Do America’s Allies Realize Who They’re Messing With?

If I (meaning NATO, Australia, etc) relied on American protection, I’d join America’s war on Iran because America will cut friends who don’t help out. How I felt about the Iran War doesn’t matter. If I rely on a paycheck, I follow the boss’s orders.

Do Europe and Japan and Saudi Arabia and Australia realize who they’re messing with? FAFO.

You follow the boss or you risk the job. The European response right now is not defiance. It is delay, calibration, and hope that the bill never fully comes due.
The raw power reality is not in dispute. NATO runs on American logistics, American intelligence, American nuclear deterrence. Strip that out and most European militaries become regionally capable at best. Japan, South Korea, and Australia face the same structural dependency in the Pacific. These are not rhetorical points. They are the arithmetic of modern military power. The alliance is not a partnership of equals. It never was.
What Europe is doing right now looks like cowardice dressed up as principle. Calls for restraint and diplomacy while American and Israeli aircraft operate in the region. Statements condemning Iranian aggression while declining to participate. This is the classic free-rider play, and European governments have run it before. They ran it in Libya in 2011, where some NATO members refused to strike targets. They ran it after Iraq, when the alliance nearly fractured. They are running it again now.
But the calculation is not simply moral. European governments face publics that have no appetite for another Middle Eastern war. After Iraq and Afghanistan, that sentiment hardened into something close to a structural constraint on what governments can do without political consequences at home. A German or French leader who commits forces to a war against Iran risks a domestic backlash that threatens their government. So they hedge. They make statements. They stay inside the umbrella without grabbing the rifle.
Eastern European governments, especially those closest to Russian pressure, tend to align more tightly with Washington because their security dependence is more acute and more visible to their publics. Poland, the Baltic states, and others feel the cost of American protection in a way that France or Spain does not calculate the same way. That split runs through NATO on almost every serious question.
The strategic autonomy project is the tell. For twenty years, European leaders have talked about reducing dependence on American military power. The Iran war is showing exactly how hollow that project remains. Europe cannot project meaningful force into the Middle East without American logistical support. It cannot sustain a serious air campaign. Its missile defense architecture leans on American systems. Strategic autonomy was always more of a political aspiration than a military program, and crises expose the gap between aspiration and capability.
The implicit rule of hegemonic alliance systems is that the powerful state carries the burden, and in return it expects deference in crises. That rule has a tolerance threshold, but it is not infinite. Washington has begun to ask out loud whether European allies are worth the commitment. That conversation predates the current war and will outlast it. But a crisis like this accelerates it.
If American policymakers conclude that allies hedge every time the cost rises, the response will be FAFO. Demands for higher defense spending, already a live NATO argument. Selective withdrawal of capabilities from states that do not align. A shift toward bilateral arrangements with countries that show loyalty. Trump already gestured toward this logic, and the impulse did not disappear when his administration did.
The Europeans know all of this. They are not naive about the leverage Washington holds. What they are doing is running a bet. The bet is that American commitment to the alliance runs deep enough in the military and institutional establishment to survive their hedging. That the system has enough inertia to absorb their nonparticipation without triggering real consequences. That bet has paid off before. Whether it pays off this time depends on how long the war runs, how costly it becomes, and whether Washington decides to force the question explicitly.
The Iran war is a test of the hierarchy inside the Western alliance. The Middle East is the occasion. The real subject is whether Europe can keep the protection without paying the price, and how much longer Washington tolerates that arrangement.

Posted in Iran, NATO | Comments Off on Do America’s Allies Realize Who They’re Messing With?

Decoding The Crown Center for Middle East Studies

The Crown Center for Middle East Studies sits inside a specific American academic alliance structure. If you decode it through David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory, the key question is not “what do they believe?” but “which coalitions reward them for saying certain things?”

Start with the institutional base. The Crown Center is housed at Brandeis University. Brandeis has a particular reputation inside the American university ecosystem. It is a liberal academic institution with strong ties to Jewish philanthropy, a tradition of Israel studies, and a donor base that historically includes people who care about Israel but who are also embedded in mainstream American liberal institutions.

That creates a very specific alliance environment. The Crown Center therefore sits at the intersection of three overlapping coalitions.

First coalition: liberal American academia
Second coalition: mainstream pro-Israel donors and institutions
Third coalition: Washington policy and think tank networks

Alliance Theory predicts that actors located at this intersection will produce analysis that keeps all three alliances comfortable enough to maintain cooperation. That means several predictable intellectual patterns.

One. Moderate criticism of Israel is permitted and often encouraged. Inside liberal academia, credibility requires demonstrating independence from Israeli government positions. If a center simply echoes Israeli policy, it loses status in universities and journals. So scholars at places like Crown often critique settlement policy, Israeli right wing politics, or military tactics.

But the criticism almost always stays within certain boundaries. It will not question Israel’s legitimacy as a state or its basic security framework. That would break the donor and institutional alliance.

Two. Preference for “policy realism” language. You will see constant use of phrases like stability, regional order, de escalation, diplomatic channels, and conflict management. That vocabulary signals alignment with Washington foreign policy networks. Scholars who speak this language can circulate between universities, think tanks, congressional testimony, and media commentary.

In alliance terms, the language marks coalition membership.

Three. Emphasis on expertise and regional knowledge. Academic centers need a comparative advantage over media pundits and political activists. Their currency is scholarly expertise. That means deep work on Iranian politics, Arab public opinion, Israeli society, and Islamist movements. But even here alliance incentives shape the focus. Topics that intersect with policy debates in Washington get more attention because they create prestige and funding opportunities.

Four. Bridging role between academia and policy elites. Crown Center scholars often function as translators. They convert academic research into forms usable by journalists, diplomats, and think tanks.

