vox--2020-07-16--The pandemic has been great for Netflix

The pandemic has been great for Netflix

Three months ago , Netflix announced that it had seen a huge surge in new subscribers because people were stuck at home around the world , waiting out the Covid-19 pandemic .
So consider this a repeat : Netflix says that it also did great during April , May , and June of this year — because people were stuck at home around the world , waiting out the Covid-19 pandemic .
More specifically : The company signed up another 10 million more subscribers and now has 193 million subscribers worldwide .
The downside , Netflix said , is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It worries that just about everyone who wants to get Netflix this year has already signed up for it , so its growth won ’ t be as enormous in the second half of the year .
That would be a problem all of Netflix ’ s many competitors , from Apple to Disney to AT & T ’ s HBO Max , would love to have .
But while analysts had guessed that the arrival of all those competitors would cut into Netflix ’ s growth , that hasn ’ t panned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street allows Netflix to take on billions in debt , which it uses to buy and make truckloads of TV shows and movies , means that Netflix has been able to keep showing off new products to its customers while some of its cautious competitors have had a hard time keeping up .
But not even Netflix can fend off a pandemic forever .
The company says that it will have plenty of new stuff to show people this year , but that next year it will have a “ more second-half-weighted content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Translation : If you ’ re still sheltering at home in February , you ’ re going to have to work harder to find Netflix stuff you want to watch .
Then again , we ’ re in unchartered waters here .
Three months ago , Netflix said that it had signed up 16 million subscribers instead of the 7 million it had planned on getting — and that all 9 million of the extra subscribers showed up in March when countries around the world told their citizens to stay home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hastings said he thought the company might sign up another 7.5 million subscribers in April , May , or June — or it might not , because no one has ever tried financial forecasting during a pandemic before .
He described Netflix ’ s projections as “ a bunch of us feeling the wind.
” Here ’ s what we seem to know now : Netflix seems to have been purpose-built to thrive in a pandemic .
As I wrote in April : It ’ s an internet-only business that hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , and it ’ s a subscription-based business that doesn ’ t make any money from advertising so it doesn ’ t have to worry about the collapse of that industry .
Netflix is also , for now , in a good position to ride out the pandemic : While it has billions in debt , it is generating lots of cash each month from its subscribers .
One other thing we know : Reed Hastings is no longer the CEO of Netflix , he ’ s the co-CEO .
Hastings announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his longtime head of content , to share the top title with him .
It ’ s a signal that Sarandos is likely to eventually succeed Hastings , though Hastings says he “ committed to Netflix for the long term.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Three months ago, Netflix announced that it had seen a huge surge in new subscribers because people were stuck at home around the world, waiting out the Covid-19 pandemic.
So consider this a repeat: Netflix says that it also did great during April, May, and June of this year — because people were stuck at home around the world, waiting out the Covid-19 pandemic.
More specifically: The company signed up another 10 million more subscribers and now has 193 million subscribers worldwide.
The downside, Netflix said, is also something the company said last quarter: It worries that just about everyone who wants to get Netflix this year has already signed up for it, so its growth won’t be as enormous in the second half of the year.
That would be a problem all of Netflix’s many competitors, from Apple to Disney to AT&T’s HBO Max, would love to have. But while analysts had guessed that the arrival of all those competitors would cut into Netflix’s growth, that hasn’t panned out. And the fact that Wall Street allows Netflix to take on billions in debt, which it uses to buy and make truckloads of TV shows and movies, means that Netflix has been able to keep showing off new products to its customers while some of its cautious competitors have had a hard time keeping up.
But not even Netflix can fend off a pandemic forever. The company says that it will have plenty of new stuff to show people this year, but that next year it will have a “more second-half-weighted content slate in terms of our big titles.” Translation: If you’re still sheltering at home in February, you’re going to have to work harder to find Netflix stuff you want to watch.
Then again, we’re in unchartered waters here.
Three months ago, Netflix said that it had signed up 16 million subscribers instead of the 7 million it had planned on getting — and that all 9 million of the extra subscribers showed up in March when countries around the world told their citizens to stay home.
At the time, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said he thought the company might sign up another 7.5 million subscribers in April, May, or June — or it might not, because no one has ever tried financial forecasting during a pandemic before. He described Netflix’s projections as “a bunch of us feeling the wind.”
Here’s what we seem to know now: Netflix seems to have been purpose-built to thrive in a pandemic. As I wrote in April:
It’s an internet-only business that hasn’t had to interrupt its service in any way, and it’s a subscription-based business that doesn’t make any money from advertising so it doesn’t have to worry about the collapse of that industry. Netflix is also, for now, in a good position to ride out the pandemic: While it has billions in debt, it is generating lots of cash each month from its subscribers.
One other thing we know: Reed Hastings is no longer the CEO of Netflix, he’s the co-CEO. Hastings announced that he has promoted Ted Sarandos, his longtime head of content, to share the top title with him. It’s a signal that Sarandos is likely to eventually succeed Hastings, though Hastings says he “committed to Netflix for the long term.”


vox--2020-07-17--What a post-Trump Republican Party might look like

Five years ago , Oren Cass sat at the center of the Republican Party .
Cass is a former management consultant who served as the domestic policy director for the Mitt Romney campaign and then as a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute .
But then he launched an insurgency .
Today , Cass is the author of The Once and Future Worker and the founder and executive director of American Compass , a new think tank created to challenge the right-wing economic orthodoxy .
Cass thinks conservatism has lost its way , becoming obsessed with low tax rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What conservatives need , he thinks , are clear social goals that can structure a radically new economic agenda : a vision that puts families first , eschews economic growth as the be-all-end-all of policymaking , and recognizes the inescapability of government intervention in the economy .
Trump is likely — though not certain — to lose in 2020 .
And then , Cass thinks , Republicans will face a choice : to return to a “ pre-Trump ” consensus or to build a “ post-Trump future ” — one that , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from rising .
In this conversation , Cass and I discuss how current economic indicators fail , the relationship between economics and culture , why Cass believes production — not consumption — should be the central focus of public policy , the problems with how our society assigns status to different professions , the role that power plays in determining market outcomes , and the conservative case against market fundamentalism .
We also talk about why Cass supports labor unions and industrial policy but not a job guarantee or publicly funded child care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party after Donald Trump looks like , whether Cass ’ s policies are big enough to solve the problems he identifies , and more .
An edited excerpt from our conversation follows .
The full conversation can be heard on The Ezra Klein Show .
A major theme of your book is the disconnect between economic statistics and genuine prosperity .
What are the indicators of social well-being and success that we should be paying less attention to ?
Which ones should we be paying more attention to ?
I think the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is aggregate GDP .
We do a lot of analysis at the aggregate level .
And in a country as large and diverse as ours , to say that growth was X percent last year really tells you very little about how any given group of people in any given place is faring .
