inverts what happened .
It was Trump who wanted a meeting with Kim , reversing the longstanding dynamic in which North Korean leaders sought recognition from the US in the form of a presidential summit .
North Korean officials have been absolutely clear that they believe Trump ’ s desire to meet with Kim was driven by Trump ’ s domestic political situation .
Kim thinks his ICBMs created a political problem for Trump , one that forced Trump to meet with him .
Kim thinks — and North Korean officials have said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor , which is why they expected to be rewarded with sanctions relief .
They have a point .
Consider Trump ’ s anger toward Iran .
Iranian proxies have lobbed missiles at Riyadh , shot down a US reconnaissance drone , and attacked oil production facilities .
Trump did nothing .
But I suspect what really sticks in Trump ’ s craw is that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has refused to meet with him , despite public offers of a meeting in July 2018 and September 2019 .
The Iranians even went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , claiming the administration had made eight separate requests for a meeting at the United Nations .
It is remarkable that , across the board , Trump ’ s strategies of pressure and bullying have resulted in no tangible agreements — no deal with Kim Jong Un , no meeting with Iran ’ s leaders , and no arms control deals with either the Russians or the Chinese .
Trump will undoubtedly claim that all is going well — he is a master of creating a crisis and then claiming victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has already claimed to have solved the North Korean nuclear problem , and , no doubt , he will crow over the killing of Iran ’ s Soleimani .
But each of these situations has gotten worse while he has been in office , not better .
His supporters can rationalize his methods , but they can ’ t invent results that don ’ t exist .
Jeffrey Lewis is the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and a professor at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Follow him on Twitter : @ ArmsControlWonk .

Whenever President Donald Trump does something insane in the realm of foreign policy, which is to say whenever he does anything at all in that realm, his defenders attempt to construct some rational explanation.
Sometimes, this is funny — like when the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump wanted to buy Greenland and his supporters had to pretend that attempting to buy the autonomous territory from Denmark was some stroke of genius.
But mostly, the frantic search for reason amid a sea of nonsense is driven by cognitive dissonance: Americans handed the sole and unfettered authority to use thousands of nuclear weapons to a man who is super interested in nuking the hell out of hurricanes.
When one thinks about it that way, it isn’t really funny at all — unless you are really into Tom Lehrer.
When Trump’s defenders attempt to package his erratic and impulsive nature as some sort of strategy, they more often than not appeal to the memory of Richard Nixon. Walking on a beach in California before his election in 1968, Nixon outlined a novel approach to ending the Vietnam War favorably.
He told his aide H.R. Haldeman that the best way to elicit concessions from the Vietnamese would be to act like he was reckless enough to start a nuclear war. “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button,’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”
The notion is comforting. What if all this — the effort to buy Greenland, the frequent threats to somehow seize oil beneath the Middle East, Trump’s bizarre letter to the Turkish president — is just an act, all designed to elicit a better deal for America?
For Trump’s defenders, this is as far as they need to take the argument. It is merely enough to suggest the possibility that there is some secret genius. They don’t have to prove it. After all, who wants to believe that there is no plan at all and that the fate of human civilization might depend on whether the president gets one or two scoops of ice cream for dessert?
The problem with being unpredictable
The “madman theory” is a nice rhetorical gambit, but it leaves us with an awkward historical fact: Nixon did, in fact, act like a madman, ordering the secret bombing of Cambodia and placing US nuclear forces on alert just to scare the Soviets.
Of course, Nixon was wrong. Ho Chi Minh didn’t end up in Paris two days later, pleading for peace. The ailing Ho Chi Minh wasn’t even running the show in Hanoi anymore. Le Duan was. And he kept fighting until the US withdrew and then until the North Vietnamese overran the country. Nixon was left to marinate in booze and self-loathing.
The madman strategy was a monumental failure in Vietnam, but apparently Trump still believes in it. Or, at least, he believes in the core idea that if other world leaders are afraid of him, then he is more likely to get what he wants.
Here, I think, we have the core of Trump’s foreign policy. It’s not a strategy, in the sense of a plan that matches resources to objectives, or even a philosophical outlook. It’s ultimately a pose — one that can be struck at a rally with thousands of screaming fans or posted on an Instagram account for the Department of Swagger.