Actors who sit at the intersection of multiple high-status coalitions tend to avoid definitive stances on litmus-test issues, not from intellectual cowardice but from structural logic. The Crown Center maintains a posture of scholarly neutrality precisely because it lets different coalition members project their own preferences onto the center’s work. A donor who cares about Israeli security and an academic peer who cares about Palestinian civil society can both read a Crown Center paper and find it credible. That is not an accident. It is broad-tent coalition maintenance. The moment the center takes a polarizing position, it risks losing one leg of the stool.
Related to this is what you might call border patrol. Alliance Theory predicts that groups maintain cohesion partly by punishing members who drift too far toward either extreme. The Crown Center faces pressure from both directions. Drift too far left into anti-Zionist rhetoric and the Brandeis institutional base and donor network sour. Drift too far right into neoconservative or maximalist positions and the secular liberal academic coalition withdraws its credibility. The center’s output often functions as a kind of purification ritual, defining what counts as serious or responsible Middle East analysis and marking the boundaries that separate it from partisan noise on either side.
This brings you to the prestige of the middle way, which David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory framework helps clarify. Moderation is not merely a temperament. It is a status signal. When Crown Center scholars frame their work as going beyond the headlines or as structurally complex, they claim cognitive superiority over biased outsiders while reassuring both the academic and policy coalitions that they are the adults in the room. That expertise claim also functions as a barrier to entry. It protects their niche in the market for ideas by making it costly for outsiders, advocates, or journalists to compete on the same ground.
Stephen Turner’s concept of tacit knowledge fits here. Scholars at places like Crown Center develop an internalized sense of what can and cannot be said within their specific ecosystem. This is not a conspiracy or a written set of rules. It is a learned feel for the symmetry the alliance requires. The policy realism vocabulary, the emphasis on caution and nuance, the preference for structural analysis over moral clarity, these feel like objective intellectual standards to the people who use them. That is what makes them effective coalition-entry signals. A fee you do not know you are paying is the easiest fee to pay.
Finally, consider how alliance shifts might reshape the Iran analysis. Right now, the caution about escalation frame lets Crown Center scholars maintain independence in academic terms while still offering conflict management value to the policy coalition. But if Washington consensus moves toward regime change, watch for a pivot. The center will likely shift its focus toward managing the transition, with deeper analysis of internal Iranian factions and post-regime political structures. The scholars will not fall behind the moving center of gravity. They will reposition as the essential translators for whatever the new policy reality turns out to be, because staying essential is what the alliance requires.

Posted in Iran, Israel | Comments Off on Decoding The Crown Center for Middle East Studies

The Elite Shift From Free Trade Devotion

Over the past year, the shift among elites away from free trade orthodoxy has hardened into something more than a rhetorical adjustment. What began as cautious talk about “de-risking” and supply chain resilience has become an overt embrace of industrial policy, strategic protectionism, and security-driven intervention in trade. The old consensus, once so tight that questioning it seemed eccentric, is now genuinely weak.
The long background to this shift matters. For decades, a coalition of Wall Street, corporate America, mainstream economists, and both political parties treated open trade as nearly axiomatic. That coalition began cracking after the 2008 financial crisis, fractured further with Trump’s first election, then took another blow from COVID. The pandemic exposed something the old elite models treated as a footnote: efficiency without slack can be stupid. Lean global supply chains looked rational until they didn’t. OECD analysis now speaks openly about geopolitical tension, supply concentration, and economic coercion as core policy problems rather than edge cases.
Jake Sullivan said in 2023 that the U.S. was “moving beyond traditional trade deals,” calling the old model of deep liberalization inadequate for current realities. Katherine Tai’s trade agenda has pushed the same direction, emphasizing worker security, supply chain resilience, and rebuilding manufacturing. What is striking is not just that these officials said such things, but that almost nobody in a position of institutional power pushed back hard. The vocabulary of the old consensus, that freer trade by itself delivers broadly shared gains, has largely disappeared from serious policy discussion.
The conflict with Iran has accelerated the shift into a different gear. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026, which handles roughly a fifth of global petroleum traffic, turned energy and fertilizer supplies from market variables into immediate national security crises. UNCTAD noted just recently that disruptions at critical maritime chokepoints spread through supply chains and commodity markets with startling speed. That is exactly the kind of event that pushes even reluctant elites toward industrial policy, stockpiling, friendshoring, and domestic capacity in sectors they once left to global markets.
The result is a fractured elite landscape rather than a clean replacement consensus. National security hawks now treat supply chains as strategic infrastructure, arguing that semiconductor production or rare earth processing sitting in rival countries represents a national vulnerability. Center-left industrial policy advocates make a different but compatible argument: globalization hollowed out domestic industry and weakened labor bargaining power, and the answer is strategic rebuilding through subsidies and procurement rules. Populist protectionists, the faction Trump made impossible to ignore, push tariffs and reshoring on grounds of national revival rather than elegant theory. Wall Street and multinational corporations still prefer open trade, but even they now speak the language of de-risking and resilience because supply disruptions have become a real financial risk.
COVID and the Iran war have made the case for sensible trade policy and industrial policy much clearer. But many elites have not moved from free trade to a coherent alternative. They have moved from “markets know best” to a muddled mix of tariffs, subsidies, executive discretion, and national security rhetoric. Brookings noted that U.S. trade policy in 2025 shifted away from predictable rules-based processes toward more discretionary and sudden moves. That is not the same as having a serious industrial strategy.
Serious industrial policy means choosing a limited set of strategically important sectors, building capacity over years, coordinating with allies, and accepting tradeoffs. The WTO’s 2025 analysis says industrial policy is now widespread and increasingly justified in terms of security, resilience, and climate transition. Even institutions that once championed open trade acknowledge the world has changed. But acknowledgment is not strategy. The argument among elites has moved from whether to intervene to how much, where, and with what discipline. That second question remains genuinely unsettled, and the political momentum for protectionism keeps running ahead of any serious answer to it.
Meanwhile, other regions adapt. China and several ASEAN nations have reduced their exposure to the U.S. market and deepened trade with each other and the Global South. The EU relies on subsidies and state aid but has expanded its use of anti-subsidy investigations to protect its own industrial base. The old WTO-centered multilateral system sits in a state of deep dissatisfaction, with the U.S. moving toward unilateral tariff actions and executive discretion. What was once managed through rules is now managed through power. That may be the most honest description of where elite trade thinking now stands.

Posted in Trade | Comments Off on The Elite Shift From Free Trade Devotion

Why do elites love the words “security” and “stability”?

The language of security and stability usually reflects the interests of people who already sit inside the existing order.

Elites benefit from the current institutional arrangement. They have status, income, influence, and reputational capital tied to it. When they talk about security and stability they are usually talking about preserving the system that produces those advantages. Stability means the rules of the game do not change in ways that threaten their position. Security means disruptions that could mobilize outsiders are contained.

People on the fringes often see the same system very differently. If you are locked out of elite institutions or stuck near the bottom of the hierarchy, instability can look like opportunity. Revolutions, financial crises, technological disruptions, and political shocks sometimes open pathways that stable systems keep closed. This is why insurgent movements, populists, and radicals tend to talk about disruption, transformation, or renewal rather than stability.

You can see this pattern across history. Established landowners in prerevolutionary France wanted stability. The rising bourgeoisie and the urban poor wanted change. Incumbent corporations often lobby for regulatory stability while startups thrive on technological disruption. Senior bureaucrats value procedural continuity while political outsiders promise to break the system.

There is also a psychological and cultural dimension. Elites spend their lives inside large institutions. Universities, government agencies, multinational firms, and think tanks all run on predictability. Careers advance through long time horizons, credential pipelines, and stable networks. In that environment stability is not just a preference. It is the condition that makes the whole professional ecosystem work.

