vox--2020-01-07--The US is worried about Iran retaliating with a cyberattack

Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us .
Iran ’ s promise to avenge the US military ’ s recent killing of Iran ’ s top military commander , Qassem Soleimani , has stoked fears about what this retaliation will look like .
Many worry that it will lead to all-out war , but although the US is adding 3,500 troops to the tens of thousands already stationed in the Middle East , there haven ’ t been any large-scale military fights on the ground .
On our computers , however , it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s most likely responses to the US ’ s actions may be a cyberattack on private businesses or even government systems — which is why many experts in the US are bracing for an assault from a country that has established itself as one of the world ’ s major cyber threats in the last decade .
If Iran does launch a digital strike , this wouldn ’ t be anything new .
In fact , it would be just another battle in an ongoing “ invisible war ” between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years .
Iran ’ s cyberattacks are already so “ extremely active and persistent ” that cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs told Recode , “ It ’ s difficult to think of what might constitute an escalation of that activity.
” The Department of Homeland Security also recognizes the potential cyberthreat .
Two days after Soleimani ’ s death , DHS ’ s National Terrorism Advisory System issued a bulletin that mentioned Iran ’ s past “ cyber enabled attacks ” from its “ robust cyber program.
” “ Iran is capable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with temporary disruptive effects against critical infrastructure in the United States , ” the bulletin said .
Michael Daniel , president and CEO of Cyber Threat Alliance and the cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council during the Obama administration , told Recode that while it ’ s too early to say what Iran ’ s cyberattack plans could be , the United States should be prepared for the possibility .
“ They ’ ve used [ cyber attacks ] before , and they have continued developing their cyber capabilities over the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Based on past experience with Iran , it would be a logical course of action for them to take.
” If Iran ’ s past actions are any indication , a new cyberattack against the US could employ malware ( programs that are designed to damage computer systems , such as computer viruses ) or denial of service ( DoS ) attacks ( when hackers bombard web services with so many requests that they are unable to function ) .
Ironically , it was a cyberattack linked to the US almost 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up its cyberwarfare abilities .
In June 2010 , a computer virus called Stuxnet , which has been called “ unprecedentedly masterful and malicious , ” was discovered to have targeted computers that ran Iran ’ s nuclear program , reportedly destroying a fifth of its centrifuges .
While Stuxnet is largely believed to have been a joint US-Israel effort ( with , it was recently reported , some help from the Dutch ) , neither government has officially acknowledged this .
Iran responded by bulking up its cyberespionage capabilities , refining and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and attacking both America and its allies .
In America , Iran ’ s cyberattacks have largely targeted the private sector .
In 2014 , it hacked into Sands Hotel and Casino ’ s systems , stealing and destroying data and ultimately costing the casino at least $ 40 million .
And between 2011 and 2013 , seven Iranians allegedly working on the Iranian government ’ s behalf were accused of launching DoS attacks on 46 businesses , most of them financial institutions , according to a 2016 US Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cyberattack was against Saudi Arabia ’ s state-owned oil company , Saudi Aramco .
In 2012 , a virus called Shamoon destroyed more than 30,000 of Saudi Aramco ’ s computers .
( Shamoon was a type of “ wiper , ” a particularly harmful malware that irreversibly wipes data from the devices and networks it infects . )
Saudi Aramco was forced to go offline for months until it could rebuild its IT infrastructure , ultimately costing one of the most valuable companies in the world hundreds of millions of dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2018 , which suggests Iran might use this tool to retaliate against the US if it does launch a cyberattack , experts told Recode .
“ I would expect destructive attacks like the Shamoon attack against Saudi Aramco , ” Chris Wysopal , co-founder and chief technology officer of cybersecurity software company Veracode , told Recode .
He added that local governments and hospitals are potential “ soft targets ” for such attacks .
Both often don ’ t have the funds or personnel to protect from sophisticated hackers , so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encrypts all data on infected computers and systems , forcing victims to pay a ransom to restore their access .
The attacks can take down essential and even life-saving services for weeks , and they cost millions of dollars to fix .
Cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier ’ s answer was brief and to the point : “ No.
” Security experts have warned for years now that Iran would ramp up its cyberattacks on America in frequency and severity , especially since the election of President Trump , an exceedingly vocal opponent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its nuclear deal with Iran .
Last October , Microsoft reported that an Iran-linked hacker group attempted to access email accounts associated with political journalists and an unnamed presidential campaign .
That same month , Facebook revealed that Iranian groups created fake accounts to disseminate propaganda — something Iran has done several times in the past .
“ Given this latest development , American businesses must bolster their cyber defenses against spear-phishing , DDoS , ransomware and , most commonly used on Iranian neighbors , wiper attacks , ” Bill Conner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ These types of attacks — used maliciously and designed to sniff out human and/or network weaknesses — could ultimately bypass a country ’ s most-relied-upon defenses and security controls in what would be a historical asymmetric cyberattack , ” Conner added .
America has launched several cyberattacks of its own on Iran , reportedly as recently as last June , September , and December .
Defensively , government officials and agencies have warned Americans to take security precautions .
Last June , the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a “ recent rise in malicious cyber activity directed at United States industries and government agencies by Iranian regime actors and proxies.
” This week , after Soleimani ’ s killing , CISA director Chris Krebs linked back to the statement : The DHS ’ s acting secretary , Chad Wolf , also tweeted that organizations should be prepared for cyber threats : Worryingly , the Trump administration eliminated the National Security Council ’ s cybersecurity coordinator position in 2018 .
The Obama administration-created post was responsible for coordinating cybersecurity efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ’ s Coordinator for Cyber Issues position has been empty since 2017 .
The US Government Accountability Office currently recommends that the government take “ urgent action ” against cyberthreats , considering it a “ high risk issue.
” So far , the only known possible Iranian attack on the US was a brief hack last Saturday of the website of the Federal Depository Library Program , a little-known agency that distributes government publications to libraries across the country .
The site ’ s homepage was replaced with an image of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside a message blaming the hack on Soleimani ’ s death and promising more .
The attack is not believed to have caused any damage beyond the brief defacement , and the CISA told CBS News that it could not even confirm that Iran was behind the attack .
An unnamed official called it a “ nothing event.
” Still , many cybersecurity experts are concerned that if America ’ s public and private sectors don ’ t prepare for Iran ’ s most likely response , it may not be a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser , recently wrote in the Washington Post that “ the most immediate threat ” from Iran was a cyberattack on financial institutions and infrastructure .
The biggest question now , she wrote , is if Americans are prepared for whatever form Iran ’ s retaliation will take .

