Krystal covers the breaking news on Israel striking Iran and the risks of WW3, then Krystal speaks with David Sirota about Biden 2024 economics and David's re-launch of The Lever Time podcast, and finally Saagar speaks with Arta Moeini about Gaza and International Moralism.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Check out David Sirota's Lever Time: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5JGVBTzwXHKlrbDhU54NqD?si=8b70b025dab746cf
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Hey guys, So we had some major updates that could
not wait for Monday, so wanted to go ahead and
bring the news to you. The headline is this Israel
striking Iran. This in retaliation for the Iranian strikes on Israel.
Those strikes, of course, in retaliation for what was the
beginning of this whole escalatory chain, the Israeli strikes on
(00:46):
the Iranian consulate building in Damascus.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So let me go ahead and pull up what we
know at this point.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
And there are still some question marks about what exactly
has unfolded. So let me show you how the New
York Times is reporting this. They say Israel strikes Iran,
but scope of attack appears limited. I'll read you a
little bit from their report they say, here are the
latest developments. The Israeli struck Iran early on Friday, according
to two Israeli and three Iranian officials, and what appeared
(01:16):
to be Israel's first military response to Iran's attack last weekend,
but one whose scope, at least initially appeared to be limited.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
And that is the good news here.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
You gotta love how the New York Times leaves out
how this all began with the outrageous Israeli strike on
the Iranian consulate building in Dabascus, a violation of international
law and the Vienna Convention. Moving on, they continue, The
Iranian officials said that a strike had hit a military
air base near the city of Isfahan in central Iran.
(01:47):
Initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was muted, and
Iranian leaders did not publicly blame Israel for any strike,
which analysts said was a sign that the rivals were
seeking to de escalate tensions. For nearly a week, world
leaders have urged is and Iran to avoid sparking a
broader war in the region. Let me go ahead and
show you some of what they're talking about in terms
(02:09):
of the Iranians downplaying this strike or attempted strike. In fact,
the Iranians are even claiming that this was just drones,
that the Iranian air defenses hold that they shot everything down,
that there actually wasn't any sort of an impact in
Iran proper. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
It could be that they are just saying that because
(02:30):
they don't want this wider war, and frankly, they're acting
like the most responsible party in this whole conflict. Let
me show you a little bit of what Iranian state
media is reporting, how they are reporting this, just to
give you a sense of the way that they're trying
to downplay what happened here, thankfully, is this here we go,
(02:51):
that's the one Okay, So this is one analyst saying,
Iran State broadcaster in Isfahan, this AA is saying, cities
in complete calm and security. People are going on with
their normal lives. One to two hours ago, sounds were
heard in the sky. We understand several miniature UAVs were
overhead which were shot down. So very clearly here you've
(03:14):
got Iranian state broadcaster in the city that was allegedly
struck saying nothing really big happened, Everything's fine, everything's calm. Yeah,
we had a little few UAVs overhead, they were shot down,
nothing actually hit, and trying to project calm and hopefully
de escalate this situation. You know, it's impossible to underscore
(03:37):
just how fraught and perilous this whole thing has been.
And of course the context here is the US under
Joe Biden has claimed since post October seventh that they
wanted to keep Israel's assault on Gaza from spreading into
a wider, rich regional war. They have failed on all counts.
(04:01):
You know, not only do we have now these direct
strikes traded between Israel and Iran, with Israel beginning this
provocation with the strikes on the Iranian embassy, which you know,
you can imagine how the US would respond if our
embassy and a number of our top military commanders were assassinated,
you can imagine how we would respond.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
So then Iran responds.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
With what appears to have been calculated to be a
large show of force, but intentionally calculated to avoid significant casualties.
So just as this sort of presentation of force, and
we can say that because they gave the US and
our allies seventy two hours notice, so that we would
(04:46):
be in position to shoot down a majority of what
they were firing, which we did, and by the way,
I do mean in a majority, because the US apparently,
according to the reports, was involved in shooting down a
majority of what was shot at Israel.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
So it was meant to be.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
A large show of force, but calculated to not actually
create significant damage and not to cause any significant casualties,
which it did not. So the reports are, and this
is all, you know, very difficult to say what actually unfolded.
Reports are that the US tried to talk Israel out
(05:23):
of doing any sort of response to that, and basically saying, listen,
take it as a win that the Iranian offensive here,
that they this attack was all. You know, your defense
is held, no significant damage done, declare victory, and let's
move forward. Bb neat Yahoo, who has for decades wanted
(05:47):
this big war with Iran, of course, couldn't just you know,
leave well enough alone. He started this provocation to begin with.
There were also reports, and I can actually put this
up on the screen because this is you know, you
can make of this what you will as well, there.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Were reports that the US.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Actually agreed to Israel's plan for a ground invasion of
Rafa where a million Palestinians are currently sheltering in return
for not carrying out a large Iran strike. The US
is denying this report. Is it true, is it not?
We don't really know. But the fact that we're in
(06:28):
a position where we're having to like bargain and beg
the Israelis who are wholly dependent on us, who rely
on us for diplomatic protection, military aid, etc. That we're
having to bargain and beg and basically, you know, sacrifice
the lives of Palestinians to try to keep from getting
dragged into this broader regional war directly in conflict with Iran.
(06:53):
Is such a testament to just how failed the Biden
policy has been with regard to Israel this entire time.
You know, the whole idea from Biden was I'll do
the bb Night Yahoo bear hug, and then since I'm
showing all this public support for him, It'll give me
more leverage behind the scenes to try to coerce this
conflict in the direction that I want. And one of
(07:14):
the primary goals again from the beginning, according to the
administration and you know leaks to reporters, was to avoid
exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. But since
at every turn, when pressed, the US says there are
no real red lines, We'll do anything for Israel. We
(07:35):
stand with Israel no matter what. Of course, BB feels
enabled to do whatever the hell he wants to do,
including creating a wildly dangerous situation for our own service members,
for the entire region, and dare I say it, for
the entire world. That's what our policy of nothing but
(07:57):
enabling whatever the Israelis want want to do, that's what
that policy has ultimately brought us to. So, you know,
it's a strange situation. The best possible news that I
could wake up to this morning is that the Iranians
are trying to downplay and say, hey, listen, nothing really
happened here, hopefully giving them enough like saving enough face
(08:20):
for them to avoid feeling like they now have to
respond again and tacking once again.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Up the ladder of escalation.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
But it's small comfort that we've come to this place
where we are so on the brink that the best
news we can hope for is that they're pretending that,
you know, this additional strike wasn't a big deal, That
we have direct exchanges between Iran and Israel. That's where
the Joe Biden policy has ultimately led us. And again,
(08:50):
you know, we'll see what happens with regard to Rafa.