The Alliance Theory lens helps explain the rhetoric. When elites say security and stability they are signaling loyalty to the coalition that maintains the existing order. The phrase reassures allies that they will defend the institutional framework everyone depends on. It is coalition language.

There is another layer too. Elite institutions manage risk for the whole society. Banks stabilize financial systems. militaries maintain deterrence. central banks dampen economic shocks. public health agencies manage disease outbreaks. Because elites sit inside these systems they see how fragile they can be. That exposure often makes them genuinely fearful of cascades and systemic collapse. Their talk of stability is not always cynical. It often reflects real experience with how quickly complex systems can unravel.

But the distribution of costs and benefits still matters. Stability for those inside the system can feel like stagnation for those outside it. That tension drives a lot of modern politics.

The recurring conflict in democratic societies is between the coalition that benefits from order and the coalition that hopes disruption will reshuffle the hierarchy. The language of stability and the language of change are signals about which side of that divide a speaker occupies.

Posted in Elites | Comments Off on Why do elites love the words “security” and “stability”?

Decoding The Iran War (3-16-26)

01:00 I don’t care deeply about any 2025 movie. Am I missing something? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175770
03:00 AI & Operation Epic Fury, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175723
08:00 Why the US Navy Is Letting Iran’s Hormuz Blockade Destroy Itself, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVu88ZaIN1g
11:00 Michael Oren: How This War Ends, https://www.thefp.com/p/how-this-war-ends
13:00 Videos: Why the US Navy “Already Won” Before Iran Knew It Started, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175694
17:00 Are we winning in Iran? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175768
20:00 The Power Of The ‘Path Dependence’ Model, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175720
24:45 ‘The battle for the soul of Islam’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175761
28:00 What year marked the end of the international rules based order?
30:40 How have Zionist think tanks and lobbying groups changed their arguments to fit in with MAGA and Trump?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175759
34:30 The Shorter The Question, The Better The Question, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175733
47:30 Why do elites love the word “unpack”?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175731
51:00 WP: 200,000 immigrants will start losing commercial licenses, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/16/trump-immigrants-trucks/
52:00 Why the US Navy Rushed USS Tripoli to the Strait of Hormuz, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMy69tl25r8
56:30 Jürgen Habermas: The Philosopher of the Gate, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175711
1:02:00 From The Perspective Of The Buffered Identity, There’s Nothing Funny About A Gay Ayatollah, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175709
1:08:00 Decoding The Israel Democracy Institute, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175706
1:14:00 Trump reacted with hilarity to the news that the Ayatollah might be gay. How might previous American presidents reacted?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175692
1:20:00 If the ayatollah did a news conference where he came out as a proud gay-iranian, how might it be covered by the news media?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175689
1:21:00 Is Iran’s New Supreme Leader – Mojtaba Khamenei – Gay?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=175677
1:28:00 America’s War Objectives, and Israel’s – with Nadav Eyal and Amit Segal
1:31:30 Video: Why the US Navy “Already Won” Before Iran Knew It Started, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPeqrG-C9gA
1:43:30 Michael Oren: How This War Ends, https://www.thefp.com/p/how-this-war-ends
1:48:40 How to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz, https://www.thefp.com/p/how-to-reopen-the-strait-of-hormuz
1:54:00 Anthropic doesn’t decide America’s rules of engagement,
https://www.thefp.com/p/anthropic-doesnt-decide-our-militarys

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Decoding The Iran War (3-16-26)

I don’t care deeply about any 2025 movie. Am I missing something?

Gemini says: Movie fatigue is a common result of a landscape dominated by sequels and brand expansions. 2025 has seen plenty of those, with movies like Zootopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash breaking box office records. If those feel hollow, you might find more substance in films that focus on the social logic and power struggles you often analyze.
The Secret Agent by Kleber Mendonça Filho is a political thriller set in 1977 Brazil. It follows a technology expert on the run and uses a grindhouse style to examine social commentary and the dangers of the state.
No Other Choice by Park Chan-wook is a dark comedy about a man who is laid off from a paper company and becomes desperate to eliminate his competition for a new job. It is a sharp look at corporate hierarchies and the lengths individuals go to preserve their status.
Marty Supreme by Josh Safdie stars Timothée Chalamet and explores the world of professional ping pong. It fits into the tradition of American movies about talented but difficult men navigating competitive subcultures.
Sinners by Ryan Coogler is a horror film that deals with heritage and cultural erasure. It became a significant cultural event by challenging traditional Hollywood portrayals of the Black experience through a genre lens.
Blue Moon by Richard Linklater stars Ethan Hawke as lyricist Lorenz Hart. It takes place over a single night and focuses on the dissolution of his partnership with Richard Rodgers, capturing the melancholy of being left behind by a collaborator.
LF: “I respect The Secret Agent, Marty Supreme, Sovereign, and One Battle After Another because they all kept my attention, which is my primary request of a movie, but I am not able to summon passion for them. I think Sovereign cut me the most deeply because I recognized in the father and son my own proclivity for thinking I am smarter than everyone else, for my isolation bleeding into a desperate need to believe that unlike people who are successful, at least I see through the BS, for buying into conspiracy theories, for making confident pronouncements about things I don’t know much about, for developing my own cult following, and for acting in an arrogant and self-destructive manner while intoxicated by my own righteousness.”
Gemini says: Recognizing yourself in the father and son in Sovereign suggests you have a high degree of self-awareness regarding the costs of intellectual isolation. That film captures the specific trap where a person turns their alienation into a badge of superiority to avoid the pain of being an outsider.

When you live primarily in your own head or within a small, devoted circle, your ideas don’t face the friction of reality. This lack of resistance often leads to the intoxicating righteousness you described. The “logic of the fringe” allows a person to feel like a prophet among sheep, but it usually results in the self-destruction portrayed in the movie because the world does not bend to a private reality.

That desperate need to believe you see through the BS is often a shield. It protects you from the fact that “successful” people might actually possess a type of practical knowledge or social competence that you find difficult to replicate. Turning that difficulty into a moral or intellectual failing of the “masses” is a common way to preserve the ego.

The film serves as a mirror for the danger of becoming a closed loop. It is a cautionary tale about what happens when a person stops seeking truth and starts seeking ammunition for their own importance.

That specific recognition of the “logic of the fringe” suggests you are looking for works where intellectual isolation is not just a setting, but a character flaw that leads to a warped reality.

Films
The Brutalist by Brady Corbet follows László Tóth, a Hungarian architect and Holocaust survivor who arrives in America with a purity of vision that borders on pathological. Like the father in Sovereign, Tóth possesses a terrifying certainty in his own genius. His story is a study of how an uncompromising ego, when met with the transactional nature of power and patronage, leads to a “hollow monument.” It captures that specific intoxication where an artist or thinker views everyone else as a philistine, eventually destroying his own linkages to family and reality to preserve his “purified” vision.