Being able to focus in and ask , “ How are people who are not doing so well doing ?
” is vitally important .
The second piece of that is GDP , which is technically a measure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it after we ’ ve redistributed and moved money around and understand it as a measure of consumption .
I think consumption is great .
I ’ m not an anti-growth , anti-materialism guy at all .
But I think , at the margin , increases in consumption when it ’ s the size of your television probably aren ’ t all that correlated to individuals ’ well-being or happiness , the health or strength of their families , their communities , and especially their ability to carry forward healthy families and communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think we should pay more attention to those things : Are people forming stable families ?
Are they able to achieve self-sufficiency , provide for themselves , contribute to their communities ?
And then do we have a sustainable process where that is reproducing into the next generation so that the folks who are kids today or leaving high school today are in a position to do that as well .
Let ’ s get specific : What is your basket of indicators that you think is most important ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the savings rate .
Not the aggregate savings rate .
I would want to know the savings rate for the typical household and specifically the typical household with children living in the household .
If you see a high savings rate , that tells you both that attitudinally people are saving and investing and planning toward a future , and economically that they are not reliant on transfer payments and trying to just pay that month ’ s bills .
They actually have reached a place where they are able to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an economic measure that I think is very important .
Related to that is a question like the median wage — I think that ’ s an important one to look at .
I think family status is very important .
Today , families are not forming in the first place .
People who have kids are not getting married or people are not having kids at all .
So both the marriage rate and the fertility rate are really important to look at .
Then the combination of those would tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially in stable relationships and the share of kids who are being raised in those kinds of households .
The last thing I think is really important is looking at the health of local economies and communities .
There ’ s a fascinating chart that comes from an analysis that the New York Times did , where they just looked county by county at the share of personal income that came from transfer payments .
They compare the ’ 70s where essentially across all counties you were at 10 to 20 percent personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you get up to 30 , 40 percent in most places and up above 50 percent in some .
Aside from how you feel about government spending or redistribution , that transition tells you about an economy that is not working correctly .
Many , if not most , parts of the country can not actually produce things that the rest of the country or world wants .
They are instead literally exporting need .
They are trading enrollment of people in their communities on these programs for the resources they want from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think , is vital to having a viable nation for the long run .
This feeds in to your core argument in the book , which you call “ The Working Hypothesis , ” and almost acts like a working goal : “ that a labor market in which workers can support strong families and communities is the central determinant of long-term prosperity and should be the central focus of public policy.
” And I want to talk about that and what that means , but I also want to distinguish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplant .
So if that is the Oren Cass goal or hypothesis , what do you think the dominant goal or hypothesis in the Republican and Democratic Parties traditionally has been ?
The way I describe it is growth plus redistribution , the idea that we ’ re going to get aggregate GDP up and that creates a bigger pie .
And once we have the bigger pie , we might fight about how exactly to cut it out , but at the end of the day , everybody can have more pie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in cheek , call this “ economic piety.
” I think it ’ s the model that predominated roughly from certainly sort of the ’ 80s through to the last few years and arguably still predominates for most folks in Washington .
The two parties had different views of how you get the most growth , and then they had different views of how much redistribution you do .
But I think at the end of the day , there was widespread agreement that as long as your combination of factors led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be confident that you were succeeding .
And how is your view different ?
I think pie is nice , but to overstretch the metaphor , I think it matters who ’ s baking the pie .
A lot of what contributes to the well-being and life satisfaction and family formation , strength , and community strength comes down to the production side of the equation .
Do I do something that is valued by others ?
Do I create something of value that contributes to the well-being of others ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things that we care about much more at the end of the day than the consumption side .
In an ideal world , you get both : You grow the economy in a way that includes and involves everybody as a producer and that ensures they are all becoming more productive over time .
And then everybody gets more pie and can feel like they helped bake it .
But I think that the way that we pursued the growth from both parties either just disregarded the production side of the equation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis says consumer welfare is what matters .
Economic analysis says the goal is to get as much as you can while doing as little work as possible .
And so the way we evaluate policy has been to say , “ How much stuff can we produce to consume ?
” And we either don ’ t care or even devalue the work done to produce it .
And I think that led us pretty far astray .
Something that you ’ ve been pushing and has been the locus of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative movement is around industrial policy .
Can you tell me a bit about your thinking there ?
What kind of industrial policy would you like to see America have ?
At the conceptual level , the important thing to recognize is that there are some things markets are very good at and some things markets don ’ t do .
If we are concerned about particular industries — particular types of economic activity that we think are going to be valuable to the development of the national economy over time — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to think about when they allocate their capital .
If we care about it , we are going to have to use public policy to advance it .
And I think we should care about it .
I think the industrial economy — by which I mean broadly manufacturing , resource extraction , transportation , infrastructure , things in the physical world — are incredibly important to the health of the overall economy and its trajectory in the long run .
They also happen to be incredibly important as a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place where especially less-educated , especially male , workers , are most productive .
So those kinds of jobs actually , I think , have particular social value .
If that ’ s the case , we need to design public policies that are going to encourage investment in those areas .
Then the layer that gets put on top of that is that we are now in a global economy where other countries are doing this .
The quintessential example is China , which has a very aggressive policy to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its economy .
And if we don ’ t want it to all go there , then we are going to have to respond .
It ’ s a funny situation where you would think free markets and free trade are synonymous , but in fact , to the extent you ’ re going to have free trade , you ’ re going to have to get involved in the market when you ’ re trading partners for getting involved in their markets .
There are lots of ways to go about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big symposium called “ Moving the Chains ” focused on supply chains , where we brought together experts from all different fields all across the political spectrum to just talk about how many different ways there are to think about this .
Funding for research and development .
Our tax code could be a lot friendlier to this kind of activity .
I think in some cases we need domestic sourcing requirements .
We can just say we ’ re not going to interfere in the market , but we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy somewhere in this domestic market .
Different ways we think about education , different ways we think about regulation , different ways we think about antitrust .
It all comes together , I think , where instead of just economic piety , if this is something we care about , we should do policy differently .
One thing I ’ ve seen you write about is how the central fight on the right currently is about whether after Trump the Republican Party reverts to a pre-Trump or post-Trump state .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight the way you see it .
What does it mean for the Republican Party , too ?
If Trump loses in November or if he just wins a second term and leaves after that to go to a pre-Trump straight versus a post-Trump state ?
I think there ’ s a fascinating dynamic on the right-of-center right now where if you look within institutions — if you look at individuals working the various think tanks in media and in agencies and congressional offices — there ’ s just a ton of fascinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles , challenging orthodoxies .
It ’ s really exciting .
Some of that is just a result of Trump sort of wiping the table clean and there being a sense that anything goes .
Yet if you zoom out and look at the institutions , you see virtually none of that .