Bibe has been making it very clear that there is
no avoiding their ground invasion. He set the date, he said,
he's got the plan in place. Apparently Joe Biden, who
has expressed at least some hesitation or some reluctance about
this ground invasion into Rafa at a time when not
only have you had already mass civilian death, mass destruction
(09:14):
of civilian infrastructure in the Gaza strip, you also have
this all out humanitarian crisis, people starving to death, a
famine officially set in at least in northern Gaza. You've
got a million plus displaced Palestinians in Rafa. And if
the report is true, Biden basically capitulating and saying, all right,
(09:38):
because you've brought us to the brink of this hot
war with Iran, we're gonna let you invade Rafa. Go
ahead to avoid this, you know, to have a more
limited strike on Iran. So there's a lot of questions
here this morning. There's still very open questions about where
(09:58):
things go for peer, you know, The other couple of
things worth mentioning are Number one, this retaliatory strike on
Iran comes on the same day that our un representative
vetoed in the Security Council.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Un Security Council.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Vetoed the recognition of a Palestinian state, so doing Israel's
bidding on the very day that they do the exact
opposite of what we had wanted them to do. Not
to mention that vetoing palestinane state seems to be at
odds with our purported policy of supporting a two state solution.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So there's that.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
It also comes at a moment when our representatives are
busy pushing through a record breaking amount of aid both
to Ukraine but also to Israel to continue shipping them
the weapons that they are using not only to massacre
Palestinian civilians, women, children, and innocent men, but also that
(11:01):
they are using to put our own service members and
national security interest at risk. So extraordinary developments. Thank god.
The Iranians seem to be wanting to downplay this, wanting
to end this escalatory chain. You know, if this is
where it ends, we all honestly owe them a debt
of gratitude, because you can only imagine if it was
(11:25):
our military commanders assassinated at our embassy. I doubt we
would be so restrained, doubt we would be so measured.
So that's where we are today. That's the most I
can tell you about where we are obviously still incredibly
fraud and incredibly risky situation. If there are additional developments
(11:45):
I'll make sure to bring them to you this weekend.
Otherwise we'll give you all the very latest on Monday.
Hope you guys enjoy the weekend and I'll see you soon.
Excited to be joined this morning by one of our
great partners over at Lemer News, David Stroodis of that
great outlet, who has a bunch of new exciting projects
to talk to us about. And David, I was saying
(12:06):
to you, I was so excited to see that at
a time when a lot of news organizations are struggling
and having to lay off staff, that you all are
actually expanding, which I think is a real testament to
the need that you serve and the unique reporting that
you all have done on you know, frankly compared to
the giant corporate media outlets, a fraction of the budget.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
So congratulations on that.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Thank you, Thanks so much.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
And what I'm really excited about is we've been able
to hire journalists, journalists to do the digging the investigations.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
That we do. I think.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
We're losing a lot of journalists right now, and I
know people have some criticism of the media industry generally,
which I share that criticism.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
I think one thing I'm.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
Most worried about is the loss of people employed to
actually report and surface original information.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
So that's what we're investing in.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah, well, we've really relied on your work. We relied
on it with regard just recently to the Baltimore Bridge
collapse and the masch Nations to try to limit liability
for this giant shipping company. I know you all are
relaunching the lever Time podcast and you're taking a look
at what has been very perplexing to a lot of
the media class, which is why, in spite of the
(13:18):
fact that there is low unemployment, in high stock market
and some other sort of macroeconomic indicators that are positive
for Joe Biden, his economic numbers continue to be so poor.
We actually have a little bit of a trailer for
the relaunch of that podcast.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (13:36):
I think that the more rough and tumble, the more debate,
the more vigorous exchange, the more you are battle testing
your party, the more you are battle testing your ultimate
general election nominee for that battle with the Republicans. And
I look back to two thousand and eight, you talked.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
About Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I did not mention his name. Well, I'm here until.
Speaker 7 (14:07):
Yeah, that primary is vicious. I feel like people don't remember.
It's just how tense things got between the Clinton and
Obama teams. Like if you read accounts from back then,
you see just how much vitriol there was between both
of them and personally too.
Speaker 6 (14:23):
Absolutely, and the same thing with the nineteen ninety two primary.
I mean that was a brutal primary between Bill Clinton
and Mario Cuomo was potentially gonna run and Jerry Brown.
Speaker 7 (14:32):
I don't think.
Speaker 6 (14:32):
Those primaries weakened those general election nominees. I think they
battle tested those general election nominees, and I think those
general election nominees came out stronger and better and more
suited to win the general election. But I feel like, honestly,
I feel like that view is in the minority of
the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
So Bold stands there in favor of actual democracy, and
it ties in with the economic conversation because I think
anyone who's tried to understand, okay, well, why do Americans
still have legitimate upset around the state of the economy
at this point has been met with this sort of
derision of like, oh, well, what do you just want
Donald Trump to get reelected again?
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Yeah? I mean, I think there's this perfect storm, perfectly
bad storm for the Democrats in this way that they've
suppressed a primary, which means that they've suppressed a debate,
a discussion about, for instance, economic issues, and the White
House has gotten comfortable just saying, hey, listen, these are
(15:31):
your choices, take it or leave it. We don't have
to actually use a primary process to sharpen our message. So,
in other words, Biden hasn't, in not having a primary,
hasn't faced the kinds of questions in a day to
day basis that he will face in the general election,
(15:52):
for instance, about the economy. So there's been a year
or two of the White House just sort of trying.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
To flip it off. But those questions about the economy
aren't going away.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Now you said, you're right, the macroeconomic data is decent,
and look, the country would be in worse.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Shape if the macro data was worse.
Speaker 5 (16:12):
But that doesn't mean people's day to day lived economic
experience is particularly good. And Biden up until very recently
I don't think hasn't really had a really sharp message
to say to voters, to address those concerns to voters,
and those are real concerns.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, Instead, a lot of the approach has been, at
least from the sort of like Biden's orders and spokespeople,
has been to gaslight or to tell you your experience isn't real,
You're just being tricked by media coverage that's negative of
the economy. So what are some of the pain points
that you have been able to identify that are real
(16:55):
and are contributing at least to the fact that many
Americans are not happy with the Biden economic record in
spite of the fact that you know, some of the
things he's done I think are a really positive step
forward economically. Labor and antitrust really stand out to me.
We covered with Emily on Counterpoints, covered the new DOJ
(17:15):
suit of Live Nation Ticketmaster. That direction is really promising
but doesn't necessarily impact Americans right now today.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Well, look, there's two things going on in the people's
lived experience of the economy. There are things that are
bearing down on them housing costs, the cost of money itself,
interest rates creating higher costs for auto loans.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Transportation and the like.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Grocery prices have up until recently been going up. So
these are real pain points, basically pain points on the
necessities of life, right like food, housing, shelter, etc.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Etc.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
And there is an argument to be made that no
one president and in the course of one term, can
solve all of those problems immediately, problems that were developed
over multiple basically generations of neoliberal economic policies. So you
have these pain points here that are real. I think
(18:18):
the reason any incumbent gets blamed for that is because
they're the incumbent. But I also think that the incumbent
can do things to combat being blamed for that. Let's
go back to let's remember that Franklin Roosevelt ran for
reelection in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Re election in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
Right, he didn't run around saying, hey, listen, all you
people are just you know, you're misled about how bad
the economy is.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
You know, the media is gaslighting you, right.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
He positioned himself instead as the sharp tip of the
spear against the corporate forces that were creating that pain,
as opposed saying, hey, everything's getting better.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
So Biden has not really done that.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
He has not really positioned himself as the sharp tip
of that spear. And I think, if we're being honest,
part of it is a white House messaging problem. They
haven't faced a primary that's prompted them to have to
actually really engage day to day. But if we're also
being honest, part of it, I think is the fact
that he's an eighty one year old guy, and it's
hard to communicate a strong, tough economic leadership message as
(19:31):
the sharp tip of the outrage at corporate forces bearing
down on people. It's hard to do when you're as
old as he is. It's not to run him down
for being old. It's not to say it's it's his
fault for being old. But I think almost inherent is
that part of the job of being president is using
the bully pulpit.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
And look, when you're eighty one years old, it's probably
harder to use the bully pulpit.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
By the fact, by virtue of the fact that you're
an older person.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
I think there's that which I noted actually when these
latest inflation numbers came out that were hotter than expected,
and you know, people like you and me who have
been talking about gra inflation from the beginning and were
initially dismissed as like fringe until it was kind of undeniable,
and you've got these CEOs admitting on earning skulls, like yeah,
that's what we're doing. There was an opportunity there for
(20:18):
him to come out and not try to downplay that,
you know, groceries cost more than they did last year
and then that's significant for people, but to really called
the task the corporate price gouchers who are contributing to
that state of affairs. But that would mean he was
a completely different person with frankly a different ideology and
(20:39):
a different level of vigor that he's able at this
point to bring to the table.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Look, I totally agree, and I think the sad part
about this, among other things, is that I actually do
think that the Biden administration has a story to tell.