Trump himself has argued that it was his threats that brought Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table. “And it was a very tough dialogue at the beginning,” Trump bragged in the Rose Garden. “Fire and fury. Total annihilation. My button is bigger than yours and my button works. Remember that? You don’t remember that. And people said, ‘Trump is crazy.’ And you know what it ended up being? A very good relationship. I like him a lot and he likes me a lot. Nobody else would have done that.”
That was a few days before Trump flew to Hanoi and then returned empty-handed.
Kim Jong Un didn’t give up his nuclear weapons. Negotiations stalled. North Korea resumed testing with 22 missile launches and counting, including a new submarine-launched missile with a range of about 2,500 km. And North Korea, in December, resumed engine testing at a test facility near Tongchang-ri. Kim ended the year with a speech in which he announced that he would no longer abide by the moratorium on nuclear and missile testing, that North Korea would “shift to shocking actual actions to make [the US] fully pay,” and would soon reveal a “new strategic weapon.”
Yet US officials are still arguing that these threats are little more than bluster and that Kim will soon enough yield to pressure. On January 7, a State Department official asserted that there had been a “significant reduction through the year of North Korean activity, missiles, tests, and all the rest of that stuff” and that “will continue … because the US has taken a solid stand and demonstrated strength and insistence that the agreements be adhered to.”
US officials, of course, said the same thing about Iran. When a State Department official was asked if he thought Iran would retaliate after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the official said, “No, I don’t.” When reporters pressed the issue, he said: “I’m just saying that weakness invites more aggression. Timidity will invite more aggression,” and “we’re speaking in a language the regime understands.” That was on January 3. Less than a week later, Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US targets in Iraq.
US officials were also skeptical that Iran would respond to Trump withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that Tehran would simply agree to a “tougher” deal. Under the agreement reached by President Obama, the world lifted sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to limits on its civilian nuclear energy program that would help reassure the world that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon.
When Trump reimposed those sanctions, Iran responded by abandoning those limits one by one. Iran has not completely abandoned the agreement: It is still allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its nuclear programs, remains a non-nuclear member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has offered to return to compliance if the US removes the sanctions again.
But what Iran has not agreed to is the better deal that Trump’s supporters promised was just around the corner.
Trump has created a nuclear arms race
And then there are Russia and China. While much of our attention has focused on Iran and North Korea, Russia and China are both modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Trump has walked away from the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, accused Russia of conducting covert nuclear explosions, and threatened to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty.
All of this has been in service of what Trump claims is a big deal he wants to strike on nuclear weapons — not just with Russia, but with China too. But neither Moscow nor Beijing seems terribly interested in talking, although both showed off a wide variety of new nuclear weapons over the course of 2019 to target the United States.
If bullying doesn’t work, why does Trump believe in it so fervently? I suspect Trump believes in bullying less because he’s had much success as a bully and more because bullying works so well on him.
Trump claims he bullied Kim Jong Un into those summit meetings, but that inverts what happened. It was Trump who wanted a meeting with Kim, reversing the longstanding dynamic in which North Korean leaders sought recognition from the US in the form of a presidential summit.
North Korean officials have been absolutely clear that they believe Trump’s desire to meet with Kim was driven by Trump’s domestic political situation. Kim thinks his ICBMs created a political problem for Trump, one that forced Trump to meet with him.
Kim thinks — and North Korean officials have said — they were doing Trump a political favor, which is why they expected to be rewarded with sanctions relief. They have a point.
Consider Trump’s anger toward Iran. Iranian proxies have lobbed missiles at Riyadh, shot down a US reconnaissance drone, and attacked oil production facilities. Trump did nothing. But I suspect what really sticks in Trump’s craw is that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has refused to meet with him, despite public offers of a meeting in July 2018 and September 2019. The Iranians even went out of their way to humiliate Trump in 2018, claiming the administration had made eight separate requests for a meeting at the United Nations.
It is remarkable that, across the board, Trump’s strategies of pressure and bullying have resulted in no tangible agreements — no deal with Kim Jong Un, no meeting with Iran’s leaders, and no arms control deals with either the Russians or the Chinese.
Trump will undoubtedly claim that all is going well — he is a master of creating a crisis and then claiming victory when he cleans up his own mess. He has already claimed to have solved the North Korean nuclear problem, and, no doubt, he will crow over the killing of Iran’s Soleimani.