Iran’s promise to avenge the US military’s recent killing of Iran’s top military commander, Qassem Soleimani, has stoked fears about what this retaliation will look like. Many are worried that it will lead to all-out war — and shortly after publication of this story, the New York Times reported that Iran fired missiles at a US military base in Iraq.
But in the days leading up to the missile attack, many experts in the US had begun bracing for a different kind of attack from Iran, one they said was even more likely than an on-the-ground fight: a cyberattack on the private businesses or government systems in the US. And even after the missile attack, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a cyberattack as well.
Over the past decade, Iran has established itself as one of the world’s major cyber threats, which is why any new attack would be just another battle in an ongoing “invisible war” between the US and Iran that has been happening for years.
Iran’s cyberattacks are already so “extremely active and persistent” that cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs told Recode, “It’s difficult to think of what might constitute an escalation of that activity.”
The Department of Homeland Security also recognizes the potential cyberthreat. Two days after Soleimani’s death, DHS’s National Terrorism Advisory System issued a bulletin that mentioned Iran’s past “cyber enabled attacks” from its “robust cyber program.”
“Iran is capable, at minimum, of carrying out attacks with temporary disruptive effects against critical infrastructure in the United States,” the bulletin said.
Michael Daniel, president and CEO of Cyber Threat Alliance and the cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told Recode that while it’s too early to say what Iran’s cyberattack plans could be, the United States should be prepared for the possibility.
“They’ve used [cyberattacks] before, and they have continued developing their cyber capabilities over the last few years,” Daniel said. “Based on past experience with Iran, it would be a logical course of action for them to take.”
How Iran became a cyber threat
If Iran’s past actions are any indication, a new cyberattack against the US could employ malware (programs that are designed to damage computer systems, such as computer viruses) or denial of service (DoS) attacks (when hackers bombard web services with so many requests that they are unable to function).
Ironically, it was a cyberattack linked to the US almost 10 years ago that led to Iran ramping up its cyberwarfare abilities. In June 2010, a computer virus called Stuxnet, which has been called “unprecedentedly masterful and malicious,” was discovered to have targeted computers that ran Iran’s nuclear program, reportedly destroying a fifth of its centrifuges.
While Stuxnet is largely believed to have been a joint US-Israel effort (with, it was recently reported, some help from the Dutch), neither government has officially acknowledged this. Iran responded by bulking up its cyberespionage capabilities, refining and improving its skills over the past decade, and attacking both America and its allies.
In America, Iran’s cyberattacks have largely targeted the private sector. In 2014, it hacked into Sands Hotel and Casino’s systems, stealing and destroying data and ultimately costing the casino at least $40 million. And between 2011 and 2013, seven Iranians allegedly working on the Iranian government’s behalf were accused of launching DoS attacks on 46 businesses, most of them financial institutions, according to a 2016 US Department of Justice indictment.
Iran’s most notorious cyberattack was against Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco. In 2012, a virus called Shamoon destroyed more than 30,000 of Saudi Aramco’s computers. (Shamoon was a type of “wiper,” a particularly harmful malware that irreversibly wipes data from the devices and networks it infects.)
Saudi Aramco was forced to go offline for months until it could rebuild its IT infrastructure, ultimately costing one of the most valuable companies in the world hundreds of millions of dollars. Modified versions of Shamoon surfaced in 2016 and 2018, which suggests Iran might use this tool to retaliate against the US if it does launch a cyberattack, experts told Recode.
“I would expect destructive attacks like the Shamoon attack against Saudi Aramco,” Chris Wysopal, co-founder and chief technology officer of cybersecurity software company Veracode, told Recode. He added that local governments and hospitals are potential “soft targets” for such attacks.
Both often don’t have the funds or personnel to protect from sophisticated hackers, so they are routinely attacked by ransomware, which encrypts all data on infected computers and systems, forcing victims to pay a ransom to restore their access. The attacks can take down essential and even lifesaving services for weeks, and they cost millions of dollars to fix.
Is America prepared?
Cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier’s answer was brief and to the point: “No.”
Security experts have warned for years now that Iran would ramp up its cyberattacks on America in frequency and severity, especially since the election of President Trump, an exceedingly vocal opponent of the regime who pulled the US out of its nuclear deal with Iran.
Last October, Microsoft reported that an Iran-linked hacker group attempted to access email accounts associated with political journalists and an unnamed presidential campaign. That same month, Facebook revealed that Iranian groups created fake accounts to disseminate propaganda — something Iran has done several times in the past.
“Given this latest development, American businesses must bolster their cyber defenses against spear-phishing, DDoS, ransomware and, most commonly used on Iranian neighbors, wiper attacks,” Bill Conner, CEO of SonicWall, told Recode.
“These types of attacks — used maliciously and designed to sniff out human and/or network weaknesses — could ultimately bypass a country’s most-relied-upon defenses and security controls in what would be a historical asymmetric cyberattack,” Conner added.
America has launched several cyberattacks of its own on Iran, reportedly as recently as last June, September, and December. Defensively, government officials and agencies have warned Americans to take security precautions. Last June, the Homeland Security Department’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warned that there was a “recent rise in malicious cyber activity directed at United States industries and government agencies by Iranian regime actors and proxies.”
This week, after Soleimani’s killing, CISA director Chris Krebs linked back to the statement:
Given recent developments, re-upping our statement from the summer.
Bottom line: time to brush up on Iranian TTPs and pay close attention to your critical systems, particularly ICS. Make sure you’re also watching third party accesses! https://t.co/4G1P0WvjhS — Chris Krebs (@CISAKrebs) January 3, 2020
DHS’s acting secretary, Chad Wolf, also tweeted that organizations should be prepared for cyber threats:
A good reminder from @CISAGov: In times of heightened threats, organizations should increase monitoring, back up systems, implement multifactor authentication, & have an incident response plan ready. More info on threats & prevention/preparedness tips at https://t.co/QrJdBOeEJz — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) January 5, 2020
Worryingly, the Trump administration eliminated the National Security Council’s cybersecurity coordinator position in 2018. The Obama administration-created post was responsible for coordinating cybersecurity efforts across government agencies.
And the State Department’s Coordinator for Cyber Issues position has been empty since 2017. The US Government Accountability Office currently recommends that the government take “urgent action” against cyberthreats, considering it a “high risk issue.”
What’s next
So far, the only known possible Iranian cyberattack on the US was a brief hack last Saturday of the website of the Federal Depository Library Program, a little-known agency that distributes government publications to libraries across the country. The site’s homepage was replaced with an image of President Trump being punched in the face, alongside a message blaming the hack on Soleimani’s death and promising more.
The attack is not believed to have caused any damage beyond the brief defacement, and the CISA told CBS News that it could not even confirm that Iran was behind the attack. An unnamed official called it a “nothing event.”
Still, many cybersecurity experts are concerned that if America’s public and private sectors don’t prepare, Iran’s next cyberattack may not be a “nothing event.” Lisa Monaco, President Obama’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, recently wrote in the Washington Post that “the most immediate threat” from Iran was a cyberattack on financial institutions and infrastructure.
The biggest question now, she wrote, is if Americans are prepared for it.


vox--2020-01-07--How Silicon Valley’s secretive donor group plans to beat Trump

Mind the Gap , the secretive group quietly reshaping big-money politics in Silicon Valley , is aiming to spend as much as $ 140 million to boost Democrats in the 2020 election , Recode has learned .
If realized , a haul of that size would cement the group , little known until Recode reported on it this week , as one of the most powerful forces in Democratic politics .
And the group is accomplishing this all behind the scenes — without any prior public scrutiny .
This network of Silicon Valley donors raised $ 20 million for Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midterms .
But the group has far greater ambitions in a presidential cycle : Mind the Gap told prospective donors last fall that it had already raised at least $ 35 million in political contributions for voter registration efforts , which is part of a fundraising goal that could stretch to $ 100 million , according to a memo obtained by Recode .
Mind the Gap is also seeking another estimated $ 30 million for get-out-the-vote work along with another estimated $ 10 million for “ orphan races ” — which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group sees as wrongly under-funded .
That ’ s in part thanks to the arrival of a new fundraising aide , Erica Slates , who recently joined the effort from Jay Inslee ’ s now-ended presidential campaign .
All told , the group ’ s 2020 efforts reveal two fundamental things about this political moment : • How fervently Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires want to get rid of Donald Trump , so much so that they are willing to entrust millions of dollars to a trio of Stanford academics with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new class of Democratic operatives and donors are disregarding concerns within their party about the role of money in politics and capitalizing on campaign-finance law to influence elections — with limited disclosure to the public .
Mind the Gap is now asking for a “ minimum suggested contribution ” of $ 40,000 , according to the memo — but it warns that even that is not enough .
( Mind the Gap leadership previously denied to Recode that it has had any minimum contribution requirements . )
“ We will never get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who are in a position to make them , ” the group said in its memo .
“ But whatever you are able to give and wherever you choose to direct it , we encourage you to be both strategic and generous .
This is the most important election of our lifetimes , with grave and in some cases irreversible implications for the country and the planet if we don ’ t win.
” Mind the Gap did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story .
In 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Stanford law school professor Barbara Fried , raised about $ 500,000 for 20 different Democratic congressional challengers , many of whom were underdogs to win their bids .
Ten of them won .
Mind the Gap became a hit in Silicon Valley in particular because it asked tech leaders to fund races where it had calculated each dollar would have the greatest marginal impact on Democrats taking back the House , which synced with the industry ’ s data-driven thinking .
This time around , the group is asking its donors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voter Participation Center ( VPC ) and the Center for Voter Information ( CVI ) , which in September alone sent out 7.1 million voter registration applications by mail , according to Mind the Gap .
The last endorsed group is Everybody Votes ( EV ) , which is training organizers to sign up voters in local communities and has used some of the $ 35 million that Mind the Gap has already raised to register Democratic voters in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Minnesota .
( Future money from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Florida , Arizona , and Nevada . )
“ At current funding levels , the VPC , CVI , and EV programs together will be the largest voter registration drive in US history .
Fully funded , they are projected to add roughly 3,000,000 people to the voter rolls , chiefly from communities of color , and yield 750,000 additional net votes in the November 2020 election in competitive battleground states across the country , ” the group told its donors in a separate , year-end memo last month .
“ Historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new voters will go on to vote in the 2022 elections without any additional campaign or GOTV encouragement.
” Almost all of the donations to these groups are tax-deductible , Mind the Gap reminds its donors .
That ’ s because of rules that allow foundations , donor-advised funds , and individuals to write these gifts off under the name of “ philanthropy ” — even though the donations are routed by a Democratic interest group .
Meanwhile , Mind the Gap has taken pains to avoid public detection since its inception .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled “ Discretion , ” the group implored its donors to “ not circulate any of the highly sensitive information ” and says that information is only available through its encrypted website .
“ In 2018 , we managed to stay out of the news and as far as we know out of Republicans ’ sightlines through the entire cycle , notwithstanding that we ended up being one of the top two fundraisers for House races , ” the group boasted .
“ We do not expect to be so lucky this cycle.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise to Republicans — and be of little interest — that yet another organization is trying to fund voter registration in battleground states , ” the group says in its memo .
“ But the magnitude of our efforts , the details of targeting , and the names of the organizations we are recommending , would be of great interest to them .
If that information becomes public , it would make [ Mind the Gap ] and the donee organizations targets for Republicans and enable them to ramp up voter suppression efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That type of language likely worries those who worry about the impact of money in politics , including many on the left .
While Mind the Gap ’ s leaders hold themselves out to be merely “ pro bono donor advisers , ” the memo — and its fundraising success so far — makes it clear they are amassing tremendous power in Silicon Valley ’ s new political moment .