I think when you look at what's going on at
the FTC, when you look at what's going on doj
anti trust, when you look what's going on at the NLRB,
(21:04):
when you look further back to what happened with the
American Rescue Plan. Now granted that expired, but the American
Rescue Plan a huge investment in the working class of
this country. The Biden administration does have a story to tell.
They just haven't told it very well. And you're never
going to tell that story only through your FTC chairperson
(21:27):
or only through your deputy or assistant Attorney general. For
anti trust, the president has to be the one telling
that story. And I don't think the story has been told,
but I think there's still is time here. And what
I'm saying is is that I think when you look
at the State of the Union address that Biden just delivered,
(21:48):
the themes of that State of the Union address, I
do think we're right on. He really was trying to
position the administration as a counter to corporate power. Is
it a too late I don't think it's exactly too
late yet Is it going to be enough?
Speaker 3 (22:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Can he deliver that message in the noise of the
general election, I'm not so sure. And will they actually
sharpen the message enough where enough people will believe that
they are really serious about being that challenge to corporate power.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
These are all the unanswered questions.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and that's that's my last question for you, David,
is how much are people even processing politics at this
point about being about economics because they have the sense of, like, well,
whether it's a Democrat or Republican, things don't really change
much for me personally, So I guess I should just
vote on like who signals the right way in the
culture war, or how I feel about Donald Trump, which
(22:46):
I don't want to dismiss those things as illegitimate by
the way. I mean, I think the looming threat of
Trump is real, and it's it is legitimate to be
concerned about that. But how much has economics just sort
of vanished from landscape of what people even expect politicians
to deliver at this point?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
Well, this is the part.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
Now You're really getting to my personal pain point, because
it's the thing that I get depressed and demoralized about
that it feels like, at least right now, we're in
an a historical moment in this way that in the past,
are you better off than you were four years ago
used to be kind of the defining a question of
(23:26):
presidential elections, or, as James Carvel had put it, you know,
it's the economy, stupid. I'm not sure we're living in
a society anymore where economics is considered salient and germane
to elections and how we pick presidents, which I think
is actually a problem.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Right to me, that should be the first and foremost
question of.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
What does this presidential election mean for the economic future
and destiny of this country and the economic experience of
people in their daily lives. I think that's the first
and foremost thing that we actually do have the most
control over as a country, right, Like the policies directly
affect us here and now, economic policies, and if those
(24:13):
policies aren't part of how we're making a decision in
these elections, we're basically saying we can't change the economy.
That both parties, all of the candidates are just simply
uninterested in making any kind of change that would benefit
the majority of the population.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I don't want to be in that place.
Speaker 5 (24:33):
I think that's a really that is in a sense,
that is the democracy crisis. If we simply say economics
is just not part of how we pick people.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
I don't want to.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
Believe that we're there. It would really be a break
from history if we are there. But yes, it does
feel like we now live in an era of vibe
elections that are almost exclusively about the culture war and
nothing about the class war.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
David, where can people check out lever Time?
Speaker 3 (25:01):
You can find it at levernews dot com. Just go
right there. You'll find it right there. All right, great
to see you, my friend. As always, thank you, thank
you so much.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Joining me now is Arta Moeni, doctor Arta Moeni. He
is the research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Thank you so much for joining me, Sir, I appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (25:22):
Thank you, Sogeric. Glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
So doctor Moonani, you caught my attention. You had a
long Twitter thread and was backed up by an article
I wanted to put it up here on the screen.
It is the Gaza War and the twilight of international moralism.
So without getting two in the weeds, I think the
takeaway that I had at the very least is that
using moralistic language genocide being one very much in vogue
(25:46):
at the moment, but in general that we deploy in
international politics is in some ways counterproductive and doesn't achieve
the moral outcomes that those who use the term want.
So why don't you give us your argument for why?
Speaker 8 (26:01):
Yeah? Sure, I mean so, I think proponents of international
law often sort of have very good intentions. They want
to end conflicts, they want to they want to minimize casualties,
and they have this sort of attachment with this construct,
which for me is a construct, a non natural construct
(26:22):
called international law. But the moralism that they attach to
their framing of the world actually, in many ways, ideology
ideologizes conflicts, politicizes conflicts, demonizes others, and makes a kind
of actual conversation that's required for diplomacy impossible. So I
(26:44):
think by shaking or shedding our moralistic frames, by shedding
our sort of needs for these kinds of ideological framings,
we can actually and prioritizing national interests and real power relations,
(27:05):
we can develop a certain strategic empathy and either prevent
conflicts from happening prior or to find and find solutions
to them, and resolve them more easily once they are
once they do arise.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
So why don't you operationalize that to let's say the
Israel conflict. Like we said, using the word genocide, apartheid,
all of these things, whether or not they're technically true
or not, but even the definitions the game itself you
view as counterproductive. Let's say, to achieving an end which
I think we all want here, which is a piece
to the conflict, what would your approach be then.
Speaker 8 (27:42):
Yeah, So my framework is that if we have adopted actual,
sort of realistic view of the world and not look
to demonize the other side. So I mean, this happens
on both sides. So when we think about Israel, I
mean I think the is very clear that the sort
of opponents of of Israeli policy use a certain framework
(28:05):
of genocide language labeling to demonize the other side. And
I think that is very unhelpful because it actually kind
of the human dehumanizes and discredits the other side, making
them actually doabble down on the policies that I have
a lot of problems with, and maybe many others do
as well. But I think by doing that tactic actually
(28:29):
is very unhelpful to getting them to change their policies.
And it happens on the other side as well, which
is not just a problem that for example, the left has.
I mean, the pro Israel right, for example, uses similar
kind of human rights discourse or moralizing language by trying
to connect the sort of its own opponents to Hamas
(28:53):
or to or calling them anti Semites or whatnot. I
think these kinds of rhetoric are sort of a framework
that come from ideology and actually thinking about realistic understanding
of how and why states do what they do and
why you know, power relations and how that's important in
(29:15):
this sort of in the world that can really change
the dynamics on the ground. I mean think about for example,
I mean, I would just say this, in America, we
have had a tradition of statesmanship going back to George
Washington that emphasizes what I call and they colleague Washingtonian realism.
