Why I Don’t Take Anti-Israeli Conspiracies Seriously

Earlier this year, libertarian-esque Congressman Thomas Massie was defeated in the primary by Navy Captain Ed Gallrein for his seat for Congress.  A major point of controversy in this race was the role pro-Israel lobbying groups played in the defeat of the Congressman, especially since Massie took an increasingly anti-Israel/Epstein stance during his most recent term.  There is an argument that could be had about how that impacted the race as pro-Israeli groups did spend a lot on the race in a bid to make sure Gallrein won.

However, overall influence Israel can be argued to be overstated as there have been high-profile elections where pro-Israel groups backed a candidate who lost.  The best example of this is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who defeated Senator John Cornyn in the primary for Cornyn’s seat.  Of note, Cornyn was endorsed by AIPAC while Ken Paxton was not.  What both Gallrein and Paxton do have in common though is that both were endorsed by President Donald Trump, who has his own mixed history with Israel.

For whatever reason, there’s a belief that if America takes any action, Israel must somehow be secretly organizing the events behind it.  This can mean simply blaming Israel for actions the U.S. is taking, such as the war in Iran, the war in Iraq, or foreign aid donations.  Though it’s fair to say they have influence over such events, the conspiracies can go even further, such as blaming Israel for assassinations or acts of terrorism, all of which are usually discredited easily.  Then there’s the outright fake news stories about Israel, but those aren’t related to the topic at hand.  In short, if something happens in the U.S., it’s usually Israel’s fault.

Now, there is plenty of justification for having issues with Israel.  From the attack on the U.S. Liberty to the Johnathon Pollard spy case to historical bad blood with our NATO ally, Turkey, Israel has never been a perfect ally to the U.S. so there is room for criticism.  Also, it’s impossible to say they have no influence in the U.S. since pro-Israel lobbies do spend a lot in U.S. elections.  So it is worth a discussion on whether or not this influence is good.  Still, Israel is hardly the only allied country to try and interfere in U.S. elections (we’ve certainly interfered in theirs) and they’re not the only ally we’ve had international incidents with (such as France, Britain, Chile, and others) so singling them out seems naive.  So that does beg one to wonder why they get singled out in comparison to other problems the U.S. has had with other countries.

Well, regardless of reasoning, the real problem with the Israeli conspiracies is that they reduce American agency.  The idea that the U.S. is completely independent of international affairs and the only reason anything could ever happen is because of a random politician in Jerusalem eliminates the idea that America has a history, relationships, or leaders with their own agenda.  Honestly, it gives another country too much credit by claiming America is just its puppet and somehow makes the belief that ending a relationship with it would magically make its problems go away

Most of the major actions the U.S. has taken in the Middle East have been based on its own interests in one way or another.  After all, we did have a history of issues with both Iran and Iraq prior to invading them so it’s not completely surprising the wars happened.  Similarly, the various conspiracies surrounding them about assassinations or terrorist attacks aren’t possible to prove so speculating on them only gives cover to the people who actually committed them.  As a result, it makes Israel just a scapegoat for bad people more than it does say anything about the relationship with the country.

Another way to look at the situation is to consider our relationship with Israel as a chicken-and-egg problem.  Yes, we do a lot of things that benefit Israel, but Israel does have a lot of enemies that we also have.  Yes, a lot of politicians take money from AIPAC, but that wasn’t controversial until recently because Israel was usually considered an ally or because of its history.  When we’ve had issues with them, we’ve not been shy of letting them know and telling them off.

The truth is, we’re in this situation because our relationship with Israel is changing.  We originally supported Israel as a Cold War ally, but that war is over.  Similarly, the generation that was most impacted by what created Israel is finding itself increasingly politically irrelevant while younger generations tend to (at best) question our relationship with Israel.  As a result, it’s worth asking what our relationship with Israel is now that the reasons we were friends have changed.  However, that’s true for literally every NATO ally as our country increasingly pivots to a growing Cold War with China so that’s really just more of a broader conversation we need to have about foreign policy over all.

Still, the Israel hate is particularly annoying as it oversimplifies US foreign relationships and even eliminates responsibility from poor decisions.  Like all conspiracies, it simply allows someone to believe there’s an external reason we haven’t done what they wanted as opposed to accepting that what they want may not be popular with the legislators, or their voters.  For that reason, it’s why I find people who obsess over it (not merely have opinions on it but make it their main focus) to be saying more about themselves than Israel.