Mind the Gap, the secretive group quietly reshaping big-money politics in Silicon Valley, is aiming to spend as much as $140 million to boost Democrats in the 2020 election, Recode has learned.
If realized, a haul of that size would cement the group, little known until Recode reported on it this week, as one of the most powerful forces in Democratic politics. And the group is accomplishing this all behind the scenes — without any prior public scrutiny.
This network of Silicon Valley donors raised $20 million for Democratic causes and congressional candidates in advance of the midterms. But the group has far greater ambitions in a presidential cycle: Mind the Gap told prospective donors last fall that it had already raised at least $35 million in political contributions for voter registration efforts, which is part of a fundraising goal that could stretch to $100 million, according to a memo obtained by Recode.
Mind the Gap is also seeking another estimated $30 million for get-out-the-vote work along with another estimated $10 million for “orphan races” — which means primarily funding candidates for state legislatures that the group sees as wrongly under-funded. That’s in part thanks to the arrival of a new fundraising aide, Erica Slates, who recently joined the effort from Jay Inslee’s now-ended presidential campaign.
All told, the group’s 2020 efforts reveal two fundamental things about this political moment:
How fervently Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires want to get rid of Donald Trump, so much so that they are willing to entrust millions of dollars to a trio of Stanford academics with no prior fundraising experience.
How a new class of Democratic operatives and donors are disregarding concerns within their party about the role of money in politics and capitalizing on campaign-finance law to influence elections — with limited disclosure to the public.
Mind the Gap is now asking for a “minimum suggested contribution” of $40,000, according to the memo — but it warns that even that is not enough. (Mind the Gap leadership previously denied to Recode that it has had any minimum contribution requirements.)
“We will never get to our goal without substantially greater contributions from those who are in a position to make them,” the group said in its memo. “But whatever you are able to give and wherever you choose to direct it, we encourage you to be both strategic and generous. This is the most important election of our lifetimes, with grave and in some cases irreversible implications for the country and the planet if we don’t win.”
Mind the Gap did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.
In 2018, the group, which is led by Stanford law school professor Barbara Fried, raised about $500,000 for 20 different Democratic congressional challengers, many of whom were underdogs to win their bids. Ten of them won. Mind the Gap became a hit in Silicon Valley in particular because it asked tech leaders to fund races where it had calculated each dollar would have the greatest marginal impact on Democrats taking back the House, which synced with the industry’s data-driven thinking.
This time around, the group is asking its donors to fund three separate voter-registration programs: the Voter Participation Center (VPC) and the Center for Voter Information (CVI), which in September alone sent out 7.1 million voter registration applications by mail, according to Mind the Gap. The last endorsed group is Everybody Votes (EV), which is training organizers to sign up voters in local communities and has used some of the $35 million that Mind the Gap has already raised to register Democratic voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. (Future money from the group is going to do the same in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada.)
“At current funding levels, the VPC, CVI, and EV programs together will be the largest voter registration drive in US history. Fully funded, they are projected to add roughly 3,000,000 people to the voter rolls, chiefly from communities of color, and yield 750,000 additional net votes in the November 2020 election in competitive battleground states across the country,” the group told its donors in a separate, year-end memo last month. “Historical data suggest that 40-50% of these new voters will go on to vote in the 2022 elections without any additional campaign or GOTV encouragement.”
Almost all of the donations to these groups are tax-deductible, Mind the Gap reminds its donors. That’s because of rules that allow foundations, donor-advised funds, and individuals to write these gifts off under the name of “philanthropy” — even though the donations are routed by a Democratic interest group.
Meanwhile, Mind the Gap has taken pains to avoid public detection since its inception. In a section of the fall memo titled “Discretion,” the group implored its donors to “not circulate any of the highly sensitive information” and says that information is only available through its encrypted website.
“In 2018, we managed to stay out of the news and as far as we know out of Republicans’ sightlines through the entire cycle, notwithstanding that we ended up being one of the top two fundraisers for House races,” the group boasted. “We do not expect to be so lucky this cycle.”
“It will come as no surprise to Republicans — and be of little interest — that yet another organization is trying to fund voter registration in battleground states,” the group says in its memo. “But the magnitude of our efforts, the details of targeting, and the names of the organizations we are recommending, would be of great interest to them. If that information becomes public, it would make [Mind the Gap] and the donee organizations targets for Republicans and enable them to ramp up voter suppression efforts and other tactics at their disposal.”
That type of language likely worries those who worry about the impact of money in politics, including many on the left. While Mind the Gap’s leaders hold themselves out to be merely “pro bono donor advisers,” the memo — and its fundraising success so far — makes it clear they are amassing tremendous power in Silicon Valley’s new political moment.


vox--2020-01-07--Nathan Robinson’s case for socialism

Nathan Robinson’s case for socialism

“ Socialism ” is simultaneously one of the most commonly used and most confusing terms in American politics .
Does being a socialist mean advocating for the complete abolition of capitalism , markets , and private property ?
Does it mean supporting a higher tax rate , Medicare-for-all , and Sen. Bernie Sanders ?
Or does it simply mean a deep hatred of systemic injustice and the institutions that perpetuate it ?
In his new book , Why You Should Be a Socialist , Nathan J. Robinson , the founder and editor-in-chief of Current Affairs magazine , attempts to shed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing , Robinson distinguishes between a “ socialist economy ” ( think collective ownership , worker cooperatives , single-payer health care ) and what he calls a “ socialist ethic ” : What is the difference between a “ socialist ethic ” and a “ socialist economy ” ?
There ’ s a great Eugene Debs quote , “ While there is a lower class , I am in it .
While there is a criminal element , I am of it .
And while there is a soul in prison , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a description of worker ownership — that ’ s a description of looking at the world and feeling solidarity with people who are at the bottom with the underclass .
And I think that is just as important to what animates socialists as some idea about how production should be managed .
People focus a lot on the question of central planning .
But I ’ ve been doing interviews of socialists , interviewing DSA people around the country , and the unifying thread really is not a very clear vision for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is a deep discomfort and anger that occurs when you look at the world and you see power relationships and you see a small class of people owning so much and a large number of people working so hard and having so little .
There are socialist divides over nearly every question , but this is the one thing that socialists all come together on .
This distinction may sound like a dodge , but I think Robinson gets at something here that — while hard to understand from the outside — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left politics .
We also discuss : • The central role of democracy to the socialist worldview • What it means to be a “ libertarian socialist ” • What Robinson ’ s socialist utopia would look like • Why so many socialists have turned on Sen. Elizabeth Warren in favor of Sanders • What he believes Sanders ’ s “ political revolution ” would look like • Whether the deep difference between liberals and socialists is temperament • Why “ public versus private ” is often a false choice And much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and others — by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .
If you enjoyed this episode , you may also like : Why my politics are bad with Bhaskar Sunkara

“Socialism” is simultaneously one of the most commonly used and most confusing terms in American politics. Does being a socialist mean advocating for the complete abolition of capitalism, markets, and private property? Does it mean supporting a higher tax rate, Medicare-for-all, and Sen. Bernie Sanders? Or does it simply mean a deep hatred of systemic injustice and the institutions that perpetuate it?
In his new book, Why You Should Be a Socialist, Nathan J. Robinson, the founder and editor-in-chief of Current Affairs magazine, attempts to shed light on these questions. In his writing, Robinson distinguishes between a “socialist economy” (think collective ownership, worker cooperatives, single-payer health care) and what he calls a “socialist ethic”:
Ezra Klein What is the difference between a “socialist ethic” and a “socialist economy”? Nathan Robinson There’s a great Eugene Debs quote, “While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. And while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” That’s not a description of worker ownership — that’s a description of looking at the world and feeling solidarity with people who are at the bottom with the underclass. And I think that is just as important to what animates socialists as some idea about how production should be managed. People focus a lot on the question of central planning. But I’ve been doing interviews of socialists, interviewing DSA people around the country, and the unifying thread really is not a very clear vision for how a socialist economy will work. It is a deep discomfort and anger that occurs when you look at the world and you see power relationships and you see a small class of people owning so much and a large number of people working so hard and having so little. There are socialist divides over nearly every question, but this is the one thing that socialists all come together on.
This distinction may sound like a dodge, but I think Robinson gets at something here that — while hard to understand from the outside — is crucial to understanding today’s left politics. We also discuss:
The central role of democracy to the socialist worldview
What it means to be a “libertarian socialist”
What Robinson’s socialist utopia would look like
Why so many socialists have turned on Sen. Elizabeth Warren in favor of Sanders
Robinson’s special loathing for South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
What he believes Sanders’s “political revolution” would look like
The lessons of Jeremy Corbyn
Whether the deep difference between liberals and socialists is temperament
Why “public versus private” is often a false choice
The challenge of economic growth
And much more.
You can listen to this conversation — and others — by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Nathan Robinson’s book recommendations:
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky
An Anarchist FAQ by Ian McKay
The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin
If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like:
Leftists vs. Liberals with Elizabeth Bruenig
Matt Bruenig’s case for single-payer health care
Why my politics are bad with Bhaskar Sunkara


vox--2020-01-07--Pompeo’s shifting reasons for killing Soleimani puts the strike on shaky legal ground

