Trump Switching Sides In The War He Lost Does Not Make Him A Palestinian Liberationist

Quick observation from me up top, and then we’ll get to your questions. I haven’t written at length about the developments in Iran this week, or offered bullet-point thoughts, for three simple reasons: the president and his advisers aren’t trustworthy; the peace deal they’re treating as fait accompli isn’t a peace deal; and it doesn’t describe a stable detente. There were three belligerents in this war and this is a memorandum of understanding between two of them. So let’s wait and see.

What I have said, and what I believe, is that the MOU contemplates an offramp that the U.S. really should take, but that’s also tantamount to surrender. In other words: Donald Trump started an illegal war, lost it almost immediately, then let it fester for months—the result is thousands of dead Iranians, including over 100 schoolgirls, 13 dead Americans, countless injured, and trillions in lost wealth around the world. On that record, Trump should resign the presidency in disgrace.

There are some liberals and progressives who are squeamish about bludgeoning Trump with the truth here; they worry he’ll experience it as ego injury and restart the war. That is a reasonable concern, though I don’t share it. I explained in this article why I believe we must treat him as an adult with real agency, and stop insulating him from the consequences of his failures.

There are also, I believe, a minority of Democrats who believe the MOU is so bad that we’d be better off back in the unsteady stalemate of the status quo ante. They are wrong, I’d even say foolish, for believing anyone anywhere in the world would be better off with Trump leading an active military campaign.

But I live in the world of discourse, so I want to focus on a line taking shape on the left, that verges on feigning Strange New Respect for Trump and JD Vance. It’s driven, I believe by a mix of sincere and cynical concerns. Sincerely: that Trump will try to reclaim the antiwar mantle by singling out pro-war Democrats, and that (by throwing Israel under the bus) he’ll benefit from the anti-Israel sentiment raging throughout the world. Cynically: that by taking Trump’s fraudulent new anti-war, Israel-critical posture at face value, they can forge an alliance of convenience with MAGA to crush AIPAC and Israel and the hawkish element of the Democratic Party.

See here, here, here, and here.

I will use all my persuasive power to marginalize Dems who want the MOU to fail, and who still believe Israel deserves moral and political support from American liberals. But this is a weaselly game that requires us to take leave of our object permanence. To forget both who started the Iran war, and the atrocities Trump uncorked in Gaza after his inauguration, by giving Benjamin Netanyahu a freer hand than he had during the Biden presidency.

Trump is the belligerent here, as well as a liar and a snake. He is not “anti” the war he started, and deserves no kudos for adopting this new rhetoric relative to anyone except maybe a subset of right-wing hawks who genuinely want the war to resume. He may become “anti-Israel,” but not because he’s become a Palestinian liberationist—he wants to transform Gaza into a Trump-branded resort, and reserves “Palestinian” as a term of abuse for insufficiently pro-Israel Jews. No, he’s lashing out at Israel because, a) he blames Israel for convincing him to participate in this disastrous war; and b) rather than lose the war, he’d rather switch sides. He wants a cut of the wealth that will be unlocked by normalizing relations with Iran, and to more firmly establish an international alliance of petrostate authoritarians.

He needs to be held accountable for all of this, and constrained going forward, but if people on the left insist on running cover for him, he’ll wriggle out, once again, and we’ll get more illegal wars once the dust settles.

Max M.: Like many, I find it maddening that elected Democrats’ messaging draws such a hard line between “kitchen table” concerns and mere “democracy” issues, viewing the former as “good” talking points and the latter as too “abstract.” Democracy is, and always has been, an economic issue. If the government doesn’t have to worry about losing your vote, they don’t have to worry about your economic plight; that’s why authoritarian nations rarely enjoy thriving economies. I took me all of one sentence to draw that connection. So why is it so hard for Democratic candidates to put two and two together for the voters? Is the consultant class privy to some additional considerations that I’m missing?

Become a member

I’m not even convinced it’s their underlying political instinct is correct! Republicans won more elections than not for the first half of my life on campaigns of abstraction for liberty and freedom. People find these concepts emotionally resonant,