You see a fairly monolithic approach that basically says : If we keep our heads down , this , too , shall pass — there ’ s no reason the 2024 primary can ’ t be a replay of 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That dynamic , I think , is a real problem .
I think that fight is playing out where you see a lot of institutions and important folks within those institutions who genuinely believe that what the Republican Party represented and what conservatism represented from 2000 to 2015 was the right place to be — and we just need to get back to that .
Then you have a lot of people who are saying , “ No , that ’ s not right.
” As a conceptual matter , a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outdated and not applicable to current circumstances .
On top of that , there ’ s a political problem that the kind of coalition that those ideas were built for does not seem to have any potential as a majority coalition .
So we need to do better than that , and this is the time to be doing it .
Once you accept that broad frame — that we should be thinking about post-Trumpism , not just a return to pre-Trumpism — then there are still any number of fights to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of forming American Compass was to say , at the institutional level , we need to start building some things that can be homes for post-Trumpism .
My hope is that many of the great right-of-center institutions continue to thrive , and with our work from the outside , we can kind of nudge them and alter the stream that everybody ’ s swimming in .
In my view , that change has to happen mostly for the substantive reasons : The pre-Trump “ conservative ” platform and way of thinking was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Five years ago, Oren Cass sat at the center of the Republican Party. Cass is a former management consultant who served as the domestic policy director for the Mitt Romney campaign and then as a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. But then he launched an insurgency.
Today, Cass is the author of The Once and Future Worker and the founder and executive director of American Compass, a new think tank created to challenge the right-wing economic orthodoxy. Cass thinks conservatism has lost its way, becoming obsessed with low tax rates and a quasi-religious veneration of markets.
What conservatives need, he thinks, are clear social goals that can structure a radically new economic agenda: a vision that puts families first, eschews economic growth as the be-all-end-all of policymaking, and recognizes the inescapability of government intervention in the economy. Trump is likely — though not certain — to lose in 2020. And then, Cass thinks, Republicans will face a choice: to return to a “pre-Trump” consensus or to build a “post-Trump future” — one that, he hopes, will prevent more Trump-like politicians from rising.
In this conversation, Cass and I discuss how current economic indicators fail, the relationship between economics and culture, why Cass believes production — not consumption — should be the central focus of public policy, the problems with how our society assigns status to different professions, the role that power plays in determining market outcomes, and the conservative case against market fundamentalism.
We also talk about why Cass supports labor unions and industrial policy but not a job guarantee or publicly funded child care, what the future of the Republican Party after Donald Trump looks like, whether Cass’s policies are big enough to solve the problems he identifies, and more.
An edited excerpt from our conversation follows. The full conversation can be heard on The Ezra Klein Show.
Ezra Klein
A major theme of your book is the disconnect between economic statistics and genuine prosperity. What are the indicators of social well-being and success that we should be paying less attention to? Which ones should we be paying more attention to?
Oren Cass
I think the one we should be paying less attention to is aggregate GDP.
We do a lot of analysis at the aggregate level. And in a country as large and diverse as ours, to say that growth was X percent last year really tells you very little about how any given group of people in any given place is faring. Being able to focus in and ask, “How are people who are not doing so well doing?” is vitally important.
The second piece of that is GDP, which is technically a measure of output, but we tend to analyze it after we’ve redistributed and moved money around and understand it as a measure of consumption. I think consumption is great. I’m not an anti-growth, anti-materialism guy at all. But I think, at the margin, increases in consumption when it’s the size of your television probably aren’t all that correlated to individuals’ well-being or happiness, the health or strength of their families, their communities, and especially their ability to carry forward healthy families and communities through their children to the next generation.
I think we should pay more attention to those things: Are people forming stable families? Are they able to achieve self-sufficiency, provide for themselves, contribute to their communities? And then do we have a sustainable process where that is reproducing into the next generation so that the folks who are kids today or leaving high school today are in a position to do that as well.
Ezra Klein
Let’s get specific: What is your basket of indicators that you think is most important?
Oren Cass
I think one that’s really important is the savings rate. Not the aggregate savings rate. I would want to know the savings rate for the typical household and specifically the typical household with children living in the household. If you see a high savings rate, that tells you both that attitudinally people are saving and investing and planning toward a future, and economically that they are not reliant on transfer payments and trying to just pay that month’s bills. They actually have reached a place where they are able to be net productive contributors. So that’s an economic measure that I think is very important.
Related to that is a question like the median wage — I think that’s an important one to look at. I think family status is very important. Today, families are not forming in the first place. People who have kids are not getting married or people are not having kids at all. So both the marriage rate and the fertility rate are really important to look at. Then the combination of those would tell you the share of folks who are essentially in stable relationships and the share of kids who are being raised in those kinds of households.
The last thing I think is really important is looking at the health of local economies and communities. There’s a fascinating chart that comes from an analysis that the New York Times did, where they just looked county by county at the share of personal income that came from transfer payments. They compare the ’70s where essentially across all counties you were at 10 to 20 percent personal income from transfers to the late-2000s where you get up to 30, 40 percent in most places and up above 50 percent in some.
Aside from how you feel about government spending or redistribution, that transition tells you about an economy that is not working correctly. Many, if not most, parts of the country cannot actually produce things that the rest of the country or world wants. They are instead literally exporting need. They are trading enrollment of people in their communities on these programs for the resources they want from elsewhere. Getting out of that model, I think, is vital to having a viable nation for the long run.
Ezra Klein
This feeds in to your core argument in the book, which you call “The Working Hypothesis,” and almost acts like a working goal: “that a labor market in which workers can support strong families and communities is the central determinant of long-term prosperity and should be the central focus of public policy.”
And I want to talk about that and what that means, but I also want to distinguish it from what you are trying to supplant. So if that is the Oren Cass goal or hypothesis, what do you think the dominant goal or hypothesis in the Republican and Democratic Parties traditionally has been?
Oren Cass
The way I describe it is growth plus redistribution, the idea that we’re going to get aggregate GDP up and that creates a bigger pie. And once we have the bigger pie, we might fight about how exactly to cut it out, but at the end of the day, everybody can have more pie. And so I like, tongue in cheek, call this “economic piety.”
I think it’s the model that predominated roughly from certainly sort of the ’80s through to the last few years and arguably still predominates for most folks in Washington.
The two parties had different views of how you get the most growth, and then they had different views of how much redistribution you do. But I think at the end of the day, there was widespread agreement that as long as your combination of factors led to the growing pie for everybody, you could be confident that you were succeeding.
Ezra Klein
And how is your view different?
Oren Cass
I think pie is nice, but to overstretch the metaphor, I think it matters who’s baking the pie. A lot of what contributes to the well-being and life satisfaction and family formation, strength, and community strength comes down to the production side of the equation.
Do I do something that is valued by others? Do I create something of value that contributes to the well-being of others? I think that is vital to all of these things that we care about much more at the end of the day than the consumption side.