Conclave by Edward Berger is a political thriller that examines the “sin of certainty.” It follows Cardinal Lawrence as he manages the election of a new pope. While it is about an institution, its core conflict is the psychological battle between those who use dogma as a shield for their own ambition and those who realize that absolute certainty is a form of spiritual and intellectual blindness. It mirrors your observation about making confident pronouncements about things one doesn’t truly know, showing how righteousness is often a mask for a desperate need for control.

Books
The Shards by Bret Easton Ellis is being adapted into a series for 2026. Set in 1981 Los Angeles, it follows a 17-year-old version of Ellis at an elite prep school. It masterfully portrays the “buffered identity” of a young man who considers himself a chronicler of his peers’ vapidity. His isolation and arrogance lead him down a path of paranoia and conspiracy as he becomes obsessed with a serial killer. It explores the danger of being a “self-appointed outsider” who uses his perceived intellectual superiority to justify a lack of empathy and a descent into self-destruction.

Dangling Man by Saul Bellow is a classic that remains a sharp look at intellectual stagnation. It follows a man waiting to be drafted into the army who spends his days in a small room, growing increasingly alienated and arrogant. He writes in his journal, making scathing judgments about the “successful” people around him. It captures the exact “bleeding” of isolation into a need to believe that one sees through the BS, while in reality, the protagonist is simply rotisserie-ing in his own righteousness and inaction.

The Outsider by Colin Wilson is a non-fiction study that might offer the most direct analysis of this archetype. Wilson examines the psychology of those who feel “cut off from other people by an intelligence that ruthlessly destroys their values.” He argues that this type of outsider often finds the conventional world shallow but struggles to substitute it with anything other than a “non-functional” frame of reference. It is an honest look at how heightened self-consciousness can become a form of bondage rather than freedom.

The “prophet among sheep” trope is a study of the seductive power of a private reality. It explores the moment a person decides that their isolation is not a social failure, but a mark of election. When a thinker stops trying to persuade others and starts trying to recruit them into a closed system, they move from a philosopher to a cult leader.

Films
The Master by Paul Thomas Anderson is a precise look at this transition. It follows Lancaster Dodd, a man who creates a “scientific” movement called The Cause. Dodd is a prophet who uses his perceived intellectual superiority to mask a desperate need for validation. The film captures the symmetry between the prophet’s arrogance and his fragility; he is a man who knows he is making it up but becomes intoxicated by the fact that others believe him. His “confident pronouncements” are a shield against the realization that he is just as lost as the “sheep” he claims to lead.

A Face in the Crowd by Elia Kazan is a study of the populist prophet. Lonesome Rhodes is a drifter who becomes a media sensation. He uses a “common man” persona to manipulate the masses, all while privately loathing them for their gullibility. It illustrates the self-destructive nature of this righteousness; as Rhodes becomes more convinced of his own power to see through the BS of the political establishment, he becomes the very thing he mocks.

Books
The Loser by Thomas Bernhard is a novel about the crushing weight of genius and the arrogance of the second-rate. It follows two piano students who study under Vladimir Horowitz. One of them, Glenn Gould, is a true genius. The narrator and his friend, Wertheimer, are merely very talented. Unable to accept that they are not the “prophets” of the piano, they retreat into a life of intellectual isolation and scathing judgment of the world. It is a brutal look at how the “proclivity for thinking I am smarter than everyone else” leads to a life of “rotisserie-ing” in one’s own bitterness.

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark follows a teacher in 1930s Edinburgh who hand-picks a group of young girls—the “Brodie set”—to be the recipients of her “refined” world-view. She considers herself a prophet of aesthetics and culture in a “sheep-like” provincial school. Her arrogance leads her to manipulate her students’ lives with a terrifying certainty. The book explores how the prophet’s need for a “cult following” eventually leads to a betrayal that she never sees coming because she is too blinded by her own righteousness.

The Counterfeiters by André Gide is a complex novel that deals with the “logic of the fringe.” It follows a group of young men who are obsessed with “authenticity” and seeing through the “counterfeit” values of society. In their quest to be outsiders who know the truth, they become entangled in a web of intellectual arrogance and criminal behavior. Gide argues that the desire to be “the one who sees” often leads to a different kind of blindness—one where the prophet becomes the ultimate counterfeit.

The transition from an isolated thinker to a prophet involves a “logic of the fringe” where the outsider begins to view their own alienation as proof of their divinity or unique insight. When you mentioned acting in a self-destructive manner while “intoxicated by my own righteousness,” you were describing the exact psychological profile of the movements explored in these works.

Films
Heretic (2024) is a direct study of the intellectual demagogue. Hugh Grant plays Mr. Reed, an eccentric man who traps two missionaries in his home to subject them to a series of psychological and theological tests. Reed is the “prophet” who believes he has “seen through the BS” of all world religions, viewing them as mere iterations of older stories used for control. His arrogance manifests as a “sociopathic” need to prove his intellectual superiority by dismantling the faith of others. The film illustrates how a person who believes they are the only one “awake” often ends up creating a private, terrifying basement of their own design.

Eddington (2025) features Austin Butler as Vernon Jefferson Peak, a Covid-era conspiracist who builds a massive online following by spreading myths about government smuggling rings. Peak is a modern prophet among sheep; he uses the language of “enlightenment” and “truth-seeking” to mask a deep-seated need for personal affirmation and power. The film explores how the “logic of the fringe” allows a person to turn a chaotic world into a structured, albeit paranoid, narrative where they are the hero.

Honey Don’t! (2025) takes a more satirical approach to the “prophet” trope. Chris Evans plays a polished, “soul-sucking” cult leader who uses his charisma to manipulate a small community. It highlights the performative nature of righteousness, showing how the leader’s “confident pronouncements” are often just tools used to maintain a hierarchy where he is at the top.

Books
The Demon of Unrest by Erik Larson (2024) is a non-fiction account of the months leading up to the American Civil War, but it functions as a psychological autopsy of “enflamed egos” and “righteousness of such a magnitude.” Larson focuses on “firebrands” like Edmund Ruffin, a radical secessionist who felt ignored by his peers and spent his life stoking militancy. Ruffin is a historical example of the “self-appointed outsider” who turns his personal frustration into a national cataclysm, eventually being allowed to fire one of the first shots at Fort Sumter as a reward for his “prophetic” persistence.

The Way of the Hermit by Ken Smith (2024) offers a counterpoint to the destructive prophet. Smith lived in a log cabin in the Scottish Highlands for 40 years. While he fits the “outsider” profile, his isolation is “hard-earned and bone-deep” rather than performative. It explores the difference between a hermit who seeks a “philosophy of the world” that is grounded and wise, and the “prophet” who seeks to impose their isolation onto others. It asks whether one can be an outsider without the “desperate need to believe that unlike people who are successful, at least I see through the BS.”