The Trump administration ’ s justification for killing Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , Iran ’ s top military commander , has subtly shifted since last Thursday .
But the implications of that shift have profound implications in terms of the legality of an American action that has dramatically ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East .
Shortly after Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Iraq last Thursday , the Department of Defense issued a statement arguing that the strike was justified as a self-defense measure .
“ General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region , ” the statement said .
“ This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.
” That claim was echoed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who went on CNN on Friday and cited intelligence indicating Soleimani ’ s continued existence posed an “ imminent ” threat that put “ dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk.
” “ This was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process , ” Pompeo said .
But four days later , Pompeo has stopped talking about intelligence of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike .
Now , he ’ s mainly relying on the talking point that Soleimani had American blood on his hands and therefore had to go .
During a news conference on Tuesday , Pompeo was asked to share some specifics about the threat Soleimani posed .
He responded by talking about Soleimani ’ s alleged role in an attack in Iraq that left an American contractor dead last month .
“ We know what happened at the end of last year in December , ultimately leading to the death of an American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you are looking for imminence , look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani.
” But as Rep. Don Beyer ( D-VA ) alluded to on Twitter in response to Pompeo ’ s comments , news reports and vague claims about Soleimani ’ s possible role in future attacks is not the same thing as an “ imminent threat.
” “ The administration appears to be completely abandoning their previous claim that the killing was ordered to prevent specific attacks about which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The shift from what Pompeo said last Friday to what he said on Tuesday — a change that first became noticeable during a string of TV appearances on Sunday in which he tried to distance himself from the “ imminent threat ” talking point — has been echoed by the president himself .
During a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh on Monday , Trump said Soleimani “ should have been taken out a long time ago ” — a claim at tension with the idea that he posed an immediate threat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to establish that it had the legal authority to kill Soleimani .
It could try to do that in a variety of ways , such as arguing that his killing was lawful under the terms of one of the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force ( AUMFs ) , which Congress has given the executive branch over the years to do things like fight the Iraq War and go after terrorists groups like al-Qaeda .
But that could be a difficult case to make , since Soleimani is an Iranian ( not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of al-Qaeda .
So instead , the administration decided to use the legal justification that they were acting in self-defense and that Soleimani posed an “ imminent threat.
” But some have questioned whether Soleimani actually posed an imminent threat .
If he didn ’ t , that would poke a major hole in their argument that the strike was legally justified .
“ Many of the people who have shaped our legal understanding of ‘ imminent ’ over the years understood it to mean that the threat was unfolding right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do anything other than to kill the person , ” Heather Hurlburt , a national security expert at the think tank New America , explained to my colleague Sean Illing .
“ The Soleimani killing doesn ’ t appear to meet that threshold.
” While Trump has made it clear in recent days that he doesn ’ t feel particularly constrained by either domestic or international law , questions about the legality of the Soleimani strike aren ’ t just academic — they could be hugely meaningful if the Iranian government follows through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
As Hulbert explained , “ it will be unfortunate if there are Iranian attacks that target Americans and we want other countries to help protect us and other countries say they ’ re not comfortable because we engaged in this illegal provocative act.
” While Trumpworld ’ s talking points have shifted , they remain unsettled .
Later Tuesday , Defense Secretary Mark Esper held a news conference during which he referred to intelligence indicating Soleimani was mere “ days ” away from masterminding an attack when he was killed — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been distancing himself from .
But during a White House media event a short time later , Trump responded to a question regarding what he know about the threat Soleimani presented before the strike by immediately bringing up past attacks .
“ Number one , I knew the past .
His past was horrible , ” Trump said .
“ We had an attack very recently that he was in charge of ... they were planning something , and you ’ re going to be hearing about , or at least various people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it tomorrow.
” As Trump alluded to , the White House is scheduled to brief congressional leaders about the Soleimani strike on Wednesday .
But Democratic lawmakers were unimpressed with the entirely classified formal notification about the strike that the Trump administration sent to Congress last Saturday , right around the same time Pompeo started moving the goalposts about the “ imminent threat.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the notification “ raises more questions than it answers ” and “ compounds our many concerns , and suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being left in the dark about our national security.
” The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

The Trump administration’s justification for killing Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top military commander, has subtly shifted since last Thursday. But the implications of that shift have profound implications in terms of the legality of an American action that has dramatically ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East.
Shortly after Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Iraq last Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a statement arguing that the strike was justified as a self-defense measure.
“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the statement said. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
That claim was echoed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who went on CNN on Friday and cited intelligence indicating Soleimani’s continued existence posed an “imminent” threat that put “dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk.”
“This was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process,” Pompeo said.
But four days later, Pompeo has stopped talking about intelligence of an “imminent threat” to justify the strike. Now, he’s mainly relying on the talking point that Soleimani had American blood on his hands and therefore had to go.
During a news conference on Tuesday, Pompeo was asked to share some specifics about the threat Soleimani posed. He responded by talking about Soleimani’s alleged role in an attack in Iraq that left an American contractor dead last month.
“We know what happened at the end of last year in December, ultimately leading to the death of an American,” Pompeo said. “So, if you are looking for imminence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani.”
REPORTER: Can you be specific about the imminent threat that Soleimani posed?
POMPEO: "We know what happened at the end of last year & ultimately led to the death of an American. If you are looking for immanence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike." pic.twitter.com/yhqyNToZxd — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020
But as Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) alluded to on Twitter in response to Pompeo’s comments, news reports and vague claims about Soleimani’s possible role in future attacks is not the same thing as an “imminent threat.”
“The administration appears to be completely abandoning their previous claim that the killing was ordered to prevent specific attacks about which they had intelligence,” Beyer wrote.
The shift from what Pompeo said last Friday to what he said on Tuesday — a change that first became noticeable during a string of TV appearances on Sunday in which he tried to distance himself from the “imminent threat” talking point — has been echoed by the president himself.
During a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Trump said Soleimani “should have been taken out a long time ago” — a claim at tension with the idea that he posed an immediate threat.
OLD: There was an imminent threat
NEW: Soleimani should've been taken out a long time ago pic.twitter.com/8cdeIczXNN — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020
This matters. The Trump administration has to establish that it had the legal authority to kill Soleimani. It could try to do that in a variety of ways, such as arguing that his killing was lawful under the terms of one of the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), which Congress has given the executive branch over the years to do things like fight the Iraq War and go after terrorists groups like al-Qaeda.
But that could be a difficult case to make, since Soleimani is an Iranian (not Iraqi) military commander and not a member of al-Qaeda. So instead, the administration decided to use the legal justification that they were acting in self-defense and that Soleimani posed an “imminent threat.”
But some have questioned whether Soleimani actually posed an imminent threat. If he didn’t, that would poke a major hole in their argument that the strike was legally justified.
“Many of the people who have shaped our legal understanding of ‘imminent’ over the years understood it to mean that the threat was unfolding right now and there’s no time to do anything other than to kill the person,” Heather Hurlburt, a national security expert at the think tank New America, explained to my colleague Sean Illing. “The Soleimani killing doesn’t appear to meet that threshold.”
While Trump has made it clear in recent days that he doesn’t feel particularly constrained by either domestic or international law, questions about the legality of the Soleimani strike aren’t just academic — they could be hugely meaningful if the Iranian government follows through on its threats to retaliate against American interests.
As Hulbert explained, “it will be unfortunate if there are Iranian attacks that target Americans and we want other countries to help protect us and other countries say they’re not comfortable because we engaged in this illegal provocative act.”
While Trumpworld’s talking points have shifted, they remain unsettled. Later Tuesday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper held a news conference during which he referred to intelligence indicating Soleimani was mere “days” away from masterminding an attack when he was killed — the exact sort of justification Pompeo has been distancing himself from.
Even though Pompeo has distanced himself from it, Esper is still pushing the "imminent threat" talking point. He claims intelligence indicated Soleimani was planning an attack that was only "days" away. pic.twitter.com/8DAkNRH8C1 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020
But during a White House media event a short time later, Trump responded to a question regarding what he know about the threat Soleimani presented before the strike by immediately bringing up past attacks.
“Number one, I knew the past. His past was horrible,” Trump said. “We had an attack very recently that he was in charge of ... they were planning something, and you’re going to be hearing about, or at least various people in Congress are going to be hearing about it tomorrow.”
REPORTER: What can you tell us about what you knew about the threat Soleimani presented prior to ordering the attack?
TRUMP: "I knew the past. His past was horrible ... we saved a lot of lives by terminating his life. A lot of lives saved ... they were planning something." pic.twitter.com/BvNPneUBIX — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020
As Trump alluded to, the White House is scheduled to brief congressional leaders about the Soleimani strike on Wednesday. But Democratic lawmakers were unimpressed with the entirely classified formal notification about the strike that the Trump administration sent to Congress last Saturday, right around the same time Pompeo started moving the goalposts about the “imminent threat.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the notification “raises more questions than it answers” and “compounds our many concerns, and suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security.”
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-01-07--Nearly 200 Iranian Americans were detained at the US-Canada border