(29:35):
We're going back to George Washington, and it prioritizes national
interests and looking at things as they are instead of
focusing on ideology. And we can fast forward to the
Cold War and we have another classic realist like George Kennon,
who also while some hawks in Washington would like to
read him as the as you know, the force behind
(29:58):
sort of military containment, actually understood that ideology cannot be
fought through military force. And actually you need to find
the real sources of conflicts and uh and and the
political appeal of the ideology. So both of these can
be applied to the to the Israel Gazo scenario because
you can see how you know that the very idea
(30:20):
of Israel thinking that it can eliminate Hamas, as we
know from our experience in Afghanistan with the Taliban, it's
impossible to uh physically eliminate a sort of a non
state actor that is steeped in ideology. You have to
find the reasons uh and for for their ideology and
the spread of that ideology. So that's one thing. And
(30:41):
then at the same time you have to understand that yes,
Israel does have significant ontological insecurities and physical insecurities, and
by trying to deal with them and telling them, for example,
that hey, it is not in your in Israel's long
term interest, a long term national interest to engage in
this kind of behavior and this is going to actually
(31:03):
have fundamental consequences for the future of Israel itself. This well, actually,
I think make the conversation on realist ground much better
and much stronger, and towards the CEA spire or towards
whatever resolution we can try to imagine.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Yeah, I get a lot of criticism when I talk
in this way. People say that it's cold blooded. And
one of the things that I liked it took away
from what you said is that you can actually achieve
more moral outcomes, you know, if you actually try and
engage with this, if you look at things on a
level playing field, and you're not always using moral outrage
or anger or you know. For example, I think the
(31:40):
perfect example here is that the Biden administration is branding
Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide, but then they deny
that it is a genocide whenever it's Israel and it's Gaza.
And it's like, well, now you have a selective application
of rhetoric to a term that was supposed to mean something,
now it actually means nothing. So arguably you have made
(32:01):
a disservice to any future ability to say anything about what.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Is or is not a genocide.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Whereas if instead that we look at it as like,
this is bad, this is counterproductive to Russian interest, is
really interest and others, then possibly the Russians would listen
to us, or the Israelis would listen to us. And
vice versa, if we were to look at things actually level.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
Yeah, I mean that that's that's certainly true, I think,
and it actually I think what you're bringing up is
something that I also brought up in the article, which
is the you know, yes, there is there is this
sort of idea of hypocrisy in terms of selecting selected
application of US policy in regards to international law. But
(32:43):
that really shows a different question, which is the fundamental
problem of enforcements in international law. There is no real
global hedgemon now now once we shifted from unipolarity to multipolarity,
and so we don't have an ultimate arbiter and ultimate enforcers.
So for for so long as the United States was,
(33:05):
we were in the unipolar moments of sort of American triumphalism,
and the United States could select and pick and choose
how to interpret international law, how to apply international law
in different conflicts to serve its interest. Now, in the
condition of multiplarity, using this sort of we are now
in a great transition. And within this great transition we
(33:27):
are seeing various different regions of the world. I don't
like the term global soft, but global south is the
common term for it. The various multiple regions of the
world try are basically doing the same thing. The specter
of interpretation is open to everyone, and so that actually
means that what the United States specifically did since nineteen
(33:48):
ninety after evolved the Soviet Union, we sort of shifted
in the nineties to this sort of selective politicization of
the international law framework, using human rights and using uh,
you know, humanous as a weapon, using responsibility to protect,
you know, all of those things that we did. Now
others are doing as well. So almost for any conflict
(34:08):
that you can think about in the world, you have
the situation where Russia, for example, uses the same the
very same argument that America used for NATO intervention in
Serbia to justify its own intervention and aggressions in Ukraine.
And Ukraine also uses this, you know, the same principles
(34:29):
of the UN Charter in terms of self defense and
territorial integrity to make its own claim the sort of
shrouded in legitimacy. So again, all of these states are
engaged in PLOW. I mean again, the relationship of power
is key, and I think by not looking at the
power relations and the fact that nowadays international law is
(34:50):
used as as an instrument for rhetorical and reputational influence
and prestige to and you. Basically, once you do that,
you get your side your partisans to accept your your
side of things and use and basically have legitimizing arguments
for your side of things, and your opponents will have
(35:11):
the opposite view and opposite interpretation. This is the problem
of lack of enforcement that's inherent to international law as
it is constructed. Because again, the international law, the world
first ward, is international. We know, as any good realist would,
that the international system is not actually a sort of
a monolith. It is not doesn't have a sovereign, and
(35:34):
therefore it is anarchic. The condition of anarchy is returning
where there is no unipolar order and no global sovereign
like the United States too, that that can get away
with doing those arbituations still according to its interests, but
it can it cannot get away with it anymore, and
(35:54):
other countries are doing it the same thing. So it
means that effectively, the dawn of multi polarity shows the
tensions inherent to international law because we cannot see it
in an international way. We don't have that sort of
enforcement mechanism. But that takes us to the second problem
of international law as well, because international law is again
(36:18):
the category of law is sovereign, and sovereignty that's at a
domestic category. But also that implies that there are certain conventions,
traditions and shared heritage. Let's say that has given way
to codifying those traditions as law. However, what we have
now this construct sacred cow of international law. It basically
(36:44):
was premised on a particular code that was a European
code that came out of the nineteenth and twentieth century,
but then it was codified in post nineteen forty five.
So it's a particular parochial viewpoint of the world in
a world that's actually diverse. It doesn't have enforcements, but
it also tends to universalize from a parochial position and
(37:07):
basically try to make its position as the universal position.
And the rest of the world that has different conceptions
and different forms of life and different philosophies and different
norms and values fundamentally now rejects that, but it increasingly
has the power to say no and interpret it differently.
So I think we need to get away from this
international law of framework because it's unhelpful for a peaceful
(37:31):
and I would there to say ethical relation between states
that's based on some sort of regularity and rules. As
proponents of the rules based order'd like to say that
actually would happen when you prioritize power and think about
power in that way. This mockery of power politics and
real politics as something that's fundamentally immoral blinds us to
(37:54):
the fact that seeing the world as it is instead
of through the lens of ideology. And again, international law
by definition is ideological because it it reflects only one
perspective of the world, and then it universalizes it. And
you know it was contingent as well, so there's nothing
natural about it. It was always ideological, and it gives
(38:15):
us this framework which can be abused and instrumentalized and
politicized and actually makes the cause of peace much harder
to achieve.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Really well said.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
My favorite is when people are like, the Russian invasion
of Ukraine is illegal. I'm like, well, is there a
legal invasion. There's no such thing as illegal invasion, invasions
or invasions. It's like, it doesn't mean anything. And if
it is illegal, now what who's going to enforce it? Oh,
you can't do anything about it, well, then international law
is fake. So I really appreciate you, sir. I really
recommend people go. I'll put your Twitter account and everything
(38:47):
in the description. Very interesting thinker, one who wants I
think the same outcomes as many of the people who
use this rhetoric, but is advocating for a different course,
one that I endorse wholeheartedly. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
We appreciate you.