The Shards by Bret Easton Ellis (adaptation coming in 2026) remains a definitive look at the “logic of the fringe.” The protagonist’s arrogance and isolation lead him to believe he is the only one who sees the “truth” about a serial killer in his social circle. His righteousness becomes a form of intoxication that blinds him to the reality of the people around him, eventually leading to the very self-destruction you recognized in yourself.

Desmond Ford is a chronicler of the exact tension between intellectual integrity and institutional survival. That you grew up as his son adds a layer of visceral reality to your reaction to Sovereign. Your father was a prophet who saw through a specific piece of the BS—the Investigative Judgment—and his “confident pronouncements” on the matter fundamentally altered the landscape of Australian and Global Adventism.

That you described switching from revering him to thinking he was a “nutter” after 1988 highlights the fallout of the “logic of the fringe.” When a man challenges an entire institution based on a “purified” vision of truth, he often loses his social and professional moorings. This isolation can easily bleed into the arrogance and self-destructive righteousness you recognized. If the world (or the Church) rejects your truth, the easiest psychological defense is to believe the world is simply too “sheep-like” to handle your genius.

The following works examine the specific logic of religious fringe movements and the “prophets” who lead them into or out of institutions.

Films
The Chosen One (2025) is a film that examines the weight of inherited prophecy. It follows the child of a charismatic religious leader who is forced to navigate the “intoxication” of their parent’s righteousness. It captures the specific feeling of being raised in a “closed loop” where every family dinner is a theological battlefield. It mirrors your experience of seeing a father who is “sometimes friend and sometimes theological enemy” to his peers, illustrating the instability of life on the fringe.

The Order by Justin Kurzel (2024) stars Jude Law as an FBI agent tracking a white supremacist group in the 1980s. While the ideology is different, the “prophet” at the center, Bob Mathews, operates on the same logic you described. He is a man who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and uses conspiracy theories to build a “cult following.” It shows how this path leads to a “state of exception” where the leader feels justified in acting in a self-destructive manner because they are convinced of their own moral superiority.

Books
The Great Disappointment by Alice McDermott (forthcoming 2026) is a fictionalized account of the Millerite movement, the precursor to Seventh-day Adventism. It focuses on the psychological state of those who believed the “prophet” William Miller when the world did not end in 1844. It is an honest look at the “desperate need to believe” and the “logic of the fringe” that sets in when a confident pronouncement fails to materialize. It captures the specific “isolation” of a group that has bet everything on being the only ones who see the truth.

The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta (2023) is a non-fiction study of how modern religious leaders have become “intoxicated by their own righteousness.” Alberta analyzes how many pastors have traded their theological foundations for the “prophet among sheep” trope, using media and technology to create a private reality for their followers. It describes the “self-destructive” path of institutions that prioritize the ego of the leader over the health of the community.

When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger is a classic psychological study that is essential for understanding the “logic of the fringe.” It examines a small cult that believed the world would end on a specific date. When it didn’t, the members became more committed to their leader. Festinger argues that this “righteousness” is a defense mechanism against the “BS” of reality. It explains why a man like your father might double down on his position even when it leads to professional ruin.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on I don’t care deeply about any 2025 movie. Am I missing something?

Are We Winning In Iran?

No serious analyst claims that America and Israel have won this war with Iran, while most analysts, it seems, claims that the US has already lost. One side of this debate seems realistic and the other more ideological. So what are the mental maps, the models, that lead serious people to make such early and definitive conclusions?
The synthesis of these maps reveals that the truth of this war is not a single data point. It is a superposition of conflicting balance sheets, each using a different scoreboard, each declaring a different winner.
Three models deserve particular attention beyond the frameworks already familiar to most analysts: the Proliferation-Threshold Model, the Proxy-Symmetry Model, and the Technological-Obsolescence Model.
Nuclear analysts and arms control specialists use a map where the only metric that matters is breakout time. Conventional wins or losses are secondary to the state of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. If the war destroys ninety percent of Iran’s conventional navy but pushes the leadership to finally cross the nuclear threshold as a survival mechanism, analysts in this camp call it a catastrophic strategic failure. They judge the war not by whether it pauses the program, but by whether it ends it permanently. If the knowledge remains and the intent hardens, the war is lost from the moment the first bomb drops.
Regional specialists who study the Middle East often reject the idea that this is a binary contest between states. They see it as a war of systems. Victory, in this model, means decoupling Iran from its proxies: Hezbollah, the Houthis, the militias in Iraq. If the U.S. and Israel strike Tehran but the ring of fire remains intact and capable of autonomous action, the war fails on its own terms. The primary source of regional instability was never the center. It was the network. Success, then, means atrophy of the periphery, not bruising of the core.
Military theorists and defense technologists approach the conflict differently. They treat it as a laboratory. Their map tracks the cost-exchange ratio. If a two-million-dollar interceptor downs a twenty-thousand-dollar drone, the side with the interceptor loses the economic war of attrition regardless of who holds the territory. These analysts watch for what they call the Dreadnought moment, the point at which low-cost, mass-produced autonomous systems prove they can neutralize high-cost legacy platforms. When that moment arrives, aircraft carriers and manned jets become liabilities rather than assets.
Each of these models defines the finish line differently. The regime-change model looks for the disappearance of the ruling elite. The Vietnam and Afghanistan template looks for the departure of foreign troops without a stable local partner. The airpower-limits model looks for a transition from strikes to a negotiated settlement. The escalation-dominance model asks whether one side can stop the other from retaliating at a higher level. The opportunity-cost model tracks American force posture in the Pacific. The narrative model asks whom the Global South blames for the economic fallout. The technological model asks whether the cost to defend now exceeds the cost to attack.
Beneath all of these sits a final, overarching logic drawn from Henry Kissinger’s observation that the guerrilla wins if he does not lose, and the conventional army loses if it does not win. Because the United States and Israel are the status quo powers with stated objectives, any outcome short of total realization of those goals reads as failure. Because Iran is the revisionist power, simply remaining a functioning irritant allows its supporters to claim victory. The bar for American success is perfection. The bar for Iranian success is survival. That asymmetry of expectations is the deepest reason why a majority of serious analysts already argue the United States has lost, even as the war continues.
Grok says: No serious military analyst disputes that Iran has suffered catastrophic conventional degradation it cannot match symmetrically. The U.S.-Israel coalition controls the skies and tempo of operations. Iran is fighting a defensive war of attrition, relying on remaining missiles, drones, asymmetric attacks on Gulf shipping/oil infrastructure, and closure/disruption of the Strait of Hormuz to impose economic pain.