In an ideal world, you get both: You grow the economy in a way that includes and involves everybody as a producer and that ensures they are all becoming more productive over time. And then everybody gets more pie and can feel like they helped bake it. But I think that the way that we pursued the growth from both parties either just disregarded the production side of the equation or actively undermined it.
Standard economic analysis says consumer welfare is what matters. Economic analysis says the goal is to get as much as you can while doing as little work as possible. And so the way we evaluate policy has been to say, “How much stuff can we produce to consume?” And we either don’t care or even devalue the work done to produce it. And I think that led us pretty far astray.
Ezra Klein
Something that you’ve been pushing and has been the locus of some of your fighting with others in the conservative movement is around industrial policy. Can you tell me a bit about your thinking there? What kind of industrial policy would you like to see America have?
Oren Cass
At the conceptual level, the important thing to recognize is that there are some things markets are very good at and some things markets don’t do. If we are concerned about particular industries — particular types of economic activity that we think are going to be valuable to the development of the national economy over time — that’s not something private investors are going to think about when they allocate their capital.
If we care about it, we are going to have to use public policy to advance it. And I think we should care about it. I think the industrial economy — by which I mean broadly manufacturing, resource extraction, transportation, infrastructure, things in the physical world — are incredibly important to the health of the overall economy and its trajectory in the long run. They also happen to be incredibly important as a form of employment because they tend to be the place where especially less-educated, especially male, workers, are most productive. So those kinds of jobs actually, I think, have particular social value.
If that’s the case, we need to design public policies that are going to encourage investment in those areas. Then the layer that gets put on top of that is that we are now in a global economy where other countries are doing this. The quintessential example is China, which has a very aggressive policy to try to attract this kind of economic activity to its economy. And if we don’t want it to all go there, then we are going to have to respond. It’s a funny situation where you would think free markets and free trade are synonymous, but in fact, to the extent you’re going to have free trade, you’re going to have to get involved in the market when you’re trading partners for getting involved in their markets.
There are lots of ways to go about this. American Compass just put out this big symposium called “Moving the Chains” focused on supply chains, where we brought together experts from all different fields all across the political spectrum to just talk about how many different ways there are to think about this.
Funding for research and development. Our tax code could be a lot friendlier to this kind of activity. I think in some cases we need domestic sourcing requirements. We can just say we’re not going to interfere in the market, but we’re going to tell you, you got to buy somewhere in this domestic market. Different ways we think about education, different ways we think about regulation, different ways we think about antitrust.
It all comes together, I think, where instead of just economic piety, if this is something we care about, we should do policy differently.
Ezra Klein
One thing I’ve seen you write about is how the central fight on the right currently is about whether after Trump the Republican Party reverts to a pre-Trump or post-Trump state. I’d like to hear you describe that fight the way you see it. What does it mean for the Republican Party, too? If Trump loses in November or if he just wins a second term and leaves after that to go to a pre-Trump straight versus a post-Trump state?
Oren Cass
I think there’s a fascinating dynamic on the right-of-center right now where if you look within institutions — if you look at individuals working the various think tanks in media and in agencies and congressional offices — there’s just a ton of fascinating people doing fascinating work: rethinking first principles, challenging orthodoxies. It’s really exciting. Some of that is just a result of Trump sort of wiping the table clean and there being a sense that anything goes.
Yet if you zoom out and look at the institutions, you see virtually none of that. You see a fairly monolithic approach that basically says: If we keep our heads down, this, too, shall pass — there’s no reason the 2024 primary can’t be a replay of 2016 if there had been no Trump. That dynamic, I think, is a real problem.
I think that fight is playing out where you see a lot of institutions and important folks within those institutions who genuinely believe that what the Republican Party represented and what conservatism represented from 2000 to 2015 was the right place to be — and we just need to get back to that.
Then you have a lot of people who are saying, “No, that’s not right.” As a conceptual matter, a lot of these ideas were either just wrong or outdated and not applicable to current circumstances. On top of that, there’s a political problem that the kind of coalition that those ideas were built for does not seem to have any potential as a majority coalition. So we need to do better than that, and this is the time to be doing it.
Once you accept that broad frame — that we should be thinking about post-Trumpism, not just a return to pre-Trumpism — then there are still any number of fights to have about the specifics. But the premise of forming American Compass was to say, at the institutional level, we need to start building some things that can be homes for post-Trumpism. My hope is that many of the great right-of-center institutions continue to thrive, and with our work from the outside, we can kind of nudge them and alter the stream that everybody’s swimming in.
In my view, that change has to happen mostly for the substantive reasons: The pre-Trump “conservative” platform and way of thinking was not the right one. And it needs to change.


vox--2020-07-17--The 4 best movies you can now watch at home

Theaters are mostly closed .
Blockbusters are delayed .
Drive-ins are having a moment .
And with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic still a clear threat to Americans , most people are choosing to watch films at home .
Luckily , there ’ s a regular influx of new movies to choose from .
Four engrossing films are premiering this week on streaming services and in virtual theaters .
There ’ s a documentary that follows a military family for 10 years .
There ’ s a light comedic drama about finding yourself in the mountains of Norway .
An iconic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a new documentary .
And the friendships and creative collaborations that would transform American theater — and lead to the creation of shows like Hamilton — are now on display to audiences in a new film .
All four movies are delightfully nourishing to watch .
But if none of them pique your interest , you can always check out one of the 28 best films from this year so far , and last week ’ s extraordinary slate of new releases are also available .
Movies have often explored the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soldier Son takes a different tack .
The documentary ( a co-production between Netflix and the New York Times ) follows Master Sgt .
Brian Eisch and his two young sons through 10 years of their lives , from deployment to the effects of war on the home front to the question of whether the boys will follow in their father ’ s footsteps .
It ’ s an observational documentary that doesn ’ t push any one perspective too heavily ; it ’ s possible to watch it as a straightforward tribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there often seems to be something darker lurking beneath the film : a quiet examination of the ways the narratives that are pushed on Americans , particularly men , about the glories of combat and the soldiers ’ life , have long-term effects that extend far past one generation .
How to watch it : Father Soldier Son is streaming on Netflix .
There are more than a few documentaries about the lives of famous authors and public figures .
I ’ ve been disappointed by most of them , because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting analyses of a person ’ s life and legacy .
Flannery is an exception .
Though conventional in form , the documentary brings a number of voices — ranging from celebrities like Tommy Lee Jones and Conan O ’ Brien to writers like Mary Karr and Alice Walker to scholars of American literature — to its exploration of one of the pivotal figures in American literature .
O ’ Connor ’ s relationship to the racism of her hometown in the South ( as well as her own racism ) is explored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues of race , including Richard Rodriguez and Hilton Als .
And that ’ s framed by a broader exploration of her persona , faith , class , experiences with lupus , and scalpel-sharp needling of the hypocrisies she saw around her .