American Foreign Policy: You’re Either With Us or Against Us!

Unsurprisingly, there was mass controversy surrounding statements by double President Donald J. Trump last month.  While this is the norm, specifically the post will be addressing statements he made to reduce military exercises with South Korea.  Much of the world was shocked by his decision since historically South Korea has been a vital ally against long time U.S. enemies North Korea and China.

Now, many were shocked at the President’s announcement, especially since it seemed to be in part related to a former bromance between Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.  However, Trump is a master of misdirecting public conversation so the immediate conversation ignored the most important part of the cancellation.  Specifically, his decision to cancel the military exercises over South Korea’s decision to not support the U.S. in its current war with Iran.  As such, the U.S. is reconsidering many foreign relationships as it is now asking how truly loyal the rest of the world is to its objectives.

South Korea is hardly the only country to face repercussions over perceived lack of loyalty.  Arguments over Iran led to the President reducing troops in Germany and Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly questioning the purpose of NATO.  Then, of course, there was the fighting between the Vatican and Washington.  In short, there seems to be a belief that if you question the U.S., the country will start to reduce its support for yours.

Military correspondent for Newsmax Ryan McBeth noted that the United States is increasingly cancelling its relationship with countries that won’t support its objectives.  Keeping in mind that Trump got elected on a promise to reduce foreign entanglements and focus on American issues at home, this is seen more as a surprise to his non-interventionist supporters.  However, it seems that America First is being less of a call against foreign intervention and more a demand to other countries over who they need to please.

So this is reprioritizing other country’s military objectives away from their own citizens and more towards ours.  Keeping in mind that support from the United States makes up a large portion of the European defense budget and we are protecting their ability to trade, most of those countries can’t exactly walk away from us.  If that doesn’t come as increased spending for NATO, that may instead mean support in other ways such as required sanctions on military enemies.  Keeping in mind that Europe wanted increased trade with Iran, their interests may not be represented by the U.S. at this time.

That begs the question then as to what this will lead to going forward.  After all, there are moral concerns about US foreign policy, economic concerns as well, and concerns about feasibility.  How might the rest of the world handle such decisions or how should it act?

Well, the purpose of this blogpost isn’t to make moral judgments or recommendations.  Merely to make an awareness of what seems to be the thinking or direction current events are going.  Instead, we’ll be discussing the possible consequences that could come from this direction on and for foreign policy.

Now, the priority of every country needs to be the well-being of its people.  Every country has to consider whether a relationship with the United States is worth it.  So what that determination is could likely lead to one of three foreign policy outcomes.

First, countries get increasingly independent or form new alliances.  Many countries, like Saudi Arabia or South Korea, have the capability to pursue developing the nuclear bomb, and if they can’t trust the U.S. to provide proper deterrence against their historic enemies, they may be provoked into increasing the number of countries in the world with nuclear bombs.  In addition, the U.S. 's frenemies Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to counter their rivals (and two U.S. frenemies) Israel, India, and (US enemy) Iran.  This alone shows that other countries are capable of forming alliances that exist outside of the European or Chinese spheres of influence and thus could make new counter balances to existing power.

Then again, other countries may have an interest in simply replacing their dependence on the U.S. with dependency on China.  Europe has been pursuing new, better relationships with China as Britain pursued building a better embassy in London or returning the Chagos Islands to China’s ally Mauritius while France has pursued greater trade with China and sought their support to end the war in Ukraine.  In addition, Canada, the U.S.’s neighbor to the north, had pursued a greater oil trade deal with China.  So, instead of developing new alliances or replace the US with their own militaries, these countries may just want a new creditor to continue their dependency.

Of course, the U.S. likely wouldn’t let that happen peacefully.  After all, the country has seen China as a threat, if not outright enemy, for at least the last decade and a half so it’s no surprise that it wouldn’t want its allies making allies with the dragon empire.  Just ask Alberta, home to most of Canada’s oil, which is allegedly receiving US support in its bid for independence at a time when Canada is both pursuing better relations with China AND a trade war with the U.S., its biggest trading partner.  Likely, the U.S. has other plans for other nations as well so it’s worth asking if pursuing such a new alliance is worth it.