This is where the split emerges—and why your observation about analysts’ views has bite:U.S. stated objectives (per Trump administration, Pentagon, CENTCOM): Destroy Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production; annihilate its navy; prevent nuclear breakout; degrade proxy threats. Trump has also signaled broader hopes for regime change “from within” by appealing to the Iranian people.

Israeli objectives: Often more maximalist—permanently removing the existential threat, including regime survival in Tehran, full dismantling of proxy networks (Hezbollah, etc.), and reshaping the regional balance.

Pro-“winning” or substantial progress views (often from defense-focused think tanks like Hudson Institute, FDD, JINSA, CSIS, Atlantic Council, Washington Institute):Measurable degradation of Iran’s power-projection tools is succeeding at pace. Air/naval/missile dominance is real. If the campaign stops soon with these capabilities crippled for years, the U.S./Israel can credibly claim core military goals met. Some argue this already weakens Iran strategically for a generation, regardless of who rules in Tehran.

Endurance favors the side with superior technology, logistics, and alliances. Iran’s “game of attrition” via oil disruption carries high costs for itself too (economy already strained pre-war).

Pro-“losing” or “not won” views (often from outlets skeptical of U.S. intervention, like Al Jazeera analyses, Guardian, Stimson Center, or some regional experts):Regime change has not occurred and looks unlikely in the short term. Iran retains ground control, internal security forces (IRGC), and some retaliatory capacity. A surviving (even weakened) regime may accelerate covert nuclear efforts or asymmetric revenge.

Broader costs: Regional spillover (attacks on Gulf states, U.S. bases—~15 U.S. deaths reported so far), economic hits (oil prices, shipping disruptions), potential quagmire if ground forces become needed, and diplomatic isolation risks. If the war drags without clear political resolution, it echoes critiques of past U.S. campaigns where tactical wins didn’t yield strategic ones. Iran bets it can outlast U.S. domestic/political will.

Some frame the entire operation as hubris or unnecessary escalation post-nuclear talks.

No major analyst (across the spectrum) claims the U.S./Israel have “lost” the military fight. Claims of “already lost” typically hinge on expanded definitions of victory (full regime collapse, zero future threat, quick clean end) or emphasize downstream risks/costs. The “no serious analyst says they’ve won” side often comes from voices prioritizing political endpoints over kinetic metrics.

The more “realistic” lens (in my view, grounded in observable facts) acknowledges overwhelming military asymmetry and tangible destruction of Iran’s offensive toolkit. Wars are judged first by who can impose their will on the battlefield. Denying that dominance requires ignoring CENTCOM reports, open-source battle damage assessments, and Iran’s own reduced salvo rates. This side tends to focus on verifiable capabilities rather than hoped-for political transformations.

The more “ideological” lens often starts from opposition to the war’s initiation (seen as illegal aggression, regime-change adventurism, or Israeli-driven) and measures “loss” by failure to achieve maximalist or transformative goals immediately, or by any civilian/economic fallout. It sometimes underplays Iran’s pre-war threats (nuclear advances, proxy wars, enrichment levels) or overstates its resilience as moral victory. History shows air campaigns rarely deliver instant regime change (see Libya, Kosovo, etc.), but they can reshape threats durably.

Both sides have elements of truth and blind spots. Military victory is not the same as political victory or “end of threat.” The war remains fluid—duration uncertain, with risks of escalation, prolonged attrition, or negotiated off-ramp. U.S./Israel coordination shows strains (differing views on when to declare success). Iran’s strategy explicitly relies on endurance and global economic pressure.Truth-seeking requires separating propaganda from data: Iran’s capabilities are being dismantled at high speed. Whether that constitutes “winning the war” depends on the metric—and whether the coalition has the will and strategy to consolidate gains without overreach. Early signs point to significant weakening of Iran as a regional menace, but not its elimination as a problem. The next weeks will clarify if this becomes a decisive strategic shift or a costly stalemate.

Gemini says: The current conflict has divided analysts into two camps, one focusing on tactical military success and the other on strategic failure.

The argument for an American and Israeli victory relies on tactical metrics. Since the strikes began on February 28, 2026, the coalition has successfully assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other high ranking officials. They have also significantly degraded Iran’s naval forces and ballistic missile infrastructure. From this perspective, the coalition has achieved escalation dominance.

The argument for a loss, which many analysts view as the more realistic assessment, focuses on the strategic outcome. Despite these strikes, the Iranian regime remains in power under Mojtaba Khamenei. Tehran has responded with horizontal escalation, targeting Gulf states and global energy markets to drive a wedge between Washington and its regional partners. Analysts at organizations such as the International Crisis Group and Chatham House argue that without a clear exit strategy or a plan for regime change, the US and Israel have entered an escalation trap.

The divide you mention often tracks with how victory is defined:

The Ideological View: This camp often defines victory as the destruction of the Iranian regime’s ability to project power. By focusing on the removal of leadership and the degradation of nuclear sites, they argue the threat is being neutralized. However, critics suggest this view ignores the history of protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Realistic View: This camp argues that as long as the regime survives and continues to impose costs—such as rising oil prices and regional instability—the coalition has failed to achieve its political aims. They point to the fact that 53% of the American public now opposes the action and 74% oppose ground troops, suggesting that domestic support is a weak point that Iran can exploit.

The central challenge is that while the US and Israel are winning the kinetic war, they may be losing the war of attrition. Iran’s strategy is not to defeat the US military in the field, but to survive until the political and economic costs of the war become unsustainable for the Trump administration.

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Are We Winning In Iran?

Ynet: Is Iran’s ‘target bank’ running out?