For those who ’ ve read O ’ Connor and those who haven ’ t alike , it ’ s a strong entry point .
How to watch it : Flannery is in virtual theaters this week , and a list of participating theaters is available on the film ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a rental link , and profits help support the independent theater you select on the page . )
The story is familiar : A young woman tries to escape her disappointing life by running away to a foreign land .
But The Sunlit Night has a few things going for it .
It stars the always-delightful Jenny Slate as Frances , an aspiring painter who takes off to Norway for the summer to assist a gruff artist in his work , only to discover she has a lot to learn , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like an escape to remote Norway .
There ’ s enough charm and whimsy for the story to escape coming across as too predictable ; Frances sees the world through art , and she frequently narrates her thoughts to us while comparing people , colors , and experiences to paintings she loves .
The Sunlit Night is a light and occasionally messy story of discovery , and Slate ’ s performance anchors it all .
How to watch it : The Sunlit Night is available to digitally rent or purchase on platforms including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filming the performers of Freestyle Love Supreme , an improv hip-hop group , in the summer of 2005 .
Nobody knew then that members of the group — like Lin-Manuel Miranda , Thomas Kail , Anthony Veneziale , and Christopher Jackson — would go on to help shape the future of American theater with shows like In the Heights and Hamilton , or that their own show would end up on Broadway .
We Are Freestyle Love Supreme recounts the group ’ s early days via footage of performances and interviews with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how friendship can sometimes turn into world-changing collaboration .
It ’ s a light movie , best for Hamilton and In the Heights fans or those who enjoyed the stage show and want to figure out how it came about , or even just for aspiring freestylers .
While the film itself may not be groundbreaking , its subjects certainly are .
How to watch it : We Are Freestyle Love Supreme is streaming on Hulu .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contribution to Vox today .

Theaters are mostly closed. Blockbusters are delayed. Drive-ins are having a moment. And with the Covid-19 pandemic still a clear threat to Americans, most people are choosing to watch films at home.
Luckily, there’s a regular influx of new movies to choose from. Five engrossing films are premiering this week on streaming services and in virtual theaters. There’s a documentary that follows a military family for 10 years. There’s a light comedic drama about finding yourself in the mountains of Norway. A critically acclaimed drama tells of a prison warden illuminates the injustice of our system of capital punishment. An iconic American writer’s legacy is explored in a new documentary. And the friendships and creative collaborations that would transform American theater — and lead to the creation of shows like Hamilton — are now on display to audiences in a new film.
All five movies are nourishing to watch. But if none of them pique your interest, you can always check out one of the 28 best films from this year so far, and last week’s extraordinary slate of new releases are also available.
Clemency
Bernadine Williams (Alfre Woodard) has spent years working as a warden at a maximum-security prison, and it’s clearly been wearing on her health, her marriage, and her soul. She sees the most important part of her work as caring for the inmates and quietly supporting them as they approach their execution dates. But then a lethal injection goes awry, and as the date for the next one approaches, she finds herself reaching a breaking point.
With Clemency, director Chinonye Chukwu has crafted a heavy, deliberate film, with rich, widely framed shots and dark colors that make the emotional toll on not just Williams but also her coworkers, their families, the inmates, and the inmates’ loved ones extra clear. Anchored by an absolutely stunning performance from Woodard, it’s an unusual way to expose the injustices of the capital punishment system without forgetting the individuals who are stuck in its gears.
In light of the US’s resumption of federal executions, Clemency has been made available to stream for free (through July 31) on a variety of digital platforms.
How to watch it: Clemency is newly available to stream for free on Apple TV, Amazon, and Fandango Now, Redbox On Demand, Spectrum, Xfinity, Verizon FIOS, Dish, Cox, and Altice. It’s also streaming on Hulu and available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu.
Father Soldier Son
Movies have often explored the effects of war on families, but Father Soldier Son takes a different tack. The documentary (a co-production between Netflix and the New York Times) follows Master Sgt. Brian Eisch and his two young sons through 10 years of their lives, from deployment to the effects of war on the home front to the question of whether the boys will follow in their father’s footsteps. It’s an observational documentary that doesn’t push any one perspective too heavily; it’s possible to watch it as a straightforward tribute to American soldiers and their families. But there often seems to be something darker lurking beneath the film: a quiet examination of the ways the narratives that are pushed on Americans, particularly men, about the glories of combat and the soldiers’ life, have long-term effects that extend far past one generation.
How to watch it: Father Soldier Son is streaming on Netflix.
Flannery
There are more than a few documentaries about the lives of famous authors and public figures. I’ve been disappointed by most of them, because they often function more as 101-level introductions than interesting analyses of a person’s life and legacy. Flannery is an exception. Though conventional in form, the documentary brings a number of voices — ranging from celebrities like Tommy Lee Jones and Conan O’Brien to writers like Mary Karr and Alice Walker to scholars of American literature — to its exploration of one of the pivotal figures in American literature. O’Connor’s relationship to the racism of her hometown in the South (as well as her own racism) is explored by writers of color who often address issues of race, including Richard Rodriguez and Hilton Als. And that’s framed by a broader exploration of her persona, faith, class, experiences with lupus, and scalpel-sharp needling of the hypocrisies she saw around her. For those who’ve read O’Connor and those who haven’t alike, it’s a strong entry point.
How to watch it: Flannery is in virtual theaters this week, and a list of participating theaters is available on the film’s website. (You’ll receive a rental link, and profits help support the independent theater you select on the page.)
The Sunlit Night
The story is familiar: A young woman tries to escape her disappointing life by running away to a foreign land. But The Sunlit Night has a few things going for it. It stars the always-delightful Jenny Slate as Frances, an aspiring painter who takes off to Norway for the summer to assist a gruff artist in his work, only to discover she has a lot to learn, too. That means the film also feels like an escape to remote Norway. There’s enough charm and whimsy for the story to escape coming across as too predictable; Frances sees the world through art, and she frequently narrates her thoughts to us while comparing people, colors, and experiences to paintings she loves. The Sunlit Night is a light and occasionally messy story of discovery, and Slate’s performance anchors it all.
How to watch it: The Sunlit Night is available to digitally rent or purchase on platforms including iTunes and Amazon.
We Are Freestyle Love Supreme
Andrew Fried started filming the performers of Freestyle Love Supreme, an improv hip-hop group, in the summer of 2005. Nobody knew then that members of the group — like Lin-Manuel Miranda, Thomas Kail, Anthony Veneziale, and Christopher Jackson — would go on to help shape the future of American theater with shows like In the Heights and Hamilton, or that their own show would end up on Broadway. We Are Freestyle Love Supreme recounts the group’s early days via footage of performances and interviews with the group’s members, and shows how friendship can sometimes turn into world-changing collaboration. It’s a light movie, best for Hamilton and In the Heights fans or those who enjoyed the stage show and want to figure out how it came about, or even just for aspiring freestylers. While the film itself may not be groundbreaking, its subjects certainly are.