Speaker 8 (39:00):
Thank you. So I got about to get here.
Hey guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Hey guys, So we had some major updates that could
not wait for Monday, so wanted to go ahead and
bring the news to you. The headline is this Israel
striking Iran. This in retaliation for the Iranian strikes on Israel.
Those strikes, of course, in retaliation for what was the
beginning of this whole escalatory chain, the Israeli strikes on
(00:46):
the Iranian consulate building in Damascus.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So let me go ahead and pull up what we
know at this point.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
And there are still some question marks about what exactly
has unfolded. So let me show you how the New
York Times is reporting this. They say Israel strikes Iran,
but scope of attack appears limited. I'll read you a
little bit from their report they say, here are the
latest developments. The Israeli struck Iran early on Friday, according
to two Israeli and three Iranian officials, and what appeared
(01:16):
to be Israel's first military response to Iran's attack last weekend,
but one whose scope, at least initially appeared to be limited.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
And that is the good news here.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
You gotta love how the New York Times leaves out
how this all began with the outrageous Israeli strike on
the Iranian consulate building in Dabascus, a violation of international
law and the Vienna Convention. Moving on, they continue, The
Iranian officials said that a strike had hit a military
air base near the city of Isfahan in central Iran.
(01:47):
Initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was muted, and
Iranian leaders did not publicly blame Israel for any strike,
which analysts said was a sign that the rivals were
seeking to de escalate tensions. For nearly a week, world
leaders have urged is and Iran to avoid sparking a
broader war in the region. Let me go ahead and
show you some of what they're talking about in terms
(02:09):
of the Iranians downplaying this strike or attempted strike. In fact,
the Iranians are even claiming that this was just drones,
that the Iranian air defenses hold that they shot everything down,
that there actually wasn't any sort of an impact in
Iran proper. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
It could be that they are just saying that because
(02:30):
they don't want this wider war, and frankly, they're acting
like the most responsible party in this whole conflict. Let
me show you a little bit of what Iranian state
media is reporting, how they are reporting this, just to
give you a sense of the way that they're trying
to downplay what happened here, thankfully, is this here we go,
(02:51):
that's the one Okay, So this is one analyst saying,
Iran State broadcaster in Isfahan, this AA is saying, cities
in complete calm and security. People are going on with
their normal lives. One to two hours ago, sounds were
heard in the sky. We understand several miniature UAVs were
overhead which were shot down. So very clearly here you've
(03:14):
got Iranian state broadcaster in the city that was allegedly
struck saying nothing really big happened, Everything's fine, everything's calm. Yeah,
we had a little few UAVs overhead, they were shot down,
nothing actually hit, and trying to project calm and hopefully
de escalate this situation. You know, it's impossible to underscore
(03:37):
just how fraught and perilous this whole thing has been.
And of course the context here is the US under
Joe Biden has claimed since post October seventh that they
wanted to keep Israel's assault on Gaza from spreading into
a wider, rich regional war. They have failed on all counts.
(04:01):
You know, not only do we have now these direct
strikes traded between Israel and Iran, with Israel beginning this
provocation with the strikes on the Iranian embassy, which you know,
you can imagine how the US would respond if our
embassy and a number of our top military commanders were assassinated,
you can imagine how we would respond.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
So then Iran responds.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
With what appears to have been calculated to be a
large show of force, but intentionally calculated to avoid significant casualties.
So just as this sort of presentation of force, and
we can say that because they gave the US and
our allies seventy two hours notice, so that we would
(04:46):
be in position to shoot down a majority of what
they were firing, which we did, and by the way,
I do mean in a majority, because the US apparently,
according to the reports, was involved in shooting down a
majority of what was shot at Israel.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
So it was meant to be.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
A large show of force, but calculated to not actually
create significant damage and not to cause any significant casualties,
which it did not. So the reports are, and this
is all, you know, very difficult to say what actually unfolded.
Reports are that the US tried to talk Israel out
(05:23):
of doing any sort of response to that, and basically saying, listen,
take it as a win that the Iranian offensive here,
that they this attack was all. You know, your defense
is held, no significant damage done, declare victory, and let's
move forward. Bb neat Yahoo, who has for decades wanted
(05:47):
this big war with Iran, of course, couldn't just you know,
leave well enough alone. He started this provocation to begin with.
There were also reports, and I can actually put this
up on the screen because this is you know, you
can make of this what you will as well, there.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Were reports that the US.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Actually agreed to Israel's plan for a ground invasion of
Rafa where a million Palestinians are currently sheltering in return
for not carrying out a large Iran strike. The US
is denying this report. Is it true, is it not?
We don't really know. But the fact that we're in
(06:28):
a position where we're having to like bargain and beg
the Israelis who are wholly dependent on us, who rely
on us for diplomatic protection, military aid, etc. That we're
having to bargain and beg and basically, you know, sacrifice
the lives of Palestinians to try to keep from getting
dragged into this broader regional war directly in conflict with Iran.
(06:53):
Is such a testament to just how failed the Biden
policy has been with regard to Israel this entire time.
You know, the whole idea from Biden was I'll do
the bb Night Yahoo bear hug, and then since I'm
showing all this public support for him, It'll give me
more leverage behind the scenes to try to coerce this
conflict in the direction that I want. And one of
(07:14):
the primary goals again from the beginning, according to the
administration and you know leaks to reporters, was to avoid
exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. But since
at every turn, when pressed, the US says there are
no real red lines, We'll do anything for Israel. We
(07:35):
stand with Israel no matter what. Of course, BB feels
enabled to do whatever the hell he wants to do,
including creating a wildly dangerous situation for our own service members,
for the entire region, and dare I say it, for
the entire world. That's what our policy of nothing but
(07:57):
enabling whatever the Israelis want want to do, that's what
that policy has ultimately brought us to. So, you know,
it's a strange situation. The best possible news that I
could wake up to this morning is that the Iranians
are trying to downplay and say, hey, listen, nothing really
happened here, hopefully giving them enough like saving enough face
(08:20):
for them to avoid feeling like they now have to
respond again and tacking once again.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Up the ladder of escalation.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
But it's small comfort that we've come to this place
where we are so on the brink that the best
news we can hope for is that they're pretending that,
you know, this additional strike wasn't a big deal, That
we have direct exchanges between Iran and Israel. That's where
the Joe Biden policy has ultimately led us. And again,
(08:50):
you know, we'll see what happens with regard to Rafa.