Finally, there’s the possibility that other countries just accept the U.S.’s new foreign policy and decide that it’s better to stay in its good graces.  After all, the U.S. still has the world’s largest GDP and most advanced military so there are reasons to stay friends with it.  Across Latin America the U.S. is supporting anti-crime initiatives (with or without that country’s support) so there is a benefit to receiving U.S. aid.  Meanwhile, the overthrow of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela told that country what can happen if you cross President Trump, so unsurprisingly the new President is all too happy to work with the Secretary of State.  So there are still people that want to do business with us.

Whatever happens, this is America’s foreign policy until 2029 and (I personally find it) doubtful that it’s going to change anytime soon.  We’ll see what the future holds, but this is what other countries will have to accept if they want a relationship with the world’s only superpower.  Either way, only the reactions of those countries will determine if that direction is here to stay.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: An Overview

With the President’s decision to start a war with Iran, I thought it would be a good idea to get a book on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military that seems to be running the Iranian Government.  Fortunately, Amazon didn’t disappoint as they had a book readily available.  That 2023 book was “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Defining Iran’s Military Doctrine.”  The book gave me an overview on the Corps’ history, military tactics, purpose, and overall impact on the region.

Now, the book itself isn’t a thorough history book or overview of the IRGC itself.  Rather, it serves mostly as a literature review of other writings on the military force and a general background on them.  It wasn’t super in-depth, but I enjoyed it as someone unfamiliar with the IRGC because it served as a primer for understanding them and their relation to US policy.  So, I’ll be giving an overview of its contents as I’m hoping that may help others understand it and the current war as well.

To start off on its history, the IRGC was created by Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, as a paramilitary organization to defend the revolution that brought him to power and ousted the Shah.  Its primary focus was purging institutions, especially the military, of elements disloyal to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and enforcing edicts passed by the country's leaders.  Over time though, its role greatly expanded as it ended up supplanting the country’s military, the Artesh, and controlling the country itself.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC saw its role greatly expand in defending the country against the invading forces of Saddam Hussein.  Shortly after that, the death of Supreme Leader Khomeini resulted in his replacement by Ali Khamenei.  According to the book, the IRGC helped with his rise to power and he, in turn, greatly expanded their power in the country.

With the IRGC serving as the institution defending Khamenei’s reign, it played a key role in keeping the government in check.  Almost every President elected in the 90s up until the mid 2000s was a reformer, and the IRGC opposed every attempt at reform.  It sent orders to the President, put down protests, and worked to make sure its own people were constantly in control or running the government.

Then, in 2005, it helped get hardliner and Mayor of Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected President.  Despite not being seen as an intellectual heavyweight, Ahmadinejad did continue on his predecessor’s push to privatize the country’s economy.  Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad had a bunch of the government’s companies sold to people with ties to the IRGC, which was not the point of privatization.  So after that, the IRGC started to control the economy and thus the country at large.  The only thing worth consideration is that Ahmadinejad’s successor also attempted reform, and failed, so the history of Iran’s civilian government is to try and fail to reform what is now a military dictatorship.

Now, going back to the Iranian Revolution, the book also chronicles failures in the US to actually address Iran throughout its history.  Specifically, back during the Shah’s reign, Jimmy Carter wavered in his support for the Shah which Khomeini used as justification to return to Iran and that lack of confidence led to the Shah’s overthrow.  The Reagan Administration was equally inconsistent as it on one hand supported Saddam’s war with Iran, and then sold weapons to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua.

After that, the next three US Presidents, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush didn’t really have much of an Iran policy as they all became focused on Iraq.  In the vacuum that was created by Saddam’s removal though, Iran started greatly expanding its military network into Iraq and improving economic ties with them.  So the US didn’t have a consistent policy on Iran until the 2010s, and its actions greatly helped Iran expand its influence in the region.

The book then discussed Obama’s policy of negotiation with the Iranian government and the 2015 deal that was struck and Trump’s decision to withdraw.  The book tended to lean more in favor of Obama’s approach, which is why it notes more flaws in Trump’s proposal like how they started building more centrifuges after the US withdrew from the deal.  The withdrawal was also used by the IRGC to portray weakness by President Rouhani and justify curtailing his attempts at reform.  In short, the US hasn’t had a serious approach towards Iran until 2015 and now we are in the midst of a war with them.