In recent days , as many as 200 people of Iranian descent , some of them US citizens , have been detained at the US-Canada border and questioned about their political views , family members , and work histories .
About 60 individuals , including American and Canadian citizens , were held for questioning about their “ political views and allegiances ” at the Canadian border in Blaine , Washington , on Saturday , according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR ) , a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of Muslims in the US .
US Customs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their passports and held some of them waiting rooms for as long as 10 hours , refusing to grant them entry to the US , according to CAIR .
By Monday , as many as 140 more people of Iranian descent had been detained at the border .
They were repeatedly asked about their birthplaces , family members , schooling , and work histories .
In a tweet , CBP denied it was detaining Iranian Americans and blocking them from entering the country based on their heritage , saying there was no directive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , it blamed long wait times due to staffing shortages and high holiday traffic .
But CBP also told Vox it ’ s operating with an “ enhanced posture at its ports of entry to safeguard our national security ” based on current threats to the US — which , according to the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) , could include an Iran-backed terrorist attack .
CBP agents have broad legal authority to detain and question individuals at ports of entry , but not to conduct interrogations for hours without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals detained on Saturday were therefore unlawfully targeted .
Though Saturday ’ s detentions appeared to be a reaction to the recent escalation of tensions between the US and Iran , the administration had already made it difficult for Iranians to enter the US under President Donald Trump ’ s travel ban , which also affects nationals of six other countries deemed to be security threats .
What happened at the border crossing It ’ s unclear whether what happened Saturday was an isolated incident at one border crossing in Blaine or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian descent for questioning .
Though CBP disputes that such people were detained , numerous individuals have come forward to give public statements to the contrary , including one 24-year-old American citizen and medical student .
Identified only by her first name , Crystal , she told CAIR that she was detained in Blaine and interrogated for 10 hours with her family .
“ The vast majority of people being held last night were American citizens , ” Crystal said Sunday .
“ We kept asking why we were being detained and asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our reason for traveling , and [ were ] told , ‘ I ’ m sorry , this is just the wrong time for you guys.
’ ” Tensions between the US and Iran heightened last week after Qassem Soleimani , an Iranian general , was killed in an American drone strike near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq , which Iranian leaders saw as an act of war .
The Trump administration has since been concerned about Iranian retaliation , but so far , no evidence of a specific threat to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CAIR said that according to one of its sources at CBP , DHS had directed CBP officials to report and detain anyone of Iranian heritage attempting to enter the US if they were found to be “ suspicious or adversarial , regardless of citizenship status.
” “ These reports are extremely troubling and potentially constitute illegal detentions of United States citizens , ” Masih Fouladi , executive director of CAIR ’ s Washington chapter , said .
Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee called CBP ’ s denial of the detentions “ simply not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is unacceptable , ” Inslee said in a statement .
“ By all accounts , this is detention , regardless of whether the waiting area has bars on the windows.
” CBP can detain and question anyone seeking to enter the US to establish whether they are a US citizen , whether they have the documentation required to enter the US , and what they are bringing into the US .
To do so , it doesn ’ t need a warrant or any suspicion that an individual has committed wrongdoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal limits on that authority : CBP guidance says that officers must conduct these investigations in a way that is “ safe , secure , humane , dignified , and professional ” and that they can not conduct more intrusive investigations , including prolonged interrogation , unless they have “ reasonable suspicion ” of an immigration violation or crime .
Moreover , once someone has established that they are a US citizen , they must be allowed to enter the US .
Usually , CBP will clear a US citizen traveling with valid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary inspection ” at the individual ’ s vehicle or in a booth at the port .
But in the case of those questioned on Saturday , they were taken to a separate area for “ secondary inspection ” — what attorneys classify as a form of detention — during which CBP officials ask more specific questions about immigration history and travel and search for the individual ’ s file in CBP records .
However , a US citizen is under no legal obligation to answer questions about their religion , race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or political beliefs .
If CBP is requiring them to do so , that ’ s likely unconstitutional , civil rights advocates say .
Consequently , the ACLU has offered legal assistance to any Iranian Americans who have been targeted by CBP at airports and ports of entry .
It ’ s a familiar scene : When Trump announced the first version of his travel ban in January 2017 , nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries , including those who held US green cards and had dual US citizenship , were held for questioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and denied entry to the US .
Legal aid groups , including the American Civil Liberties Union , rushed to their defense , getting a federal judge to block the policy within two days .
A later version of the ban , however , was upheld by the Supreme Court after the Trump administration provided what the Court ’ s conservative majority found to be a sufficient national security rationale .
Iranians who do not already hold valid visas or green cards are still barred from entering the US under the version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can obtain waivers on a case-by-case basis , but few have been granted in practice .
Inslee also likened the targeting of Iranian Americans to that of Japanese Americans during World War II .
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor , the US government sought to weed out Japanese spies , resulting in the mass detention of about 117,000 individuals of Japanese descent , most of whom were American citizens , in isolated camps .
“ We can never forget that Japanese Americans were detained in Washington state during World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional and civic rights were removed out of fear and hatred , ” the governor said .

In recent days, as many as 200 people of Iranian descent, some of them US citizens, have been detained at the US-Canada border and questioned about their political views, family members, and work histories.
About 60 individuals, including American and Canadian citizens, were held for questioning about their “political views and allegiances” at the Canadian border in Blaine, Washington, on Saturday, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of Muslims in the US.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confiscated their passports and held some of them waiting rooms for as long as 10 hours, refusing to grant them entry to the US, according to CAIR.
By Monday, as many as 140 more people of Iranian descent had been detained at the border. They were repeatedly asked about their birthplaces, family members, schooling, and work histories.
In a tweet, CBP denied it was detaining Iranian Americans and blocking them from entering the country based on their heritage, saying there was no directive ordering CBP officers to do so. Instead, it blamed long wait times due to staffing shortages and high holiday traffic.
Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false. Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false. — CBP (@CBP) January 5, 2020
But CBP also told Vox it’s operating with an “enhanced posture at its ports of entry to safeguard our national security” based on current threats to the US — which, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), could include an Iran-backed terrorist attack.
CBP agents have broad legal authority to detain and question individuals at ports of entry, but not to conduct interrogations for hours without cause. It’s likely the individuals detained on Saturday were therefore unlawfully targeted.
Though Saturday’s detentions appeared to be a reaction to the recent escalation of tensions between the US and Iran, the administration had already made it difficult for Iranians to enter the US under President Donald Trump’s travel ban, which also affects nationals of six other countries deemed to be security threats.
What happened at the border crossing
It’s unclear whether what happened Saturday was an isolated incident at one border crossing in Blaine or if CBP is continuing to hold individuals of Iranian descent for questioning.
Though CBP disputes that such people were detained, numerous individuals have come forward to give public statements to the contrary, including one 24-year-old American citizen and medical student. Identified only by her first name, Crystal, she told CAIR that she was detained in Blaine and interrogated for 10 hours with her family.
“The vast majority of people being held last night were American citizens,” Crystal said Sunday. “We kept asking why we were being detained and asked questions that had nothing to do with our reason for traveling, and [were] told, ‘I’m sorry, this is just the wrong time for you guys.’”
Tensions between the US and Iran heightened last week after Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general, was killed in an American drone strike near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq, which Iranian leaders saw as an act of war. The Trump administration has since been concerned about Iranian retaliation, but so far, no evidence of a specific threat to the US has emerged.
In a statement, CAIR said that according to one of its sources at CBP, DHS had directed CBP officials to report and detain anyone of Iranian heritage attempting to enter the US if they were found to be “suspicious or adversarial, regardless of citizenship status.”
“These reports are extremely troubling and potentially constitute illegal detentions of United States citizens,” Masih Fouladi, executive director of CAIR’s Washington chapter, said.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee called CBP’s denial of the detentions “simply not credible.”
“These were detentions, and that is unacceptable,” Inslee said in a statement. “By all accounts, this is detention, regardless of whether the waiting area has bars on the windows.”
CBP can’t legally deny entry to American citizens
CBP can detain and question anyone seeking to enter the US to establish whether they are a US citizen, whether they have the documentation required to enter the US, and what they are bringing into the US. To do so, it doesn’t need a warrant or any suspicion that an individual has committed wrongdoing.
There are, however, some legal limits on that authority: CBP guidance says that officers must conduct these investigations in a way that is “safe, secure, humane, dignified, and professional” and that they cannot conduct more intrusive investigations, including prolonged interrogation, unless they have “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime. Moreover, once someone has established that they are a US citizen, they must be allowed to enter the US.
Usually, CBP will clear a US citizen traveling with valid documentation during what’s called “primary inspection” at the individual’s vehicle or in a booth at the port. But in the case of those questioned on Saturday, they were taken to a separate area for “secondary inspection” — what attorneys classify as a form of detention — during which CBP officials ask more specific questions about immigration history and travel and search for the individual’s file in CBP records.
However, a US citizen is under no legal obligation to answer questions about their religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political beliefs. If CBP is requiring them to do so, that’s likely unconstitutional, civil rights advocates say.
Consequently, the ACLU has offered legal assistance to any Iranian Americans who have been targeted by CBP at airports and ports of entry.
It’s a familiar scene: When Trump announced the first version of his travel ban in January 2017, nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries, including those who held US green cards and had dual US citizenship, were held for questioning for many hours at airports across the country and denied entry to the US.
Legal aid groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, rushed to their defense, getting a federal judge to block the policy within two days. A later version of the ban, however, was upheld by the Supreme Court after the Trump administration provided what the Court’s conservative majority found to be a sufficient national security rationale.
Iranians who do not already hold valid visas or green cards are still barred from entering the US under the version of the ban upheld by the justices. They can obtain waivers on a case-by-case basis, but few have been granted in practice.
Inslee also likened the targeting of Iranian Americans to that of Japanese Americans during World War II. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US government sought to weed out Japanese spies, resulting in the mass detention of about 117,000 individuals of Japanese descent, most of whom were American citizens, in isolated camps.
“We can never forget that Japanese Americans were detained in Washington state during World War II and [that] their constitutional and civic rights were removed out of fear and hatred,” the governor said.