Bibe has been making it very clear that there is
no avoiding their ground invasion. He set the date, he said,
he's got the plan in place. Apparently Joe Biden, who
has expressed at least some hesitation or some reluctance about
this ground invasion into Rafa at a time when not
only have you had already mass civilian death, mass destruction
(09:14):
of civilian infrastructure in the Gaza strip, you also have
this all out humanitarian crisis, people starving to death, a
famine officially set in at least in northern Gaza. You've
got a million plus displaced Palestinians in Rafa. And if
the report is true, Biden basically capitulating and saying, all right,
(09:38):
because you've brought us to the brink of this hot
war with Iran, we're gonna let you invade Rafa. Go
ahead to avoid this, you know, to have a more
limited strike on Iran. So there's a lot of questions
here this morning. There's still very open questions about where
(09:58):
things go for peer, you know, The other couple of
things worth mentioning are Number one, this retaliatory strike on
Iran comes on the same day that our un representative
vetoed in the Security Council.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Un Security Council.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Vetoed the recognition of a Palestinian state, so doing Israel's
bidding on the very day that they do the exact
opposite of what we had wanted them to do. Not
to mention that vetoing palestinane state seems to be at
odds with our purported policy of supporting a two state solution.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So there's that.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
It also comes at a moment when our representatives are
busy pushing through a record breaking amount of aid both
to Ukraine but also to Israel to continue shipping them
the weapons that they are using not only to massacre
Palestinian civilians, women, children, and innocent men, but also that
(11:01):
they are using to put our own service members and
national security interest at risk. So extraordinary developments. Thank god.
The Iranians seem to be wanting to downplay this, wanting
to end this escalatory chain. You know, if this is
where it ends, we all honestly owe them a debt
of gratitude, because you can only imagine if it was
(11:25):
our military commanders assassinated at our embassy. I doubt we
would be so restrained, doubt we would be so measured.
So that's where we are today. That's the most I
can tell you about where we are obviously still incredibly
fraud and incredibly risky situation. If there are additional developments
(11:45):
I'll make sure to bring them to you this weekend.
Otherwise we'll give you all the very latest on Monday.
Hope you guys enjoy the weekend and I'll see you soon.
Excited to be joined this morning by one of our
great partners over at Lemer News, David Stroodis of that
great outlet, who has a bunch of new exciting projects
to talk to us about. And David, I was saying
(12:06):
to you, I was so excited to see that at
a time when a lot of news organizations are struggling
and having to lay off staff, that you all are
actually expanding, which I think is a real testament to
the need that you serve and the unique reporting that
you all have done on you know, frankly compared to
the giant corporate media outlets, a fraction of the budget.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
So congratulations on that.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Thank you, Thanks so much.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
And what I'm really excited about is we've been able
to hire journalists, journalists to do the digging the investigations.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
That we do. I think.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
We're losing a lot of journalists right now, and I
know people have some criticism of the media industry generally,
which I share that criticism.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
I think one thing I'm.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
Most worried about is the loss of people employed to
actually report and surface original information.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
So that's what we're investing in.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Yeah, well, we've really relied on your work. We relied
on it with regard just recently to the Baltimore Bridge
collapse and the masch Nations to try to limit liability
for this giant shipping company. I know you all are
relaunching the lever Time podcast and you're taking a look
at what has been very perplexing to a lot of
the media class, which is why, in spite of the
(13:18):
fact that there is low unemployment, in high stock market
and some other sort of macroeconomic indicators that are positive
for Joe Biden, his economic numbers continue to be so poor.
We actually have a little bit of a trailer for
the relaunch of that podcast.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (13:36):
I think that the more rough and tumble, the more debate,
the more vigorous exchange, the more you are battle testing
your party, the more you are battle testing your ultimate
general election nominee for that battle with the Republicans. And
I look back to two thousand and eight, you talked.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
About Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I did not mention his name. Well, I'm here until.
Speaker 7 (14:07):
Yeah, that primary is vicious. I feel like people don't remember.
It's just how tense things got between the Clinton and
Obama teams. Like if you read accounts from back then,
you see just how much vitriol there was between both
of them and personally too.
Speaker 6 (14:23):
Absolutely, and the same thing with the nineteen ninety two primary.
I mean that was a brutal primary between Bill Clinton
and Mario Cuomo was potentially gonna run and Jerry Brown.
Speaker 7 (14:32):
I don't think.
Speaker 6 (14:32):
Those primaries weakened those general election nominees. I think they
battle tested those general election nominees, and I think those
general election nominees came out stronger and better and more
suited to win the general election. But I feel like, honestly,
I feel like that view is in the minority of
the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
So Bold stands there in favor of actual democracy, and
it ties in with the economic conversation because I think
anyone who's tried to understand, okay, well, why do Americans
still have legitimate upset around the state of the economy
at this point has been met with this sort of
derision of like, oh, well, what do you just want
Donald Trump to get reelected again?
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Yeah? I mean, I think there's this perfect storm, perfectly
bad storm for the Democrats in this way that they've
suppressed a primary, which means that they've suppressed a debate,
a discussion about, for instance, economic issues, and the White
House has gotten comfortable just saying, hey, listen, these are
(15:31):
your choices, take it or leave it. We don't have
to actually use a primary process to sharpen our message. So,
in other words, Biden hasn't, in not having a primary,
hasn't faced the kinds of questions in a day to
day basis that he will face in the general election,
(15:52):
for instance, about the economy. So there's been a year
or two of the White House just sort of trying.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
To flip it off. But those questions about the economy
aren't going away.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Now you said, you're right, the macroeconomic data is decent,
and look, the country would be in worse.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Shape if the macro data was worse.
Speaker 5 (16:12):
But that doesn't mean people's day to day lived economic
experience is particularly good. And Biden up until very recently
I don't think hasn't really had a really sharp message
to say to voters, to address those concerns to voters,
and those are real concerns.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, Instead, a lot of the approach has been, at
least from the sort of like Biden's orders and spokespeople,
has been to gaslight or to tell you your experience isn't real,
You're just being tricked by media coverage that's negative of
the economy. So what are some of the pain points
that you have been able to identify that are real
(16:55):
and are contributing at least to the fact that many
Americans are not happy with the Biden economic record in
spite of the fact that you know, some of the
things he's done I think are a really positive step
forward economically. Labor and antitrust really stand out to me.
We covered with Emily on Counterpoints, covered the new DOJ
(17:15):
suit of Live Nation Ticketmaster. That direction is really promising
but doesn't necessarily impact Americans right now today.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Well, look, there's two things going on in the people's
lived experience of the economy. There are things that are
bearing down on them housing costs, the cost of money itself,
interest rates creating higher costs for auto loans.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Transportation and the like.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Grocery prices have up until recently been going up. So
these are real pain points, basically pain points on the
necessities of life, right like food, housing, shelter, etc.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Etc.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
And there is an argument to be made that no
one president and in the course of one term, can
solve all of those problems immediately, problems that were developed
over multiple basically generations of neoliberal economic policies. So you
have these pain points here that are real. I think
(18:18):
the reason any incumbent gets blamed for that is because
they're the incumbent. But I also think that the incumbent
can do things to combat being blamed for that. Let's
go back to let's remember that Franklin Roosevelt ran for
reelection in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Re election in the middle of the Great Depression.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
Right, he didn't run around saying, hey, listen, all you
people are just you know, you're misled about how bad
the economy is.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
You know, the media is gaslighting you, right.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
He positioned himself instead as the sharp tip of the
spear against the corporate forces that were creating that pain,
as opposed saying, hey, everything's getting better.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
So Biden has not really done that.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
He has not really positioned himself as the sharp tip
of that spear. And I think, if we're being honest,
part of it is a white House messaging problem. They
haven't faced a primary that's prompted them to have to
actually really engage day to day. But if we're also
being honest, part of it, I think is the fact
that he's an eighty one year old guy, and it's
hard to communicate a strong, tough economic leadership message as
(19:31):
the sharp tip of the outrage at corporate forces bearing
down on people. It's hard to do when you're as
old as he is. It's not to run him down
for being old. It's not to say it's it's his
fault for being old. But I think almost inherent is
that part of the job of being president is using
the bully pulpit.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
And look, when you're eighty one years old, it's probably
harder to use the bully pulpit.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
By the fact, by virtue of the fact that you're
an older person.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
I think there's that which I noted actually when these
latest inflation numbers came out that were hotter than expected,
and you know, people like you and me who have
been talking about gra inflation from the beginning and were
initially dismissed as like fringe until it was kind of undeniable,
and you've got these CEOs admitting on earning skulls, like yeah,
that's what we're doing. There was an opportunity there for
(20:18):
him to come out and not try to downplay that,
you know, groceries cost more than they did last year
and then that's significant for people, but to really called
the task the corporate price gouchers who are contributing to
that state of affairs. But that would mean he was
a completely different person with frankly a different ideology and
(20:39):
a different level of vigor that he's able at this
point to bring to the table.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Look, I totally agree, and I think the sad part
about this, among other things, is that I actually do
think that the Biden administration has a story to tell.