But each of these situations has gotten worse while he has been in office, not better. His supporters can rationalize his methods, but they can’t invent results that don’t exist.
Jeffrey Lewis is the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Follow him on Twitter: @ArmsControlWonk.


vox--2020-01-09--Facebook will continue letting politicians lie in ads

Twitter has banned most kinds of political ads .
Google has limited the effectiveness of political ads it accepts .
But Facebook , which may be the most powerful force in online ads during the 2020 campaign , says it won ’ t change its core , controversial policies about political ads : It will continue to run them , it will not prevent politicians from lying in ads they buy on Facebook , and it will not restrict campaigns ’ ability to target groups of voters with their ads .
Facebook ’ s non-news isn ’ t entirely surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on down had repeatedly insisted that limiting political ads would amount to censorship , and that the company wanted to let politicians and political groups say almost whatever they want — with certain exceptions for hate speech and other “ harmful content.
” But some critics , including former Facebook security chief Alex Stamos , had hoped that the company would at least limit “ microtargeting ” of political messages to very small groups of Facebook users .
They argued that targeting — a key to the rest of Facebook ’ s enormously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading messages to small but important blocks of voters , without much ability for others to track that messaging .
Last fall , as Facebook was facing scrutiny from the public and politicians like Elizabeth Warren over its political ads policies , executives sent out conflicting messaging about its approach to microtargeting .
At the Code Media conference in November , Facebook ad boss Carolyn Everson said the company was not considering targeting limits , but then had to walk that statement back .
Days later , the Wall Street Journal reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ few thousand ” users at a time .
Facebook ’ s non-decision should please Donald Trump , whose campaign has already complained about Google ’ s move to limit targeting .
( In an internal memo that surfaced this week , Facebook executive Andrew “ Boz ” Bosworth said Trump ’ s 2016 campaign had used Facebook to run “ the single best digital ad campaign I ’ ve ever seen from any advertiser .
Period.
” ) But opposition to political ad targeting changes doesn ’ t fall along party lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While some Democrats , like Ellen Weintraub , a member of the Federal Election Commission , had called for limits on targeting , other left-leaning groups like Blue Digital Exchange had argued that restrictions on targeting made it harder for them to reach prospective voters : The same technique that lets advertisers find people in the Philadelphia area likely to buy a Prius can also be used to find Philadelphia residents who may have voted for Barack Obama but didn ’ t come out for Hillary Clinton .
Facebook announced the non-change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , which it attributed to ad executive Rob Leathern .
Echoing previous Facebook arguments about the company ’ s desire for more regulation , Leathern wrote that Facebook wants the US and other countries to set rules about political advertising .
“ Ultimately , we don ’ t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies , which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across the industry , ” Leather wrote .
“ In the absence of regulation , Facebook and other companies are left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them , warts and all , and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.
” Leathern did announce other changes Facebook was making around political ads , which he said would create more “ transparency ” about the way the company ’ s platform is used .
For instance , it is updating its Ad Library feature , previously criticized as “ effectively useless , ” to make it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also give Facebook users the ability to see “ fewer political and and social issue ads ” , as well as the ability to control whether they are included in “ custom audience ” lists advertisers use to target voters .
None of those changes are likely to mollify critics who worry that politicians and their campaigns will use Facebook to distort the truth and mislead voters — especially as campaigns prepare to spend a record $ 3 billion on digital advertising this year .
Leathern acknowledges that in his post : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has provoked much public debate — including much criticism of Facebook ’ s position .
We are not deaf to that and will continue to work with regulators and policy makers in our ongoing efforts to help protect elections .
”

Twitter has banned most kinds of political ads. Google has limited the effectiveness of political ads it accepts.
But Facebook, which may be the most powerful force in online ads during the 2020 campaign, says it won’t change its core, controversial policies about political ads: It will continue to run them, it will not prevent politicians from lying in ads they buy on Facebook, and it will not restrict campaigns’ ability to target groups of voters with their ads.
Facebook’s non-news isn’t entirely surprising, since its executives from Mark Zuckerberg on down had repeatedly insisted that limiting political ads would amount to censorship, and that the company wanted to let politicians and political groups say almost whatever they want — with certain exceptions for hate speech and other “harmful content.”