vox--2020-01-07--Australia fires: news and updates

Australia fires: news and updates

Bushfires continue to rage across Australia , which is in the middle of one of the country ’ s worst @ @ @ @ @ The massive bushfires in Australia are still spreading as heat , high winds , and @ @ @ @ @ as flames keep burning through much of the southeastern part of the country .
The @ @ @ @ @ destructive , burning through more than 15.6 million acres , or more than 24,000 square @ @ @ @ @ than the state of West Virginia .
The fires have now killed at least 25 @ @ @ @ @ 2,000 homes .
An estimated 1 billion animals have been lost in the disaster .
@ @ @ @ @ of these fires ?
It ’ s a mix of ocean circulation , years of @ @ @ @ @ fueling Australia ’ s record heat .
It ’ s currently summer in Australia , @ @ @ @ @ weather , and wildfires are not unusual this time of year .
But the severity @ @ @ @ @ fiery conditions are alarming .

Bushfires continue to rage across Australia, which is in the middle of one of the country’s worst fire seasons on record.
The massive bushfires in Australia are still spreading as heat, high winds, and (mostly) dry weather as flames keep burning through much of the southeastern part of the country.
The blazes have proved deadly and destructive, burning through more than 15.6 million acres, or more than 24,000 square miles — an area larger than the state of West Virginia. The fires have now killed at least 25 people and destroyed more than 2,000 homes. An estimated 1 billion animals have been lost in the disaster.
What’s the cause of these fires? It’s a mix of ocean circulation, years of drought, and climate change fueling Australia’s record heat. It’s currently summer in Australia, and 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.


vox--2020-01-07--The Methodist Church split over same-sex marriage, explained

There are big changes coming to the spiritual home of George W. Bush , Dick Cheney , Hillary Clinton , and Elizabeth Warren .
The United Methodist Church , the second-largest Protestant denomination in the US , announced Friday a proposal to split after years of dispute over LGBTQ issues and marriage equality .
Church leaders revealed a plan that would divide its roughly 13 million members worldwide by creating a new “ traditionalist Methodist ” denomination that maintains a strict ban on ordaining LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriage .
The proposal is the latest and perhaps most drastic development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social acceptance of marriage equality and LGBTQ rights over the past several decades .
The number of Americans who regularly attend church is sitting at its lowest point in decades , and millennials in the US are particularly turned off by anti-LGBTQ church doctrine .
According to Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons , an author and disillusioned former Methodist , tensions over queer issues have been increasing for decades , but really hit a key point at the church ’ s 2016 general conference .
“ There was a lot of hope then that the restricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Book of Discipline , which they ’ d been debating every four years since 1972 , but instead of making a decision , they decided to form a special commission , ” he told Vox .
It was at that point that Graves-Fitzsimmons decided to leave the Methodist Church after having been a member of the denomination since childhood .
That special commission concluded with 53 percent of church leaders and lay people voting to tighten language on its same-sex marriage ban at a general conference last February , in a measure saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Christian teaching.
” It was a decision that made the plan to split all but inevitable .
“ We tried to look for ways that we could gracefully live together with all our differences , ” Louisiana-based Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey told the New York Times .
After last year ’ s conference , “ it just didn ’ t look like that was even possible anymore , ” she said .
Each congregation will now hold a vote over whether to remain in the United Methodist Church or join the anti-LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the majority of American congregations will choose to remain in the more liberal denomination , but Graves-Fitzsimmons is worried about how those congregation votes will affect LGBTQ parishioners .
“ The sad part to me is that people will have to vote on a local level , which I think is incredibly harmful for LGBTQ people , ” he said , pointing out that queer Methodists will essentially have their validity voted on by their neighbors .
“ This is in a local church .
It ’ s much different when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Religious leaders have struggled to adapt to changing social mores To survive , churches must maintain a steady membership .
The percentage of Americans who said they belong to a church , synagogue , or mosque hit a high of 76 percent in 1948 and has been in steady decline ever since , according to data from Gallup .
In 2018 , that number had declined to just 50 percent .
Methodist membership numbers , specifically , have declined every year since 1964 .
For example , average weekly church attendance in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous year .
Unsettled questions over the church ’ s stance on LGBTQ people have only exacerbated the situation .
There are many reasons why Americans aren ’ t as religious as they used to be , but for many young people , the way their LGBTQ friends are treated by hard-line Christians and Catholics is often a motivator for leaving the church .
While the cultural approval of LGBTQ people had been slowly moving in a progressive direction for decades , the first civil unions for same-sex couples were allowed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became state law in Massachusetts in 2004 .
From there , a steady drumbeat of court rulings and legislation expanded the right throughout much of the US before a Supreme Court required the remaining states to legalize marriage equality in 2015 .
Church leaders have been forced to reconcile their own deeply held beliefs with a more accepting social environment , and the Methodist split is just the latest in a long series of church adaptations on queer issues .
The United Church of Christ was the first major Protestant denomination to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same-sex couples to get married in 2005 , while the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America opened its doors to queer marriage in 2009 , though it leaves the final decision up to each local minister .
In 2015 , the Presbyterian Church USA voted to change its definition of marriage by amending its Book of Orders to say marriage is “ between two people.
” Seventy-one percent of church leaders voted in a general assembly to approve the change .
Episcopalians followed suit in 2018 , expanding the right of gay congregants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Protestant denominations have taken steps to open their doors to their LGBTQ neighbors , more conservative strains of Christianity aren ’ t having much of those discussions .
Pope Francis has drawn acclaim for saying “ Who am I to judge gay people ?
, ” but the Catholic Church has shown no sign of changing its strict anti-LGBTQ doctrine .
In fact , the Vatican has rejected the entire notion of transgender people .
Similarly , the Southern Baptist Convention , the largest Protestant denomination in the US , continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have become culture-war talking points against queer rights — like homosexuality is not a “ valid alternative lifestyle ” and “ gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by one ’ s self-perception.
” “ The Southern Baptists and the Catholics are a long way off , ” said Graves-Fitzsimmons of their LGBTQ acceptance .
The Methodist split , he said , “ will move us past this long , tumultuous period where there will be churches that welcome , affirm , celebrate the gifts of LGBTQ people .
And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ultimately , it will make clearer where people may find they belong .
Before coming to an agreement about separating , church leaders from the US , Europe , Africa , and the Philippines gathered in Washington , DC , for bargaining sessions last week .
Negotiations also focused on ironing out financial differences , like how pensions and funding will be allocated to those congregations that will be leaving .
The church ’ s worldwide conference , scheduled for May , still needs to approve the restructuring .