I think when you look at what's going on at
the FTC, when you look at what's going on doj
anti trust, when you look what's going on at the NLRB,
(21:04):
when you look further back to what happened with the
American Rescue Plan. Now granted that expired, but the American
Rescue Plan a huge investment in the working class of
this country. The Biden administration does have a story to tell.
They just haven't told it very well. And you're never
going to tell that story only through your FTC chairperson
(21:27):
or only through your deputy or assistant Attorney general. For
anti trust, the president has to be the one telling
that story. And I don't think the story has been told,
but I think there's still is time here. And what
I'm saying is is that I think when you look
at the State of the Union address that Biden just delivered,
(21:48):
the themes of that State of the Union address, I
do think we're right on. He really was trying to
position the administration as a counter to corporate power. Is
it a too late I don't think it's exactly too
late yet Is it going to be enough?
Speaker 3 (22:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Can he deliver that message in the noise of the
general election, I'm not so sure. And will they actually
sharpen the message enough where enough people will believe that
they are really serious about being that challenge to corporate power.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
These are all the unanswered questions.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and that's that's my last question for you, David,
is how much are people even processing politics at this
point about being about economics because they have the sense of, like, well,
whether it's a Democrat or Republican, things don't really change
much for me personally, So I guess I should just
vote on like who signals the right way in the
culture war, or how I feel about Donald Trump, which
(22:46):
I don't want to dismiss those things as illegitimate by
the way. I mean, I think the looming threat of
Trump is real, and it's it is legitimate to be
concerned about that. But how much has economics just sort
of vanished from landscape of what people even expect politicians
to deliver at this point?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
Well, this is the part.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
Now You're really getting to my personal pain point, because
it's the thing that I get depressed and demoralized about
that it feels like, at least right now, we're in
an a historical moment in this way that in the past,
are you better off than you were four years ago
used to be kind of the defining a question of
(23:26):
presidential elections, or, as James Carvel had put it, you know,
it's the economy, stupid. I'm not sure we're living in
a society anymore where economics is considered salient and germane
to elections and how we pick presidents, which I think
is actually a problem.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Right to me, that should be the first and foremost
question of.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
What does this presidential election mean for the economic future
and destiny of this country and the economic experience of
people in their daily lives. I think that's the first
and foremost thing that we actually do have the most
control over as a country, right, Like the policies directly
affect us here and now, economic policies, and if those
(24:13):
policies aren't part of how we're making a decision in
these elections, we're basically saying we can't change the economy.
That both parties, all of the candidates are just simply
uninterested in making any kind of change that would benefit
the majority of the population.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I don't want to be in that place.
Speaker 5 (24:33):
I think that's a really that is in a sense,
that is the democracy crisis. If we simply say economics
is just not part of how we pick people.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
I don't want to.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
Believe that we're there. It would really be a break
from history if we are there. But yes, it does
feel like we now live in an era of vibe
elections that are almost exclusively about the culture war and
nothing about the class war.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
David, where can people check out lever Time?
Speaker 3 (25:01):
You can find it at levernews dot com. Just go
right there. You'll find it right there. All right, great
to see you, my friend. As always, thank you, thank
you so much.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Joining me now is Arta Moeni, doctor Arta Moeni. He
is the research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Thank you so much for joining me, Sir, I appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (25:22):
Thank you, Sogeric. Glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
So doctor Moonani, you caught my attention. You had a
long Twitter thread and was backed up by an article
I wanted to put it up here on the screen.
It is the Gaza War and the twilight of international moralism.
So without getting two in the weeds, I think the
takeaway that I had at the very least is that
using moralistic language genocide being one very much in vogue
(25:46):
at the moment, but in general that we deploy in
international politics is in some ways counterproductive and doesn't achieve
the moral outcomes that those who use the term want.
So why don't you give us your argument for why?
Speaker 8 (26:01):
Yeah? Sure, I mean so, I think proponents of international
law often sort of have very good intentions. They want
to end conflicts, they want to they want to minimize casualties,
and they have this sort of attachment with this construct,
which for me is a construct, a non natural construct
(26:22):
called international law. But the moralism that they attach to
their framing of the world actually, in many ways, ideology
ideologizes conflicts, politicizes conflicts, demonizes others, and makes a kind
of actual conversation that's required for diplomacy impossible. So I
(26:44):
think by shaking or shedding our moralistic frames, by shedding
our sort of needs for these kinds of ideological framings,
we can actually and prioritizing national interests and real power relations,
(27:05):
we can develop a certain strategic empathy and either prevent
conflicts from happening prior or to find and find solutions
to them, and resolve them more easily once they are
once they do arise.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
So why don't you operationalize that to let's say the
Israel conflict. Like we said, using the word genocide, apartheid,
all of these things, whether or not they're technically true
or not, but even the definitions the game itself you
view as counterproductive. Let's say, to achieving an end which
I think we all want here, which is a piece
to the conflict, what would your approach be then.
Speaker 8 (27:42):
Yeah, So my framework is that if we have adopted actual,
sort of realistic view of the world and not look
to demonize the other side. So I mean, this happens
on both sides. So when we think about Israel, I
mean I think the is very clear that the sort
of opponents of of Israeli policy use a certain framework
(28:05):
of genocide language labeling to demonize the other side. And
I think that is very unhelpful because it actually kind
of the human dehumanizes and discredits the other side, making
them actually doabble down on the policies that I have
a lot of problems with, and maybe many others do
as well. But I think by doing that tactic actually
(28:29):
is very unhelpful to getting them to change their policies.
And it happens on the other side as well, which
is not just a problem that for example, the left has.
I mean, the pro Israel right, for example, uses similar
kind of human rights discourse or moralizing language by trying
to connect the sort of its own opponents to Hamas
(28:53):
or to or calling them anti Semites or whatnot. I
think these kinds of rhetoric are sort of a framework
that come from ideology and actually thinking about realistic understanding
of how and why states do what they do and
why you know, power relations and how that's important in
(29:15):
this sort of in the world that can really change
the dynamics on the ground. I mean think about for example,
I mean, I would just say this, in America, we
have had a tradition of statesmanship going back to George
Washington that emphasizes what I call and they colleague Washingtonian realism.