How to watch it: We Are Freestyle Love Supreme is streaming on Hulu.


vox--2020-07-17--Mysterious explosions keep happening in Iran. Israel is likely behind it.

For weeks , Iran has faced a deadly wave of explosions and fires at sensitive military and civilian sites , including one incident that caused immense damage to an important nuclear facility .
No one officially knows why it ’ s happening or who is responsible — but many believe Israel , with the Trump administration ’ s tacit or even direct support , is behind it all .
On June 26 , a massive explosion rocked the Khojir missile-production complex , a location considered vital to Iran ’ s missile capabilities .
Four days later , another blast — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the capital , Tehran — killed 19 people .
On July 2 , an explosion and fire occurred at the underground Natanz nuclear facility , a key component to the country ’ s uranium-enrichment efforts .
What actually transpired is unclear , but a Middle Eastern official — believed to be the head of Israeli intelligence , Yossi Cohen — told the New York Times last week that Israel had detonated a bomb .
Analysts differ on the extent of the damage , but assessments say centrifuge production may have been delayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years as a result of the explosion and fire .
And this week , fires broke out in an aluminum plant in Lamerd and a seaport in Bushehr , engulfing at least seven wooden ships in the process .
It ’ s possible all of this is a coincidence .
With a reeling economy and a devastating coronavirus outbreak , perhaps the Islamic Republic has merely struggled to maintain sensitive facilities that require constant upkeep .
Accidents do happen .
But current and former US and Israeli officials as well as experts I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for the incidents at the military and nuclear sites ( but not the clinic or the port or plant ) , with or without Washington ’ s explicit approval .
“ There is a pattern of escalation and a context that would suggest a motive on the Israeli side to target the Iranians , ” said Dalia Dassa Kaye , the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND Corporation .
Their reasoning is straightforward : Since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nuclear weapon , though the country fiercely denies it is seeking one .
Now that Iran is in a weakened position due in large part to the coronavirus pandemic , Israel and the US can target the country ’ s nuclear and military programs without fear of a massive retaliation .
Such a move would send an unmistakable signal to Tehran .
“ The message is : ‘ You can ’ t control your country .
We can hit you whenever we want , wherever we want , ’ ” said Eric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a member of Trump ’ s National Security Council .
The direct consequences of that signal , though , are unclear .
Some suspect Tehran may activate its proxies in Iraq to attack Americans or launch a cyberattack against Israel .
It ’ s also possible Iran will look the other way , as the lack of a known attacker both leaves the regime devoid of a clear target and provides it the political space not to retaliate .
But no one believes these moves will actually convince Iran to back down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , the country might start sprinting toward the bomb .
“ Covert operations will only undermine long-term nonproliferation efforts , ” Mahsa Rouhi , an expert on Iran ’ s nuclear program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies , wrote Wednesday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists .
“ Hardline voices in Tehran will become more motivated to rapidly advance Iran ’ s nuclear program.
” Which means if Israel ( maybe with the US ) truly is behind these events in Iran , it ’ s taking quite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel was behind several of the recent explosions in Iran Israel has long targeted nuclear programs in the Middle East in secret , open , and openly secret ways .
In 1981 , Israeli jets bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak .
And in 2007 , it struck a reactor in Syria that could have produced nuclear fuel .
But Israel has saved its most audacious counter-nuclear efforts for Iran .
In the early 2000s , Israeli spy chiefs hatched a plan to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists , a campaign Jerusalem has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a top official at Natanz — Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan — was killed in a mysterious explosion .
His death followed two other suspected killings over the previous two years .
But that wasn ’ t all : In 2009 , Israel joined the US in using a cyber weapon , known as Stuxnet , to destroy about 1,000 of Iran ’ s 6,000 centrifuges .
Why would Israel resort to such bold methods ?
Simply put , officials in Jerusalem worry Iran could more credibly threaten Israel ’ s existence if it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real justification for that concern : Just last year , for example , a top Iranian general told local reporters , “ Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map.
” When it became clear two of the recent explosions in Iran happened at a missile site ( Khojir ) and a key uranium enrichment facility ( Natanz ) , all eyes turned to Israel as the likely culprit .
“ Israel as well as the US have a clear interest in stopping , or at least disrupting , Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles , ” retired Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. Raphael Ofek , who served in Israeli military intelligence and in the prime minister ’ s office , told me .
The damage at Khojir doesn ’ t seem that extensive , but Natanz took quite a blow .
Nuclear experts at the Institute for Science and International Security on July 8 assessed that the facility had sustained “ significant , extensive , and likely irreparable , damage to its main assembly hall section ” which “ was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centrifuges.
” ( Research and development of those centrifuges was permitted under the terms of the Iran nuclear deal , experts told me . )
“ The building ’ s replacement would be expected to take at least a year , if not longer , ” the nuclear analysts concluded .
And per Ofek , the explosion “ won ’ t dramatically disrupt Iran ’ s advanced centrifuges program , ” but “ it may delay the deployment of the latest models of these machines for a year or two.
” Such assessments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel Daniel Shapiro told me .
Israeli officials believe that if those advanced centrifuges were ever installed and operated at full capacity , it “ might allow Iran to break out not with just one bomb , but with an arsenal ” of nuclear weapons , he said .
Delaying that possibility , then , is certainly a clear and vital Israeli goal .
It ’ s therefore plausible that Israel was involved in the explosions at the missile and nuclear facilities — though there is no official confirmation that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have given some kind of thumbs-up to such efforts .
Tehran , importantly , surely suspects Jerusalem .
“ Regardless of whether these are part of a Western sabotage effort ... Iran is going to believe that they are , ” Brewer , who now works on nuclear issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , told me .
“ Given that these are hitting all across Iran at military and civilian locations , that is going to cause Iran ’ s threat perceptions to spike.
” But those perceptions depend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks Israel might be waging .
It ’ s worth keeping in mind that Israel and Iran have been engaged in a shadow war for decades , yet no major fight has erupted in years .
In 2006 , Israel and Iran ’ s proxy in Lebanon , Hezbollah , battled in a month-long war during which the militant group fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel and Israeli forces fired around 7,000 bombs and missiles into Lebanon .
About 160 Israeli troops and civilians died , according to the Israel Ministry of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — most of them civilians — perished , per Human Rights Watch , a US-headquartered advocacy organization .
HRW also reports about 4,400 Lebanese were injured , and around 1 million people were displaced .
After that battle , Israel became more wary of Iran placing weaponry near its territory .
It ’ s why Israeli warplanes have consistently bombed locations in Syria in recent years , for example , both to destroy weapons shipments and deter further movement of Iranian proxies and officials there .