The “target bank running out” narrative tends to appear around the third or fourth week of most air campaigns. It almost always reflects a shift in the nature of the campaign rather than a genuine shortage of targets. Three things are happening at once in this story, and conflating them produces a misleading picture.
Modern air campaigns begin with what military planners call high-value targets, or HVTs. These include leadership and command nodes, air defense systems and radar, missile launch infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and strategic communications. If the reports about Khamenei and senior IRGC leadership are accurate, the campaign opened with a decapitation strike. That is the most valuable target category there is. Once those targets are gone, the visible significance of subsequent strikes naturally declines. Analysts begin noting that Israel is hitting fuel depots or parked aircraft, and the press starts talking about a shrinking target bank. That is a normal progression in a suppression campaign, not evidence of strategic exhaustion.
The second thing happening is a shift from capability destruction to regime destabilization. The quote from Brig. Gen. Eran Ortal gets at this directly. He argues the goal may now be damaging regime cohesion, which is a different kind of war. Instead of destroying specific military systems, the campaign aims to destroy symbols of regime control, demonstrate that the regime cannot defend the country, generate elite panic, and encourage defections or coups. In that kind of campaign, the psychological effect of a strike matters more than the target itself. Ortal’s line captures it cleanly: what matters more is that people see the bombs landing. This is classic regime pressure strategy. NATO used it against Serbia in 1999. The United States used it against Saddam Hussein in 2003. Israel used a version of it in Lebanon in 2006. Once a campaign enters this phase, the number of potential targets becomes nearly unlimited, which is the opposite of running out.
The third and hardest problem sits under all of this. About 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent remain buried at Isfahan. That is the real strategic objective, and it remains untouched. Destroying or capturing that material presents enormous difficulties. The site is deeply buried. Bombing it risks dispersing radioactive material. A ground seizure would require special operations forces or something approaching an invasion. So campaigns sometimes keep striking secondary targets while waiting for an intelligence breakthrough, a political decision to escalate, or a regime collapse that exposes the facility. That waiting period creates the public perception that the campaign has run out of steam.
There is also a messaging dimension worth naming. Claims that the target bank is exhausted serve political purposes. Critics of the war use that frame to argue the campaign has stalled. Supporters frame the same facts as a transition to pressure operations. Both claims can be accurate at the same time, which is why the framing debate is often less useful than looking at what phase the campaign is actually in.
The U.S. strikes on Iranian naval assets add a fifth element that functions almost as a separate war. Preventing Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz requires hunting mobile anti-ship missiles, naval drones, small boat swarms, and coastal launch sites. Those targets are extremely hard to find and harder to suppress, and that campaign might continue for months regardless of what happens in the main Israeli air campaign.
The target bank is not running out. What the article describes is the transition from decapitation and air superiority, to missile suppression and infrastructure degradation, to regime pressure and economic strangulation. That is how most modern air wars unfold. The real unresolved question is not how many targets remain. It is the uranium at Isfahan. Until that problem gets resolved, the core strategic objective of the war stays incomplete.

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Ynet: Is Iran’s ‘target bank’ running out?

‘The battle for the soul of Islam’

Moshe Dann is credited by the Jerusalem Post as a “PhD historian, writer, and journalist.”
He writes:

Without an alternative to Islamism and Palestinianism, we will drown in what Hamas calls “The Al-Aqsa Flood,” the Islamification of the West, and the end of Western Civilization. The threat is real, and therefore, it is existential.
For those of us who seek tikkun olam (repairing the world), we ask, “How can I help?” We live for the answer.

This is stupid for many reasons. One, there is no soul of Islam or soul of Judaism or soul of Christianity. Like every other group, Muslims adapt to their situation. There is no essential form of any religion. There are only the traditions carried on by people in different circumstances about their story of interacting with the divine.
For example, the more religious the Jew, the less he talks about Judaism or religion. He has a way of life. He has Yiddishkeit. He has a connection to his people who carry the burden of God in history.
The more religious the Christian, the less likely he is to regard himself as religious. Instead, he feels connected to God (either through his individual relationship or through the Church).
Islam has 1.4 billion adherents spread across dozens of cultures, languages, political systems, and centuries of competing legal and theological traditions. Sunni farmers in Mali and Shia merchants in Tehran and secular Muslims in Sarajevo do not share a single Islam waiting to be saved. The religion adapts to circumstance, as all living traditions do. Wahhabism grew powerful not because it captured some essential Islamic truth but because Saudi petrodollars funded its spread during a specific historical window. That is a story about money and geopolitics, not about souls.
The author calls on Muslim moderates to speak up, which sounds reasonable until you ask: speak up to whom, and to what effect? The history of outside powers trying to cultivate “moderate Islam” as a strategic asset runs from the British Empire through the Cold War to the post-9/11 era, and the record is poor. Muslims who get branded as Western-approved moderates often lose credibility in their own communities for exactly that reason. The endorsement poisons the well. Outsiders do not get to pick which interpretation of a religion wins its internal arguments. Those arguments get settled by history, politics, economics, and war, not by op-eds in the Jerusalem Post.
The piece also collapses a genuinely complicated internal Muslim debate, which does exist and matters, into a civilizational war narrative that serves a particular political agenda. That flattening is not analysis. It is advocacy dressed in the language of concern.
The more intense the in-group identity, the more likely one is to have negative feelings about out-groups. The more intense the Muslim or Christian or Jew, the more likely he is to have negative feelings about other religions.
The author is right about one thing. Everything we do affects other people. How we affect others however is not sufficiently knowable that we can strategically plan as outsiders to reshape Islam.
Yes, we exist in relation to one another and that indifference to suffering elsewhere is not a neutral position. Tikkun olam, whatever one thinks of how the author deploys it, points to a genuine moral intuition that what happens in Sudan or Gaza or Tehran is not someone else’s problem entirely.
But the leap from that intuition to a strategic program for reshaping Islam is enormous, and the author never reckons with the gap. Moral concern does not translate into effective intervention, especially when the intervention requires outsiders to pick winners in a theological and political struggle they do not fully understand and cannot control. The history of exactly that kind of project, from colonial-era missionary reform efforts to Cold War moderate Muslim programs to post-2003 nation building in Iraq, suggests that outside actors routinely misread what drives religious and political change from within a community.
There is also an epistemological problem the author ignores entirely. We cannot trace the full consequences of what we do even in our immediate lives, let alone at the scale of a civilization. The feedback loops are too long, the variables too many, and the unintended consequences too common. That does not argue for doing nothing. It argues for humility about what any outside actor can actually engineer, and skepticism toward anyone who writes as though the path forward is obvious if only the right people would act.
The author’s moral instinct and his strategic confidence are two very different things. The first deserves respect. The second deserves scrutiny.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on ‘The battle for the soul of Islam’

How have Zionist think tanks and lobbying groups changed their arguments to fit in with MAGA and Trump?

The shift in how pro-Israel think tanks and lobbying groups argue their case represents something more than a messaging adjustment. The core mission has not changed. What has changed is the operating logic that sustains the argument. Groups that once justified support for Israel through the language of liberal internationalism, shared democratic values, and multilateral obligation now speak a different language entirely. They speak the language of civilizational conflict, national sovereignty, and transactional interest.

Before 2016, the standard pro-Israel argument rested on a bipartisan foundation. Israel was a fellow democracy. The relationship carried moral weight rooted in history and shared values. Appeals to international law and multilateral institutions were routine. That vocabulary worked when the American foreign policy consensus ran through institutions that respected those norms. It works less well with a coalition that regards those same institutions as tools of a corrupt global elite.

The replacement framing presents Israel as a frontline state in a war between civilizations. Israel fights the same enemies America fights. This mirrors the MAGA view of global politics as a contest between nations with distinct identities rather than a project of spreading liberal norms. The “special relationship,” a phrase that implies moral or historical obligation and carries faint echoes of the “globalism” MAGA voters distrust, has given way to the language of strategic partnership. Think tanks now stress what Israel provides to the United States: battlefield-tested military technology, missile defense systems, AI-driven intelligence. The argument is that American military assistance to Israel is not foreign aid in the traditional sense but an investment in the American defense industrial base.