There are big changes coming to the spiritual home of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren.
The United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the US, announced Friday a proposal to split after years of dispute over LGBTQ issues and marriage equality.
Church leaders revealed a plan that would divide its roughly 13 million members worldwide by creating a new “traditionalist Methodist” denomination that maintains a strict ban on ordaining LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriage.
The proposal is the latest and perhaps most drastic development as religions have grappled with the increasing social acceptance of marriage equality and LGBTQ rights over the past several decades. The number of Americans who regularly attend church is sitting at its lowest point in decades, and millennials in the US are particularly turned off by anti-LGBTQ church doctrine.
According to Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, an author and disillusioned former Methodist, tensions over queer issues have been increasing for decades, but really hit a key point at the church’s 2016 general conference. “There was a lot of hope then that the restricted anti-LGBTQ language would be removed from the Book of Discipline, which they’d been debating every four years since 1972, but instead of making a decision, they decided to form a special commission,” he told Vox. It was at that point that Graves-Fitzsimmons decided to leave the Methodist Church after having been a member of the denomination since childhood.
That special commission concluded with 53 percent of church leaders and lay people voting to tighten language on its same-sex marriage ban at a general conference last February, in a measure saying “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” It was a decision that made the plan to split all but inevitable.
“We tried to look for ways that we could gracefully live together with all our differences,” Louisiana-based Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey told the New York Times. After last year’s conference, “it just didn’t look like that was even possible anymore,” she said.
Each congregation will now hold a vote over whether to remain in the United Methodist Church or join the anti-LGBTQ splinter group. It’s expected that the majority of American congregations will choose to remain in the more liberal denomination, but Graves-Fitzsimmons is worried about how those congregation votes will affect LGBTQ parishioners.
“The sad part to me is that people will have to vote on a local level, which I think is incredibly harmful for LGBTQ people,” he said, pointing out that queer Methodists will essentially have their validity voted on by their neighbors. “This is in a local church. It’s much different when it’s at a global meeting.”
Religious leaders have struggled to adapt to changing social mores
To survive, churches must maintain a steady membership. The percentage of Americans who said they belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque hit a high of 76 percent in 1948 and has been in steady decline ever since, according to data from Gallup. In 2018, that number had declined to just 50 percent.
Methodist membership numbers, specifically, have declined every year since 1964. For example, average weekly church attendance in the US fell 3.3 percent in 2016 from the previous year. Unsettled questions over the church’s stance on LGBTQ people have only exacerbated the situation.
There are many reasons why Americans aren’t as religious as they used to be, but for many young people, the way their LGBTQ friends are treated by hard-line Christians and Catholics is often a motivator for leaving the church.
While the cultural approval of LGBTQ people had been slowly moving in a progressive direction for decades, the first civil unions for same-sex couples were allowed in Vermont in 2000, then marriage equality became state law in Massachusetts in 2004. From there, a steady drumbeat of court rulings and legislation expanded the right throughout much of the US before a Supreme Court required the remaining states to legalize marriage equality in 2015.
Church leaders have been forced to reconcile their own deeply held beliefs with a more accepting social environment, and the Methodist split is just the latest in a long series of church adaptations on queer issues.
The United Church of Christ was the first major Protestant denomination to take affirming action for LGBTQ people, allowing same-sex couples to get married in 2005, while the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America opened its doors to queer marriage in 2009, though it leaves the final decision up to each local minister.
In 2015, the Presbyterian Church USA voted to change its definition of marriage by amending its Book of Orders to say marriage is “between two people.” Seventy-one percent of church leaders voted in a general assembly to approve the change. Episcopalians followed suit in 2018, expanding the right of gay congregants to get married in all congregations.
While some Protestant denominations have taken steps to open their doors to their LGBTQ neighbors, more conservative strains of Christianity aren’t having much of those discussions. Pope Francis has drawn acclaim for saying “Who am I to judge gay people?,” but the Catholic Church has shown no sign of changing its strict anti-LGBTQ doctrine. In fact, the Vatican has rejected the entire notion of transgender people.
Similarly, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, continues to marginalize LGBTQ congregants, with messages that have become culture-war talking points against queer rights — like homosexuality is not a “valid alternative lifestyle” and “gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by one’s self-perception.”
“The Southern Baptists and the Catholics are a long way off,” said Graves-Fitzsimmons of their LGBTQ acceptance. The Methodist split, he said, “will move us past this long, tumultuous period where there will be churches that welcome, affirm, celebrate the gifts of LGBTQ people. And there will be churches that don’t.” Ultimately, it will make clearer where people may find they belong.
Before coming to an agreement about separating, church leaders from the US, Europe, Africa, and the Philippines gathered in Washington, DC, for bargaining sessions last week. Negotiations also focused on ironing out financial differences, like how pensions and funding will be allocated to those congregations that will be leaving. The church’s worldwide conference, scheduled for May, still needs to approve the restructuring.


vox--2020-01-07--The Iraq War hawks are back

The Iraq War hawks are back

On March 19 , 2003 , a “ coalition of the willing ” led by the United States invaded Iraq , starting a war that killed thousands of American soldiers and roughly 600,000 Iraqi civilians ( though exact numbers are very hard to come by ) .
The war enjoyed broad ( and bipartisan ) support in 2003 , with 72 percent of Americans polled by Gallup saying that they supported the war against Iraq in May of that year ( and despite his more recent protestations , that number included Donald Trump . )
But nearly 17 years later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States made a mistake sending troops to Iraq , a perspective that has played an increasingly large role in our politics .
The situation in Iran — where President Donald Trump ’ s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani after months of tensions has raised fears of another war in the region — is not a replica of the lead-up to the war in Iraq .
And let ’ s be clear : Being wrong about the war in Iraq doesn ’ t mean that those calling for action with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanting by the passage of time .
But it ’ s concerning , to say the least , to see some of the biggest backers of the Iraq War — an abject failure that , coupled with the ongoing war in Afghanistan , has cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of lives — are publicly ( and in some instances , gleefully ) opining about the potential impact of war with Iran , in some cases even using the same rhetorical stylings to do so .
“ This is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On January 2 on Fox News , two George W. Bush administration stalwarts — former press secretary Ari Fleischer and former senior adviser Karl Rove — joined Fox News host Sean Hannity ( another prominent booster of the 2003 invasion ) and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz ( R-UT ) to react to Qassem Soleimani ’ s death .
“ I think it ’ s entirely possible this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani and puts pressure on the Iranian government to stop the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various terrorist movements it has around the world.
” What Fox News didn ’ t mention is that both Fleischer and Rove played major roles in the leadup to the Iraq War two decades ago , which included a months-long campaign to build support for the invasion of Iraq among the American public by connecting Iraq to the September 11 attacks and to weapons of mass destruction .
Both men were key parts of the White House Iraq Group , a group of high-level administration officials charged with “ educat [ ing ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States by Saddam Hussein .
As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has noted , the origins of the Iraq War were steeped in falsehoods shared by Fleischer and other members of the Bush administration , taking at absolute best what a former Bush administration official called “ literary license ” with the facts .
Fleischer did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
An assistant for Karl Rove told me that he is currently moving and would be unable to answer my questions .
It ’ s important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration ’ s push toward war in Iraq .
Because those promises of US action being “ celebrated ” ?
It ’ s not the first time Fleischer ’ s made them .
On April 10 , 2003 , during a press briefing he gave as press secretary regarding the invasion of Iraq , Fleischer made an eerily similar claim .
“ The president ’ s view is that the celebrations in the streets of Baghdad are the sights of freedom , ” Fleischer said in response to a question about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Arab world .
“ And freedom is a message that should be welcomed everywhere.
” There were some celebrations in Baghdad back in 2003 , as Iraqi civilians commemorated the end of Hussein ’ s violent and controlling regime and the arrival of Allied troops .
And Fleischer wasn ’ t alone in his beliefs .
As my colleague Ezra Klein wrote back in 2014 , the primary purported impetus for the Bush administration ’ s invasion of Iraq wasn ’ t just Iraq ’ s alleged ( and nonexistent ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ( negligible ) links to al-Qaeda , but the idea that Iraq could be , as Fleischer is now saying about Iran , a “ catalyst ” for the region .
David Frum , a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a prominent supporter of the Iraq War , concurred , writing in May 2019 : Suffice it to say , that ’ s not what happened .
As Frum concluded : In fact , a 2010 study by the RAND Corporation performed for the United States Air Force found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity of democratization efforts .
But Fleischer appears to have not yet arrived at a similar conclusion .
No , Iran is not Iraq — and yet the linguistic flourishes of 2003 remain the same , raising concerns that the failures of 2003 do , too .
“ There ’ s every reason to believe a war itself is going to be short ” But it wasn ’ t just Fox News .
Michael Doran , a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute , argued in the pages of the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , writing that such an action was essential “ if [ the United States ] seeks to stay in the Middle East.
” It ’ s worth noting that American attitudes on the nation ’ s military presence in the Middle East are complex , as recent polling has shown a difference between the desire of Americans to stay engaged in the region and their willingness to get involved in specific conflicts .
In January 2003 ( two years before joining the Bush administration ) , Doran was arguing in the pages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times ) in favor of a war against Iraq , writing that victory could help achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and induce other Middle Eastern countries to look to the United States as “ their partner in the quest for a better life.
” The first order of business for the United States must therefore be to demonstrate forcefully that challenges to its authority in the region will be defeated .
Its near enemies can be met in no other way , since their opposition to the present order is deep-rooted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abandon its position and pull back from the region , as the British did three and a half decades ago , it must carry its struggle against al Qaeda and Saddam to the finish , putting an end to all doubt regarding its resolve .
Thwarting Saddam ’ s ambitions and continuing to root out bin Laden ’ s henchmen and associates , moreover , will do more than take care of immediate menaces .
He furthered his argument in favor of war in the Princeton Alumni Weekly on February 26 , 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential because “ the U.S. position in the Gulf and in the region in general is being undermined by our attempt to contain him and Iran simultaneously.
” Hopefully , there ’ s every reason to believe a war itself is going to be short .
If 1991 is anything to go by , there ’ s not going to be a lot of fight in the Iraqi army .
And we ’ re much stronger than we were in 1991 , so the combination of a weaker Iraqi army and a stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My gut feeling is that it ’ s going to go down like a house of cards .
Because we ’ re much stronger than we were in 1991 , and he ’ s much weaker , and you saw how everyone gave up .
But that doesn ’ t mean we should plan for it to be a house of cards .
I mean there ’ s all kinds of bad scenarios that one could think of .
I suspect that once we show real resolve , the regime is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi regime collapsed quickly ( Baghdad fell within three weeks of the initial invasion ) , the war itself has dragged on even after the end of official action in 2011 .
An American contractor was killed and several American soldiers were hurt by a rocket attack in northern Iraq in December 2019 — 16 years after Doran asserted that the war would reshape the region for the better .
Doran did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