Israeli officials see the persistent thwarting of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict , as the “ war between the wars.
” As Shapiro , the former American ambassador to Israel , explained it to me , the concept “ reflects the Israeli philosophical approach to buy time and maybe indefinitely push off future wars — and if they occur , to make them as short as possible.
” Following this strategy allows Israel to increase its own capabilities , gather intelligence , and gain a greater military advantage against Iran over time .
Degrading Iran ’ s nuclear and missile program via covert means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to keep Tehran from gaining power at minimal expense and without much public fuss , thereby lowering Iran ’ s confidence it could defeat Israel in a war , should one break out .
That plan seems to be working for the moment .
“ At end of the war in 2006 , if you had told most Israeli officials that there wouldn ’ t be another war on that border [ with Lebanon ] after 14 years , they wouldn ’ t have believed you , ” Shapiro said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible Israeli actions through that lens , or as something more sinister .
Iran likely won ’ t respond forcefully — for now Since Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal two years ago , the US and Iran have been engaged in tit-for-tat escalations .
They ’ re based on a fundamental disagreement : Washington and Jerusalem want Tehran to give up its nuclear program entirely , as well as to curb its other activities such as missile development and support for violent groups in the region ; Iran sees those activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important pillar of its power and reach , however , and wants sanctions lifted without having to give up those activities .
That disagreement has manifested violently .
Iran and its proxies bombed oil tankers and Saudi oil fields , and downed an unmanned American surveillance drone and killed US troops stationed in Iraq — all while it loosened restrictions on its nuclear development .
The US responded by killing Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran ’ s paramilitary forces , in January .
Undeterred , Iran continued its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Israel ’ s water supply in May , a strike that potentially could have sickened hundreds of people .
Officials in Iran might therefore see the Khojir and Natanz explosions as part of that fight , thereby compelling them to respond in a bigger way in the tit-for-tat .
However , most experts believe Iran will see the incidents in the context of its long-running nuclear feud with Israel .
If that ’ s the case , it would be good news .
What Israel may have done “ is a slight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really that surprising and not really uncharacteristic of what you ’ ve seen in the recent history , ” Ilan Goldenberg , the Defense Department ’ s Iran team chief from 2009 to 2012 , told me .
“ All these activities are being done in a way that makes it hard for Iran to retaliate , and gives them space to not retaliate.
” Indeed , the Iranian regime is faltering under sustained economic pressure from the United States , one of the world ’ s worst coronavirus outbreaks , and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time or desire to engage in a massive fight with Israel right now .
Between the deniability of Israel and America ’ s involvement , and the fact that the possible attacks fit into a longstanding pattern , Tehran may not feel compelled to respond immediately and in a dramatically forceful way .
That ’ s not to say Iran will stand by idly forever .
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abbas Mousavi vowed this week that “ if a regime or a government is involved in the Natanz incident , Iran will react @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US continue to hit Iran while it ’ s down , it may have no choice but to get back up , including potentially launching more cyberattacks or even pushing to develop a nuclear weapon before Israel can do anything about it .
Any of those moves would be very provocative — and perhaps make an already dangerous situation much worse .
“ The Iranians don ’ t want this to spiral , ” the RAND Corporation ’ s Kaye told me , “ but the longer this persists , the harder it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t happening.
” “ It ’ s a humiliation at a certain point , ” she said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For weeks, Iran has faced a deadly wave of explosions and fires at sensitive military and civilian sites, including one incident that caused immense damage to an important nuclear facility. No one officially knows why it’s happening or who is responsible — but many believe Israel, with the Trump administration’s tacit or even direct support, is behind it all.
On June 26, a massive explosion rocked the Khojir missile-production complex, a location considered vital to Iran’s missile capabilities. Four days later, another blast — this time at a medical clinic north of the capital, Tehran — killed 19 people.
On July 2, an explosion and fire occurred at the underground Natanz nuclear facility, a key component to the country’s uranium-enrichment efforts. What actually transpired is unclear, but a Middle Eastern official — believed to be the head of Israeli intelligence, Yossi Cohen — told the New York Times last week that Israel had detonated a bomb. Analysts differ on the extent of the damage, but assessments say centrifuge production may have been delayed a few months or even a few years as a result of the explosion and fire.
New images show the scale of the destruction from the explosion at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility on July 2. There may be further damage to the facility's underground elements, which aren't visible from above.
Image: @Maxar pic.twitter.com/ZN7V25nCoE — Raf Sanchez (@rafsanchez) July 8, 2020
And this week, fires broke out in an aluminum plant in Lamerd and a seaport in Bushehr, engulfing at least seven wooden ships in the process.
It’s possible all of this is a coincidence. With a reeling economy and a devastating coronavirus outbreak, perhaps the Islamic Republic has merely struggled to maintain sensitive facilities that require constant upkeep. Accidents do happen.
But current and former US and Israeli officials as well as experts I spoke to are pretty certain Israel is responsible for the incidents at the military and nuclear sites (but not the clinic or the port or plant), with or without Washington’s explicit approval.
“There is a pattern of escalation and a context that would suggest a motive on the Israeli side to target the Iranians,” said Dalia Dassa Kaye, the director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND Corporation.
Their reasoning is straightforward: Since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Iran has inched closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, though the country fiercely denies it is seeking one. Now that Iran is in a weakened position due in large part to the coronavirus pandemic, Israel and the US can target the country’s nuclear and military programs without fear of a massive retaliation.
Such a move would send an unmistakable signal to Tehran. “The message is: ‘You can’t control your country. We can hit you whenever we want, wherever we want,’” said Eric Brewer, who worked on Iran issues as a member of Trump’s National Security Council.
The direct consequences of that signal, though, are unclear. Some suspect Tehran may activate its proxies in Iraq to attack Americans or launch a cyberattack against Israel. It’s also possible Iran will look the other way, as the lack of a known attacker both leaves the regime devoid of a clear target and provides it the political space not to retaliate.
But no one believes these moves will actually convince Iran to back down and suspend all nuclear activity. If anything, the country might start sprinting toward the bomb.
“Covert operations will only undermine long-term nonproliferation efforts,” Mahsa Rouhi, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, wrote Wednesday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “Hardline voices in Tehran will become more motivated to rapidly advance Iran’s nuclear program.”
Which means if Israel (maybe with the US) truly is behind these events in Iran, it’s taking quite the gamble.
Why it’s possible Israel was behind several of the recent explosions in Iran
Israel has long targeted nuclear programs in the Middle East in secret, open, and openly secret ways.
In 1981, Israeli jets bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. And in 2007, it struck a reactor in Syria that could have produced nuclear fuel. But Israel has saved its most audacious counter-nuclear efforts for Iran.
In the early 2000s, Israeli spy chiefs hatched a plan to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, a campaign Jerusalem has never formally acknowledged. In 2012, a top official at Natanz — Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan — was killed in a mysterious explosion. His death followed two other suspected killings over the previous two years.