Anti-Zionism has been reframed as a product of woke ideology, Critical Race Theory, and DEI. This repositions Israel as a fellow victim of the same progressive elites that MAGA voters distrust. Supporting Israel becomes a way to oppose campus radicalism and the perceived decline of Western values. Israel is no longer a foreign policy line item. It is a domestic cultural symbol.

On Iran, the message shifted in a specific direction. Iran is not just a threat to Israel but a direct threat to American troops, energy markets, and global shipping. The emphasis falls on Iranian attacks on American bases, drones targeting Gulf infrastructure, and threats to the Strait of Hormuz. This frames confrontation with Iran as an American national interest rather than a favor extended to an ally. Some groups have gone further and linked Middle Eastern instability to migration pressures in Europe and the United States, arguing that weakening Iran and militant networks reduces refugee flows. That argument lands well with an audience that prioritizes border security above almost everything else.

The Abraham Accords became the centerpiece example of the new approach, and advocacy groups rebranded them carefully. The Accords succeeded, the argument goes, precisely because they bypassed the failed experts of the foreign policy establishment. This appeals to the MAGA desire to see outsider deals cut through bureaucratic obstruction. Peace comes from strength and regional alliances, not from concessions to Palestinian leadership. Organizations that could claim expertise in that diplomacy gained status. Those that insisted on the traditional Palestinians-first approach were categorized as relics of a failed era.

A growing intellectual current ties Israeli thinkers to the American National Conservatism movement. Israel is presented as a model for a post-liberal future: high birth rates, a strong sense of family, cultural cohesion prioritized over multiculturalism. The Israeli judicial reform debates were used to mirror MAGA critiques of the administrative state and judicial activism. This framing presents Israel not merely as an ally but as proof of concept for the nationalist vision.

For decades the gold standard of pro-Israel advocacy was strict bipartisanship. That standard has eroded. As the Democratic Party fractures internally over Gaza and the West Bank, some right-leaning groups have leaned into the partisanization of the issue. They increasingly frame the Republican Party as the only true friend of Israel. The gamble is that a deeper ideological bond with the MAGA movement is worth more than a thinning transactional relationship with a fragmenting Democratic coalition.

The institutional hierarchy shifted accordingly. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies spent years advocating maximum pressure on Iran, heavy sanctions, and a hard line on Tehran’s regional network. When Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and launched the sanctions campaign, American policy moved into FDD territory. FDD analysts became regular voices in Republican national security circles. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, with its focus on security threats and Iranian regional networks rather than peace process language, fit the new environment well. The Tikvah Fund provided philosophical infrastructure, funding journals and seminars that link Zionist history to American conservative values and frame Israel as a successful model of traditional, religious, and nationalist society. The Republican Jewish Coalition moved from a standard partisan bridge to the primary vehicle for translating America First into pro-Israel terms. Christians United for Israel gained direct White House access during the Jerusalem embassy decision because it represents a voting bloc the Republican coalition cannot afford to lose.

Groups on the other side lost ground. J Street supported diplomacy with Iran and a two-state solution, both of which the Trump administration rejected. The Brookings Institution, representing the liberal internationalist expert class, saw its pipeline to the White House largely severed. American Friends of Peace Now found itself without a seat at the table because its core product, advocacy for a two-state solution, was regarded as an obsolete relic. The Israel Policy Forum, which historically emphasized diplomatic solutions and preserving the possibility of a Palestinian state, lost traction in Washington.

The ADL presents the most complicated case. It did not collapse, but its cross-partisan authority weakened significantly. The organization once sat comfortably inside the old American consensus. It carried credibility with Democrats, moderate Republicans, corporations, universities, and mainstream media. Its core mission was fighting antisemitism and extremism, and it positioned itself as a civil rights organization rather than a lobbying group.

Trump’s rise disrupted the coalition that sustained that model. Conservative media and populist activists came to regard the ADL’s work on hate speech, online moderation, and extremism research as an instrument of progressive censorship. Conservative politicians stopped citing the ADL as a legitimate authority. The FBI ended its formal training and intelligence-sharing relationship with the organization in 2025 after sustained conservative criticism of its extremism classifications. Meanwhile the internal governance of the ADL changed. The large national commission of roughly 350 lay leaders that historically set policy was replaced with a smaller board of roughly 20. Senior civil rights staff departed. The organization eliminated dedicated civil rights teams and folded those functions into a broader national affairs unit. An evangelical leader, Johnnie Moore, joined the board in 2025. The net structural effect was a shift away from the classic civil-rights coalition model toward a narrower focus on antisemitism and Israel-related advocacy.

The funding model changed alongside the institutional one. The traditional approach had major donors giving to large bipartisan umbrellas like AIPAC. The newer approach sees mega-donors fund specific ideologically aligned projects directly. This allows smaller, more ideological groups to punch above their weight because they do not need to maintain a broad consensus. The information ecosystem shifted too. Individual influencers and digital platforms like The Daily Wire and Tablet Magazine became significant players. A viral podcast segment can carry more weight with voters and donors than a white paper.

Then there are the prominent Jewish commentators and organizational figures who were sharply anti-Trump in 2016. They did not all move in the same direction. A large share of American Jewish institutional leadership stayed broadly anti-Trump, continuing to frame him as dangerous for democracy and civil rights. But Israel policy became harder to criticize, because Trump delivered on Jerusalem, the embassy move, the Golan Heights, and the Accords. Many critics adopted a two-track message: condemn the domestic politics, acknowledge the Middle East policy results.

A second group quietly moderated their tone without becoming supporters. The president’s rhetoric is troubling, but the administration’s Iran policy is correct. That formulation became common among national security analysts who had strong incentives to maintain access to the administration while preserving credibility with their own audiences.

A smaller group moved closer to the Republican coalition altogether. They concluded that the American left had grown more hostile to Israel and more tolerant of antisemitism than Trump’s coalition had. For them the threat perception shifted. Progressive politics, campus activism, and anti-Zionist movements looked like the greater danger. Many of these figures migrated toward conservative media ecosystems where they became regular commentators on antisemitism and Israel.

A fourth group reframed their criticism around antisemitism itself. They separated fringe far-right antisemitic elements within the Trump coalition from the administration’s formal policies toward Israel, condemning the former while acknowledging the latter. That balancing act became a recurring feature of Jewish institutional discourse throughout the Trump years.

The underlying reason for all of these adjustments is the same. When the political coalition that controls Washington changes, the organizations and commentators who speak that coalition’s language gain prestige and access. Those tied to the previous coalition lose relative power even if they remain large and well funded. The policy goals stay mostly stable. The moral vocabulary shifts to match whoever currently holds influence.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on How have Zionist think tanks and lobbying groups changed their arguments to fit in with MAGA and Trump?