Welcome to Home & Away. It’s been quite a week. The Russia-Ukraine war, finally turning in favor of the latter, has now gone on longer than World War I. And then there’s the extraordinary account in The New York Times of how the White House Situation Room, normally a venue reserved for sober, highly classified conversations on national security, became ground zero for, shall we say, graphic conversations devoted to limiting the political fallout from the ties between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. And, of course, the Knicks won the pivotal fourth game of the NBA Finals and now stand on the brink of their first championship in over half a century.
Deal or No Deal
But I will begin with Iran, focusing not so much on what has been happening as on what is likely to happen. Yes, there have been direct military exchanges between Iran and Israel and between Iran and the United States, but nothing here suggests Tehran or Washington are looking for a resumption of all-out hostilities. Of course, events can always escalate out of control, something that would leave everyone – Iran, Israel, the United States, the Gulf countries, the people of Iran – worse off than they are, which is already far worse off than before the war got underway three-and-a-half months ago.
Still, there is a revival of talk about bombing our way to success. The Secretary of War threatens that the United States will “negotiate with bombs,” while today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page argues for military escalation. The president, for his part, talks about hitting Iran very hard and taking Kharg Island. All this is nothing so much as the triumph of hope over experience and risks a wider regional war that does costly long-term damage to energy and water infrastructure.
One motive for the revival of muscular language is frustration with the slow pace of negotiations, along with unhappiness over having to defend what can realistically be negotiated. For understandable reasons, much of the conversation has focused on whether there will be a deal between Washington and Tehran and what such a deal will look like.
The outlines of such an accord have been known for some time: a reopened Strait of Hormuz, an agreement to cap (either by dilution or shipping it out) the known enriched uranium inside Iran along with an Iranian commitment to placing limits on other aspects of its nuclear program, and economic relief for Iran, brought about by unfreezing assets held in Western banks or easing sanctions.
The best hope for reaching a deal with Iran is to keep or, better yet, raise the economic pressure on Iran. This is where the regime is vulnerable. Months ago, I advocated for blockading the Strait of Hormuz, which President Trump now celebrates as “the most successful Blockade in the history of Naval Warfare.” He might consider building on it and interfering with Iran’s ability to export oil by truck and rail. To buy time, the Trump administration might also hold talks with other countries on measures to temporarily reduce demand for Middle East oil and gas. These and related options could all be usefully debated in the White House Situation Room if it frees up.
The good news is that a deal will eventually emerge. The bad news is that it will not bring peace, long-term stability, or a return to the status quo ante. In no way will it justify the decision to undertake this war. The Strait may be reopened, but it will not stay open, certainly not unconditionally and permanently. Iran may decide to shut it one day to ships carrying oil or other cargo to countries selling arms to Israel. Or to countries refusing to help it financially. Iran could even limit use of the Strait for some manufactured security, environmental, or safety reason to remind others that they must take Tehran’s concerns into account or they will forfeit the ability to transit.
Similarly, any nuclear pact will not solve the problem. What happens if inspectors are denied access? Or do not receive promised information? Or Iran does not disclose all of its nuclear-related infrastructure and shields elements of it from inspection? Or after whatever moratorium agreed to on enrichment expires? It is impossible to inspect every building or to erase knowledge. It is realistic to assume that many in Iran have determined that the only reason the country was attacked in the first place is because it did not have nuclear weapons. Monitoring and limiting Iran’s nuclear activities promises to be an open-ended challenge.
Then there is the near certainty that any U.S.-Iran agreement will not preclude Iran’s support for its proxy groups or place meaningful limits on its conventional arms. Which means friction, and at times limited conflict, between Israel and Iran, will not go away. All this bodes ill for the U.S.-Israel relationship. It also bodes ill for the region, since this or future U.S. administrations will want nothing so much as to turn their attention to other parts of the world and to the home front. I expect those now running Iran are counting on just this and are biding their time.
Rigged
I also want to focus on something domestic, as after all this is Home and Away. It was hard not to be struck by the reaction to the voting in California and, more specifically, by the claims of the President, the Speaker of the House, and various Republican senators that the process was rigged. Missing was a shred of evidence to support these claims.
Yes, the process of counting votes there is frustratingly slow, and this needs to be fixed. But that is not the issue. What we are hearing and seeing could be the Republican playbook during the midterms this fall and again during the presidential election in 2028. I truly hope I am being overly alarmist here, but as they say, only time will tell.
A three-part White House/Republican strategy is coming into view. The apparent goal is to undermine free and fair elections that Republicans fear would result in Democratic victories. The first part of the strategy, redistricting, is well under way thanks to a Supreme Court unwilling to protect the principle of one person, one vote. This will result in fewer Democratic gains this November.
A second element of this emerging strategy could be efforts to repress the vote, whether by reducing voting opportunities in Democrat-dominated areas within Republican states (by limiting the number of polling stations, personnel, hours, the list goes on) or by deploying ICE or the military to intimidate would-be voters into staying at home.
A third feature of the strategy could well be claims that unwanted results are the result of fraud, providing an excuse to seize voting machines or ballots, discard some votes, or even send contested elections into the Senate or House, where Republican majorities would decide the outcome. That all this could be attempted at a time when we are meant to be celebrating our 250th year as a democracy is irony masking tragedy.
The Sporting Life
As noted at the outset of this week’s missive, the Knicks are up 3-1 in their best-of-seven series with the Spurs of San Antonio. This follows the Knicks winning the first two games in San Antonio, losing Game 3 here at home, and then winning Game 4.
After the Knicks lost the third game, I, like many others, predicted that whichever team won Game 4 would likely win the series. This left me incredibly unhappy, as the Knicks nearly got run out of Madison Square Garden early on during Game 4 Wednesday night. They were down 27 points at the half, and at times it didn’t seem to be that close. The Spurs couldn’t miss. The Knicks looked lethargic. The officials looked to be in the tank for San Antonio. I was beyond dejected.
Confession time. I lost hope and went to sleep. I woke up hours later with a sick, growling dog who had to go out—and to a dozen text messages from friends excited and then some about the comeback of all comebacks, the greatest ever in NBA Finals history. There is a lesson here, one Churchill preached in the Second World War, one about never giving up. Lesson learned.
With less than two seconds left in the game, Mike Breen’s call at the decisive tip-in by my choice for series MVP, O.G. Anunoby -- “It’s good! It’s good! It’s good!” -- brought back echoes of 1951, of Russ Hodges announcing the game on radio when Bobby Thomson hit the game-winning home run over the Brooklyn Dodgers: “The Giants Win the Pennant! The Giants Win the Pennant! The Giants Win the Pennant!” I expect this moment will endure just as that one did.
Game 5 is this Saturday night in Texas, and if the home team wins, then it’s back here in New York City Tuesday for Game 6. And if all else fails, there’s Game 7 back in Texas on Friday, June 19, although ideally the Knicks get it done in five. As that other sports legend Yogi Berra is said to have said, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” But all things being equal, I like our chances.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Tuesday, June 9: Alternate Shots Episode 30.
Tuesday, June 9: Morning Joe on International Rescue Committee Report.
Thursday, June 11: Morning Joe on Iran.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.