Of note, the book also discussed the IRGC’s approach towards war.  Specifically, they support an emerging tactic known as “Hybrid War” which is still being defined.  The idea is that the IRGC uses a combination of military tactics including conventional war, guerilla war, terrorism, and cyberwarfare to complete its military objectives.  It also supports militias and paramilitary organizations in other countries such as Iraq and the Houthis accomplish its goals internationally.  So it’s not fighting a traditional enemy as they’ll support whoever or whatever to accomplish their military objectives.  As a result, a conventional war is not what’s going to take them down.

Finally, the book discusses what that means for future negotiations and handling Iran BEFORE the US’s invasion which took out Khamenei.  It did have some key points such as that Iran would never abandon its missile program so the focus should instead be on addressing its nuclear program.  It also notes that Islam is, ironically, becoming less of a focus for the IRGC as they become increasingly focused on controlling and maintaining the government.  Similarly, they would prevent the government from doing anything without their approval which meant any actual negotiations would not be possible without their approval so they would be a key roadblock to any meaningful negotiations.  A lot of this is irrelevant now that we are at war and Khamenei is dead, but there is one point that remains clear: the IRGC is the main power in the country, they have no intention of doing anything the reduces their power, and a lot of what they want is at odds with the US’s objectives in the region and the country.

I’m not posting this not to say I agree with every tenant of the book, but more to give a brief overview of it.  A lot of this does explain how we got to where we are, what’s going on now, and what we can expect after the war.  For that reason, I recommend giving the book a read.

The Future of the Political Parties

 

A previous blogpost dealt with the future of the Republican Party under Donald Trump.

However, that same post left off asking what that would mean for the party as a whole.  Well to steal a line from Captain Barbossa, the parties are to “be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound”.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the parties will be tomorrow what they are today.  In fact, I predict that, based on personal experience, the parties will actually grow to reflect each other over time while the differences become more regional than ideological.

It’s a bit of a cliche to talk about how divided American society is now.  A Gallup poll shows that the political parties are more ideologically divided now than before.  More interesting though is that the parties are also extremely divided along territorial lines with the Democrats dominating the cities and the Republicans dominating the countryside.

Another interesting trend is that many people are fleeing blue states in favor of red ones.  After all, blue states lost more congressional representatives in the last census while red states picked them up.  One could claim that’s irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as once red states like Georgia and Arizona are now purple, but, on the flip side, purple states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida have been voting Republican more consistently these days.  So there is a growing territorial reshuffling of where the national power center is and that’s likely to continue.

So it’s likely that people are splintering into areas where people are closer to their political beliefs or, at least, not in favor of policies that hold their states’ economic growth back.  However, elections in the U.S. are run by states, not landmasses.  There are still decent sized enclaves of Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states.  So, what happens to them as their states become more ideologically captured by either party?

Well, I was knocking doors for Michelle Davis last month during the campaign and some conversations I had may provide the answer.  There were several anti-Trump homes that told me they were voting in the primary just to stop Michelle from winning because she was endorsed by the President.  With Indiana having a Republican supermajority in the legislature and no statewide elected official that’s affiliated with the Democrats, it seems these voters believed it was better to vote in the Republican primary, which is legal since Indiana has a functionally open primary system, to get a more moderate or anti-Trump candidate since the Democratic is unlikely to win regardless of the nominee.

One could make fun of Indiana for being a one party state, but that’s true for other regions as well.  I knew people who lived in Chicago who simply didn’t vote there because Dems always won so voting there was a waste of time.  I had the same experience in Bloomington, Indiana because the conventional wisdom was that Republicans never win so it was always better to run as a Democrat.  Point is, everyone knows a region that’s essentially a one-party state and current redistricting battles are making more of them.

Which brings us back to the Greg Walker voters I was talking to that were voting just to oppose Donald Trump.  Honestly, it’s likely that may become a more likely phenomenon as the states become increasingly captured by their respective parties.  It’s possible that more voters may find themselves joining or running in parties they don’t necessarily connect with because that’s what party is in control in their area.  After all, there is no way to have influence without being involved in the community, and if you aren’t part of the local party, it’s harder to influence politicians.

With the growing regional divide, that likely may determine what the parties look like going forward.  It may no longer be conservative vs. liberal or libertarian vs progressive, but rural vs urban or south vs west coast.  Ironically, this may lead to more moderate candidates and decreased ideological polarization because it means the candidates will need to balance out the new factions in the party.  So there would be less ideological divides, but more regional divides instead.