But that wasn’t all: In 2009, Israel joined the US in using a cyber weapon, known as Stuxnet, to destroy about 1,000 of Iran’s 6,000 centrifuges.
Why would Israel resort to such bold methods? Simply put, officials in Jerusalem worry Iran could more credibly threaten Israel’s existence if it had a nuclear weapon. There’s real justification for that concern: Just last year, for example, a top Iranian general told local reporters, “Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map.”
When it became clear two of the recent explosions in Iran happened at a missile site (Khojir) and a key uranium enrichment facility (Natanz), all eyes turned to Israel as the likely culprit.
“Israel as well as the US have a clear interest in stopping, or at least disrupting, Iran’s weapons production capability, and in particular nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,” retired Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. Raphael Ofek, who served in Israeli military intelligence and in the prime minister’s office, told me.
The damage at Khojir doesn’t seem that extensive, but Natanz took quite a blow.
.@Maxar company releases tonight new image of the area that was his by an explosion near #Tehran this weekend: the explosion at Khojir missile base completely destroyed on builsing and a large burn area
Iran claims: Gas explosion
pic.twitter.com/l1fU6neccD — Amichai Stein (@AmichaiStein1) June 28, 2020
Nuclear experts at the Institute for Science and International Security on July 8 assessed that the facility had sustained “significant, extensive, and likely irreparable, damage to its main assembly hall section” which “was critical to the mass production of advanced centrifuges.” (Research and development of those centrifuges was permitted under the terms of the Iran nuclear deal, experts told me.)
“The building’s replacement would be expected to take at least a year, if not longer,” the nuclear analysts concluded.
And per Ofek, the explosion “won’t dramatically disrupt Iran’s advanced centrifuges program,” but “it may delay the deployment of the latest models of these machines for a year or two.”
Such assessments are important, former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro told me. Israeli officials believe that if those advanced centrifuges were ever installed and operated at full capacity, it “might allow Iran to break out not with just one bomb, but with an arsenal” of nuclear weapons, he said. Delaying that possibility, then, is certainly a clear and vital Israeli goal.
It’s therefore plausible that Israel was involved in the explosions at the missile and nuclear facilities — though there is no official confirmation that’s the case — and that the US may have given some kind of thumbs-up to such efforts. Tehran, importantly, surely suspects Jerusalem.
“Regardless of whether these are part of a Western sabotage effort ... Iran is going to believe that they are,” Brewer, who now works on nuclear issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “Given that these are hitting all across Iran at military and civilian locations, that is going to cause Iran’s threat perceptions to spike.”
But those perceptions depend greatly on the kind of campaign Iran thinks Israel might be waging.
“War between the wars”
It’s worth keeping in mind that Israel and Iran have been engaged in a shadow war for decades, yet no major fight has erupted in years.
In 2006, Israel and Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, battled in a month-long war during which the militant group fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel and Israeli forces fired around 7,000 bombs and missiles into Lebanon.
About 160 Israeli troops and civilians died, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and about 1,100 Lebanese — most of them civilians — perished, per Human Rights Watch, a US-headquartered advocacy organization. HRW also reports about 4,400 Lebanese were injured, and around 1 million people were displaced.
After that battle, Israel became more wary of Iran placing weaponry near its territory. It’s why Israeli warplanes have consistently bombed locations in Syria in recent years, for example, both to destroy weapons shipments and deter further movement of Iranian proxies and officials there.
Israeli officials see the persistent thwarting of Iranian intentions, especially after the 2006 conflict, as the “war between the wars.”
As Shapiro, the former American ambassador to Israel, explained it to me, the concept “reflects the Israeli philosophical approach to buy time and maybe indefinitely push off future wars — and if they occur, to make them as short as possible.” Following this strategy allows Israel to increase its own capabilities, gather intelligence, and gain a greater military advantage against Iran over time.
Degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile program via covert means fits within this framework. Jerusalem is able to keep Tehran from gaining power at minimal expense and without much public fuss, thereby lowering Iran’s confidence it could defeat Israel in a war, should one break out.
That plan seems to be working for the moment. “At end of the war in 2006, if you had told most Israeli officials that there wouldn’t be another war on that border [with Lebanon] after 14 years, they wouldn’t have believed you,” Shapiro said.
The question now is if Iran views the possible Israeli actions through that lens, or as something more sinister.
Iran likely won’t respond forcefully — for now
Since Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal two years ago, the US and Iran have been engaged in tit-for-tat escalations.
They’re based on a fundamental disagreement: Washington and Jerusalem want Tehran to give up its nuclear program entirely, as well as to curb its other activities such as missile development and support for violent groups in the region; Iran sees those activities as critical to its survival and as an important pillar of its power and reach, however, and wants sanctions lifted without having to give up those activities.
That disagreement has manifested violently. Iran and its proxies bombed oil tankers and Saudi oil fields, and downed an unmanned American surveillance drone and killed US troops stationed in Iraq — all while it loosened restrictions on its nuclear development.
The US responded by killing Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s paramilitary forces, in January. Undeterred, Iran continued its offensive actions, using a cyberweapon to attack Israel’s water supply in May, a strike that potentially could have sickened hundreds of people.
Officials in Iran might therefore see the Khojir and Natanz explosions as part of that fight, thereby compelling them to respond in a bigger way in the tit-for-tat. However, most experts believe Iran will see the incidents in the context of its long-running nuclear feud with Israel.
If that’s the case, it would be good news. What Israel may have done “is a slight escalation, but it’s not really that surprising and not really uncharacteristic of what you’ve seen in the recent history,” Ilan Goldenberg, the Defense Department’s Iran team chief from 2009 to 2012, told me. “All these activities are being done in a way that makes it hard for Iran to retaliate, and gives them space to not retaliate.”
Indeed, the Iranian regime is faltering under sustained economic pressure from the United States, one of the world’s worst coronavirus outbreaks, and political protests. It may not have the time or desire to engage in a massive fight with Israel right now.
Between the deniability of Israel and America’s involvement, and the fact that the possible attacks fit into a longstanding pattern, Tehran may not feel compelled to respond immediately and in a dramatically forceful way.
That’s not to say Iran will stand by idly forever. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abbas Mousavi vowed this week that “if a regime or a government is involved in the Natanz incident, Iran will react decisively.”
And if Israel and the US continue to hit Iran while it’s down, it may have no choice but to get back up, including potentially launching more cyberattacks or even pushing to develop a nuclear weapon before Israel can do anything about it. Any of those moves would be very provocative — and perhaps make an already dangerous situation much worse.
“The Iranians don’t want this to spiral,” the RAND Corporation’s Kaye told me, “but the longer this persists, the harder it will be for Iran to pretend this isn’t happening.”
“It’s a humiliation at a certain point,” she said.