On March 19, 2003, a “coalition of the willing” led by the United States invaded Iraq, starting a war that killed thousands of American soldiers and roughly 600,000 Iraqi civilians (though exact numbers are very hard to come by).
The war enjoyed broad (and bipartisan) support in 2003, with 72 percent of Americans polled by Gallup saying that they supported the war against Iraq in May of that year (and despite his more recent protestations, that number included Donald Trump.) But nearly 17 years later, a majority of Americans think that the United States made a mistake sending troops to Iraq, a perspective that has played an increasingly large role in our politics.
The situation in Iran — where President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani after months of tensions has raised fears of another war in the region — is not a replica of the lead-up to the war in Iraq. And let’s be clear: Being wrong about the war in Iraq doesn’t mean that those calling for action with the Iranian regime will be found equally wanting by the passage of time.
But it’s concerning, to say the least, to see some of the biggest backers of the Iraq War — an abject failure that, coupled with the ongoing war in Afghanistan, has cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of lives — are publicly (and in some instances, gleefully) opining about the potential impact of war with Iran, in some cases even using the same rhetorical stylings to do so.
“This is going to be a catalyst inside Iran”
On January 2 on Fox News, two George W. Bush administration stalwarts — former press secretary Ari Fleischer and former senior adviser Karl Rove — joined Fox News host Sean Hannity (another prominent booster of the 2003 invasion) and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to react to Qassem Soleimani’s death.
“I think it’s entirely possible this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani and puts pressure on the Iranian government to stop the terrorism, stop supporting all of the various terrorist movements it has around the world.”
Ari Fleischer: "I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani" pic.twitter.com/UfcTOkvqAw — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 3, 2020
What Fox News didn’t mention is that both Fleischer and Rove played major roles in the leadup to the Iraq War two decades ago, which included a months-long campaign to build support for the invasion of Iraq among the American public by connecting Iraq to the September 11 attacks and to weapons of mass destruction. Both men were key parts of the White House Iraq Group, a group of high-level administration officials charged with “educat[ing] the public” about the danger posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein.
As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has noted, the origins of the Iraq War were steeped in falsehoods shared by Fleischer and other members of the Bush administration, taking at absolute best what a former Bush administration official called “literary license” with the facts. Fleischer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An assistant for Karl Rove told me that he is currently moving and would be unable to answer my questions.
It’s important to detail Fleischer’s role in the Bush administration’s push toward war in Iraq. Because those promises of US action being “celebrated”? It’s not the first time Fleischer’s made them.
2003 redux
On April 10, 2003, during a press briefing he gave as press secretary regarding the invasion of Iraq, Fleischer made an eerily similar claim.
“The president’s view is that the celebrations in the streets of Baghdad are the sights of freedom,” Fleischer said in response to a question about how images of the invasion were being received in the Arab world. “And freedom is a message that should be welcomed everywhere.”
There were some celebrations in Baghdad back in 2003, as Iraqi civilians commemorated the end of Hussein’s violent and controlling regime and the arrival of Allied troops. And Fleischer wasn’t alone in his beliefs. As my colleague Ezra Klein wrote back in 2014, the primary purported impetus for the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq wasn’t just Iraq’s alleged (and nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s (negligible) links to al-Qaeda, but the idea that Iraq could be, as Fleischer is now saying about Iran, a “catalyst” for the region.
David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a prominent supporter of the Iraq War, concurred, writing in May 2019:
... the goal in 2003 was bigger than denuclearization. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was both oppressing his own subjects and menacing his neighbors. By replacing Saddam’s regime with a more humane and peaceful successor, the U.S. could set the Arab Middle East on a path to a better future — contributing to America’s own security after 9/11.
Suffice it to say, that’s not what happened. As Frum concluded:
We were ignorant, arrogant, and unprepared, and we unleashed human suffering that did no good for anyone: not for Americans, not for Iraqis, not for the region. Almost two decades later, the damage to America’s standing in the world from the Iraq War has still not been repaired, let alone that war’s economic and human costs to the United States and the Middle East.
In fact, a 2010 study by the RAND Corporation performed for the United States Air Force found that the Iraq War may have decreased the popularity of democratization efforts.
In several instances, the war appears to have increased toleration and even the support of Arab publics for unpopular rulers who, whatever their faults, are still preferable to the unknown. Some of this may stem from the declining cachet of democratization, given its image as a “U.S. project” whose forcible implementation in Iraq was widely blamed for sowing the seeds of the country’s descent into sectarian violence
But Fleischer appears to have not yet arrived at a similar conclusion. No, Iran is not Iraq — and yet the linguistic flourishes of 2003 remain the same, raising concerns that the failures of 2003 do, too.
“There’s every reason to believe a war itself is going to be short”
But it wasn’t just Fox News. Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, argued in the pages of the New York Times in favor of the strike on Soleimani, writing that such an action was essential “if [the United States] seeks to stay in the Middle East.”
The world to which we wake up today, rid of its most accomplished and deadly terrorist, is a better place. Nowhere is this insight more evident than throughout the Middle East, where individuals are posting joyous videos to social media, celebrating the death of the author of so much of their misery. We should all — even those among us who don’t particularly care for Mr. Trump — join them in their good cheer, and continue to repeal Mr. Suleimani’s murderous anti-American legacy.
It’s worth noting that American attitudes on the nation’s military presence in the Middle East are complex, as recent polling has shown a difference between the desire of Americans to stay engaged in the region and their willingness to get involved in specific conflicts.
In January 2003 (two years before joining the Bush administration), Doran was arguing in the pages of Foreign Affairs (and the New York Times) in favor of a war against Iraq, writing that victory could help achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and induce other Middle Eastern countries to look to the United States as “their partner in the quest for a better life.”
The first order of business for the United States must therefore be to demonstrate forcefully that challenges to its authority in the region will be defeated. Its near enemies can be met in no other way, since their opposition to the present order is deep-rooted and total. Unless America is prepared to abandon its position and pull back from the region, as the British did three and a half decades ago, it must carry its struggle against al Qaeda and Saddam to the finish, putting an end to all doubt regarding its resolve. Thwarting Saddam’s ambitions and continuing to root out bin Laden’s henchmen and associates, moreover, will do more than take care of immediate menaces.
He furthered his argument in favor of war in the Princeton Alumni Weekly on February 26, 2003, arguing that taking out Hussein was essential because “the U.S. position in the Gulf and in the region in general is being undermined by our attempt to contain him and Iran simultaneously.”
And he added:
Hopefully, there’s every reason to believe a war itself is going to be short. If 1991 is anything to go by, there’s not going to be a lot of fight in the Iraqi army. And we’re much stronger than we were in 1991, so the combination of a weaker Iraqi army and a stronger U.S. means it should be fast. My gut feeling is that it’s going to go down like a house of cards. Because we’re much stronger than we were in 1991, and he’s much weaker, and you saw how everyone gave up. But that doesn’t mean we should plan for it to be a house of cards. I mean there’s all kinds of bad scenarios that one could think of. I suspect that once we show real resolve, the regime is going to go down rather easily.
Though the Iraqi regime collapsed quickly (Baghdad fell within three weeks of the initial invasion), the war itself has dragged on even after the end of official action in 2011. An American contractor was killed and several American soldiers were hurt by a rocket attack in northern Iraq in December 2019 — 16 years after Doran asserted that the war would reshape the region for the better.
Doran did not immediately respond to a request for comment.