Now I’m going to wrap this up by acknowledging that I’m not very good at making predictions.  After all, if I was then Bob Iger wouldn’t have returned as Disney’s CEO and Pete Buttigieg would have been the Dem nominee 2020.  However, I do notice trends so discussing possible consequences of those trends is still worth considering.  After all, one of my predictions may not come true, but that doesn’t mean a different possibility I haven’t thought of may address the reasons behind it.

However, with growing pushes to make it harder to vote for political opponents to win going forward, from redistricting to making Indiana a closed primary state, joining the dominant party may be the only way to be engaged in politics locally or higher.  With Republicans enjoying a slight advantage in terms of registration, that would definitely bode well for them nationally.

So will this be the future of the party or will something else happen entirely?  Only time will tell.  However, never forget that many of the state senators that got primaried last week had been in the state senate for decades.  It will be interesting to see who’s still in office in 20 years.

What the Heck is Going on at the Pentagon?

Strange things are going on at the Pentagon.  That’s hardly surprising knowing the U.S. government, but the actions taken under Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have been confounding.  I could mention the fact that the Pentagon is now soliciting car manufacturers to start building weapons, or I could mention how much they were spending on lobster, but neither is the point of this blogpost.  No, the purpose of this blogpost is to discuss the strange religious news that keeps coming from the US’s military.

Most prominently, there was an announcement of lawsuits claiming that various military commanders were saying that Trump had been anointed by God to start Armageddon by invading Iran.  Those who have studied the book of Revelation would know that that’s not how the apocalypse works, and the lack of magisterial sanctioning should be more than enough cause for its rejection.  However this was not the only strange spiritual statement coming from the Pentagon.

This year, Hegseth also had a pastor lead a worship service at the Pentagon, and that same pastor later called for bans on Eucharistic processions for being idolatry.  Also, Pete Hegseth quoted a Bible verse from Pulp Fiction that was only based on a verse from the book of Ezekiel.  So there seems to be a recurring theme of religious fervor at the Pentagon, but none of it is based on a sound foundation.

It would be easier if this could be blamed purely on one cabinet official, but this has expanded beyond the War Department.  For whatever reason, the President decided to post an image of himself as Jesus on social media, and his senior advisor to the White House Faith Office once said “saying no to Trump would be saying no to God.”  So there is a growing spirituality in the White House that seems to idolize the President.

One could wonder why these events are happening.  It’s possible that we may be living in a country where the leader believes himself to be a God, but he has denied as much and claimed the Jesus image was an accident so there’s no direct evidence of that.  It would be easy to write this off as a self-serving manipulation of scripture to serve his agenda, but the line between fanaticism and selfishness has traditionally been a very confusing one.  It’s possible then that there is some genuine attempt at spirituality, though a tragically misguided one.

After all, there has been discussion of the President’s spirituality.  Former Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan once said that Trump takes his faith seriously.  Similarly, the President had created a religious freedom board that included multiple prominent bishops, including Bishop Barron, who has both worked with and opposed him at times, and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, whose diocese is one of the few in the U.S. that is providing new priests above replacement.  So it’s not as simple to write this off as completely disingenuous unless we doubt the sincerity of these bishops as well.

Also, there are members of his administration who have been outwardly religious and yet not in a self-serving way.  Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. once said before getting his position that he prays 30 minutes a day.  Similarly, JD Vance converted to Catholicism long before running for senate.  He’s had his contentions with the church, such as his spat with Pope Francis, yet he met with the pope shortly before his passing and has apologized for other spats.  So there is a case that there is sincerity in the faith of these men.

So that does beg the question then as to what might be motivating these strange actions from Washington.  Well, I’m not talking to these people so I couldn’t guess what’s in their hearts.  Still, these have been strange actions indeed and it should cause concern for the average Christian.

Now, before leaving, I’m going to leave advice when navigating these troubled times.  First of all, the book of Psalms warns “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.”  All humans are fallible and prone to sin, so putting them as the center of salvation inevitably ends in destruction.  It’s why we need to trust in God above all things.

Second, St. Faustina once wrote that “Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience.” Whatever is said by anyone, a person must always be in obedience to God’s will first and foremost.  When they reject it, it will usually reveal evil and for that reason must be ignored.

Finally, Proverbs 19:21 states “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established.”  Whatever we choose to put our support behind, it is God’s  Will that we must prioritize.  So when choosing which side to be on, we should always do our best to prioritize that.  If we abide by those three rules, I think we’ll turn out alright.