But some critics, including former Facebook security chief Alex Stamos, had hoped that the company would at least limit “microtargeting” of political messages to very small groups of Facebook users. They argued that targeting — a key to the rest of Facebook’s enormously profitable advertising business — lets politicians present misleading messages to small but important blocks of voters, without much ability for others to track that messaging.
Last fall, as Facebook was facing scrutiny from the public and politicians like Elizabeth Warren over its political ads policies, executives sent out conflicting messaging about its approach to microtargeting. At the Code Media conference in November, Facebook ad boss Carolyn Everson said the company was not considering targeting limits, but then had to walk that statement back. Days later, the Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook was considering limiting targeting to a “few thousand” users at a time.
Facebook’s non-decision should please Donald Trump, whose campaign has already complained about Google’s move to limit targeting. (In an internal memo that surfaced this week, Facebook executive Andrew “Boz” Bosworth said Trump’s 2016 campaign had used Facebook to run “the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.”)
But opposition to political ad targeting changes doesn’t fall along party lines, as my colleague Emily Stewart noted.
While some Democrats, like Ellen Weintraub, a member of the Federal Election Commission, had called for limits on targeting, other left-leaning groups like Blue Digital Exchange had argued that restrictions on targeting made it harder for them to reach prospective voters: The same technique that lets advertisers find people in the Philadelphia area likely to buy a Prius can also be used to find Philadelphia residents who may have voted for Barack Obama but didn’t come out for Hillary Clinton.
Facebook announced the non-change in its policies via a blog post Thursday, which it attributed to ad executive Rob Leathern. Echoing previous Facebook arguments about the company’s desire for more regulation, Leathern wrote that Facebook wants the US and other countries to set rules about political advertising.
“Ultimately, we don’t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies, which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across the industry,” Leathern wrote. “In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies. We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”
Leathern did announce other changes Facebook was making around political ads, which he said would create more “transparency” about the way the company’s platform is used. For instance, it is updating its Ad Library feature, previously criticized as “effectively useless,” to make it easier to search and filter results; it will also give Facebook users the ability to see “fewer political and social issue ads,” as well as the ability to control whether they are included in “custom audience” lists advertisers use to target voters.
None of those changes are likely to mollify critics who worry that politicians and their campaigns will use Facebook to distort the truth and mislead voters — especially as campaigns prepare to spend a record $3 billion on digital advertising this year.
Leathern acknowledges that in his post: “We recognize this is an issue that has provoked much public debate — including much criticism of Facebook’s position. We are not deaf to that and will continue to work with regulators and policy makers in our ongoing efforts to help protect elections.”


vox--2020-01-08--Vox Sentences: Impeachment like it’s 1999

The news , but shorter .
Your daily wrap-up for the day in news .
Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox .
This story is part of a group of stories called Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what ’ s happening in the world .
Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter , delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday , or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions .
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans are ready to vote on rules for the impeachment trial of President Trump — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ phase one ” of the trial would proceed along the same lines as the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton .
[ NPR / Kelsey Snell ] • The Senate can ’ t vote until the House delivers the articles of impeachment , and Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won ’ t do that until she knows more about the rules for the trial .
[ Washington Post / Felicia Sonmez , Colby Itkowitz , John Wagner , and Seung Min Kim ] • McConnell isn ’ t interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
“ There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure , ” he said in a floor speech .
[ NYT / Nicholas Fandos ] • Senate Democrats hope to peel away at least four moderate Republican votes to ensure their ability to call witnesses at the trial .
[ CNN / Devan Cole ] • The debate over whether to allow additional witness testimony at the trial took on a new dimension Monday when former National Security Adviser John Bolton , a key figure in the impeachment inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenaed .
Bolton previously refused to be deposed as part of the House impeachment inquiry .
[ Politico / Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney ] • Despite Bolton ’ s statement , potential Republican defectors Sens .
Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , and Mitt Romney appeared to fall in line earlier this week and voiced their support for impeachment rules mirroring the Clinton trial .
[ Vox / Sean Collins ] • Some Senate Republicans , impatient with the delay , have suggested Senate rules should be changed so the trial can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Senate .
[ Axios / Ursula Perano ] A coalition government , if you can keep it • After two national elections last year , Spain finally has a functioning government , led by Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez .
[ Washington Post / Pamela Rolfe and Chico Harlan ] • Sánchez previously led a caretaker government until a narrow left-wing coalition could be cobbled together .
It ’ s the first such coalition government in Spain ’ s modern era .
[ NYT / Raphael Minder ] • The coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Podemos still represents a fragile minority , however .
Its future will rely on support from smaller parties in parliament .
[ WSJ / Giovanni Legorano ] • Catalonian separatism could pose a problem for the new government .
Sánchez promised a resolution to the region ’ s push for independence in exchange for Catalan MPs abstaining from the vote to form a new government .
[ BBC ] • In Florida , a partisan divide on felon reenfranchisement could have consequences for the 2020 election .
[ NPR / Daniel Rivero ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government can ’ t kick its coal habit .
[ Vox / Umair Irfan ] • Improvements in treating lung cancer are driving the falling cancer death rate .
[ Washington Post / Laurie McGinley ] • AI-powered bots are getting smarter , and the internet isn ’ t ready .
[ Atlantic / Bruce Schneier ] • Could complaining actually be ... good for us ?
[ NYT / Micaela Marini Higgs ] “ While Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar .
Sugar is delicious and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special place for it in our lives .
But like all things it benefits from moderation.
” [ Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth in an internal memo / Recode ] Listen to this : The Impact Elizabeth Warren ’ s plan to fight the opioid crisis .
[ Vox / Jillian Weinberger , Amy Drozdowska , and Byrd Pinkerton ] Trump ’ s Iran speech seemed like a victory lap .
It actually made things worse .
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping down as senior royals How Trump got suckered by Iran @ @ @

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions.
The rules of impeachment
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans are ready to vote on rules for the impeachment trial of President Trump — without Democratic support. Under his plan, “phase one” of the trial would proceed along the same lines as the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. [NPR / Kelsey Snell]
The Senate can’t vote until the House delivers the articles of impeachment, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won’t do that until she knows more about the rules for the trial. [Washington Post / Felicia Sonmez, Colby Itkowitz, John Wagner, and Seung Min Kim]
McConnell isn’t interested in negotiating with House Democrats on impeachment, though. “There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure,” he said in a floor speech. [NYT / Nicholas Fandos]
Senate Democrats hope to peel away at least four moderate Republican votes to ensure their ability to call witnesses at the trial. [CNN / Devan Cole]
The debate over whether to allow additional witness testimony at the trial took on a new dimension Monday when former National Security Adviser John Bolton, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry, expressed a willingness to testify if subpoenaed. Bolton previously refused to be deposed as part of the House impeachment inquiry. [Politico / Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney]
Despite Bolton’s statement, potential Republican defectors Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney appeared to fall in line earlier this week and voiced their support for impeachment rules mirroring the Clinton trial. [Vox / Sean Collins]
Some Senate Republicans, impatient with the delay, have suggested Senate rules should be changed so the trial can begin without articles of impeachment being sent to the Senate. [Axios / Ursula Perano]
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Sentences Get the news, but shorter, in one daily newsletter. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
A coalition government, if you can keep it
After two national elections last year, Spain finally has a functioning government, led by Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. [Washington Post / Pamela Rolfe and Chico Harlan]
Sánchez previously led a caretaker government until a narrow left-wing coalition could be cobbled together. It’s the first such coalition government in Spain’s modern era. [NYT / Raphael Minder]
The coalition between the Socialist party and the left-wing Podemos still represents a fragile minority, however. Its future will rely on support from smaller parties in parliament. [WSJ / Giovanni Legorano]
Catalonian separatism could pose a problem for the new government. Sánchez promised a resolution to the region’s push for independence in exchange for Catalan MPs abstaining from the vote to form a new government. [BBC]
Miscellaneous
Verbatim
“While Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar. Sugar is delicious and for most of us there is a special place for it in our lives. But like all things it benefits from moderation.” [Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth in an internal memo / Recode]
Listen to this: The Impact
Elizabeth Warren’s plan to fight the opioid crisis. [Vox / Jillian Weinberger, Amy Drozdowska, and Byrd Pinkerton]
Read more
Trump’s Iran speech seemed like a victory lap. It actually made things worse.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping down as senior royals
How Trump got suckered by Iran and North Korea
La-Z-Boy and the American dream
Installing air filters in classrooms has surprisingly large educational benefits