(29:35):
We're going back to George Washington, and it prioritizes national
interests and looking at things as they are instead of
focusing on ideology. And we can fast forward to the
Cold War and we have another classic realist like George Kennon,
who also while some hawks in Washington would like to
read him as the as you know, the force behind
(29:58):
sort of military containment, actually understood that ideology cannot be
fought through military force. And actually you need to find
the real sources of conflicts and uh and and the
political appeal of the ideology. So both of these can
be applied to the to the Israel Gazo scenario because
you can see how you know that the very idea
(30:20):
of Israel thinking that it can eliminate Hamas, as we
know from our experience in Afghanistan with the Taliban, it's
impossible to uh physically eliminate a sort of a non
state actor that is steeped in ideology. You have to
find the reasons uh and for for their ideology and
the spread of that ideology. So that's one thing. And
(30:41):
then at the same time you have to understand that yes,
Israel does have significant ontological insecurities and physical insecurities, and
by trying to deal with them and telling them, for example,
that hey, it is not in your in Israel's long
term interest, a long term national interest to engage in
this kind of behavior and this is going to actually
(31:03):
have fundamental consequences for the future of Israel itself. This well, actually,
I think make the conversation on realist ground much better
and much stronger, and towards the CEA spire or towards
whatever resolution we can try to imagine.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Yeah, I get a lot of criticism when I talk
in this way. People say that it's cold blooded. And
one of the things that I liked it took away
from what you said is that you can actually achieve
more moral outcomes, you know, if you actually try and
engage with this, if you look at things on a
level playing field, and you're not always using moral outrage
or anger or you know. For example, I think the
(31:40):
perfect example here is that the Biden administration is branding
Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide, but then they deny
that it is a genocide whenever it's Israel and it's Gaza.
And it's like, well, now you have a selective application
of rhetoric to a term that was supposed to mean something,
now it actually means nothing. So arguably you have made
(32:01):
a disservice to any future ability to say anything about what.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Is or is not a genocide.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Whereas if instead that we look at it as like,
this is bad, this is counterproductive to Russian interest, is
really interest and others, then possibly the Russians would listen
to us, or the Israelis would listen to us. And
vice versa, if we were to look at things actually level.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
Yeah, I mean that that's that's certainly true, I think,
and it actually I think what you're bringing up is
something that I also brought up in the article, which
is the you know, yes, there is there is this
sort of idea of hypocrisy in terms of selecting selected
application of US policy in regards to international law. But
(32:43):
that really shows a different question, which is the fundamental
problem of enforcements in international law. There is no real
global hedgemon now now once we shifted from unipolarity to multipolarity,
and so we don't have an ultimate arbiter and ultimate enforcers.
So for for so long as the United States was,
(33:05):
we were in the unipolar moments of sort of American triumphalism,
and the United States could select and pick and choose
how to interpret international law, how to apply international law
in different conflicts to serve its interest. Now, in the
condition of multiplarity, using this sort of we are now
in a great transition. And within this great transition we
(33:27):
are seeing various different regions of the world. I don't
like the term global soft, but global south is the
common term for it. The various multiple regions of the
world try are basically doing the same thing. The specter
of interpretation is open to everyone, and so that actually
means that what the United States specifically did since nineteen
(33:48):
ninety after evolved the Soviet Union, we sort of shifted
in the nineties to this sort of selective politicization of
the international law framework, using human rights and using uh,
you know, humanous as a weapon, using responsibility to protect,
you know, all of those things that we did. Now
others are doing as well. So almost for any conflict
(34:08):
that you can think about in the world, you have
the situation where Russia, for example, uses the same the
very same argument that America used for NATO intervention in
Serbia to justify its own intervention and aggressions in Ukraine.
And Ukraine also uses this, you know, the same principles
(34:29):
of the UN Charter in terms of self defense and
territorial integrity to make its own claim the sort of
shrouded in legitimacy. So again, all of these states are
engaged in PLOW. I mean again, the relationship of power
is key, and I think by not looking at the
power relations and the fact that nowadays international law is
(34:50):
used as as an instrument for rhetorical and reputational influence
and prestige to and you. Basically, once you do that,
you get your side your partisans to accept your your
side of things and use and basically have legitimizing arguments
for your side of things, and your opponents will have
(35:11):
the opposite view and opposite interpretation. This is the problem
of lack of enforcement that's inherent to international law as
it is constructed. Because again, the international law, the world
first ward, is international. We know, as any good realist would,
that the international system is not actually a sort of
a monolith. It is not doesn't have a sovereign, and
(35:34):
therefore it is anarchic. The condition of anarchy is returning
where there is no unipolar order and no global sovereign
like the United States too, that that can get away
with doing those arbituations still according to its interests, but
it can it cannot get away with it anymore, and
(35:54):
other countries are doing it the same thing. So it
means that effectively, the dawn of multi polarity shows the
tensions inherent to international law because we cannot see it
in an international way. We don't have that sort of
enforcement mechanism. But that takes us to the second problem
of international law as well, because international law is again
(36:18):
the category of law is sovereign, and sovereignty that's at a
domestic category. But also that implies that there are certain conventions,
traditions and shared heritage. Let's say that has given way
to codifying those traditions as law. However, what we have
now this construct sacred cow of international law. It basically
(36:44):
was premised on a particular code that was a European
code that came out of the nineteenth and twentieth century,
but then it was codified in post nineteen forty five.
So it's a particular parochial viewpoint of the world in
a world that's actually diverse. It doesn't have enforcements, but
it also tends to universalize from a parochial position and
(37:07):
basically try to make its position as the universal position.
And the rest of the world that has different conceptions
and different forms of life and different philosophies and different
norms and values fundamentally now rejects that, but it increasingly
has the power to say no and interpret it differently.
So I think we need to get away from this
international law of framework because it's unhelpful for a peaceful
(37:31):
and I would there to say ethical relation between states
that's based on some sort of regularity and rules. As
proponents of the rules based order'd like to say that
actually would happen when you prioritize power and think about
power in that way. This mockery of power politics and
real politics as something that's fundamentally immoral blinds us to
(37:54):
the fact that seeing the world as it is instead
of through the lens of ideology. And again, international law
by definition is ideological because it it reflects only one
perspective of the world, and then it universalizes it. And
you know it was contingent as well, so there's nothing
natural about it. It was always ideological, and it gives
(38:15):
us this framework which can be abused and instrumentalized and
politicized and actually makes the cause of peace much harder
to achieve.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Really well said.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
My favorite is when people are like, the Russian invasion
of Ukraine is illegal. I'm like, well, is there a
legal invasion. There's no such thing as illegal invasion, invasions
or invasions. It's like, it doesn't mean anything. And if
it is illegal, now what who's going to enforce it? Oh,
you can't do anything about it, well, then international law
is fake. So I really appreciate you, sir. I really
recommend people go. I'll put your Twitter account and everything
(38:47):
in the description. Very interesting thinker, one who wants I
think the same outcomes as many of the people who
use this rhetoric, but is advocating for a different course,
one that I endorse wholeheartedly. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
We appreciate you.
Speaker 8 (39:00):
Thank you. So I got about to get here.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.