Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott

If you’re trying to follow the current state of the Iran war without losing your mind, retired military officers, former officials or Washington journalists are probably not the people to call. You call Arash Azizi. Because while Washington is busy arguing over whether a naval skirmish in the Strait of Hormuz counts as a ceasefire violation, a “love tap,” or the opening act of World War III, Arash is focused on something more useful: what Iran actually wants.And right now, that may be the most important question in the region.When we spoke this week — a follow-up to our conversation last month about Iran as a regime in transition — Arash argued that despite the missile exchanges, maritime confrontations, Trump Truth Social posts written in what increasingly feels like ALL CAPS diplomacy, and the general fog-machine atmosphere surrounding this conflict, both Tehran and Washington are moving toward the same conclusion: Neither side actually wants to go back to full war.That does not mean peace is imminent. It means reality is beginning to intrude. The latest sign came this week as reports emerged that the United States and Iran are inching toward a short memorandum of understanding that would effectively freeze the conflict and open a 30-day negotiating window on the harder issues: Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, frozen assets, and future security arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz.In other words: after months of maximalist rhetoric, threats of capitulation, and military escalation, everyone may be slowly rediscovering diplomacy. Which, awkwardly, is where this probably was always headed.That tension — closest to renewed fighting and closest to a deal at the same time — has become the defining feature of this moment. The military phase of the conflict has not produced decisive victory for either side. Iran absorbed enormous damage but did not collapse. The United States demonstrated overwhelming military superiority but failed to force capitulation. And “Project Freedom” — the Trump administration’s latest attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz through naval escort operations — now appears suspended after only a few days of operation amid continued confrontations in the Gulf.Trump, meanwhile, continues to oscillate between threatening Iran with devastating force and hinting at imminent breakthrough agreements. One day the ceasefire is under strain. The next day the latest exchange of fire is merely “a love tap.” It is all very confusing. Which, to be fair, may not entirely be an accident.But underneath the chaos, Arash sees a more coherent logic emerging. “Success for Iran,” he said, “looks like preservation of the regime, but also recognition of Iran’s role in the region.”That word — recognition — came up repeatedly in our conversation. Not domination. Not conquest. Not some endless revolutionary project stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. Recognition.Iran wants sanctions relief. It wants economic normalization. It wants acceptance as a legitimate regional power with acknowledged interests and influence. And, crucially, Arash believes significant parts of the Iranian leadership — including elements of the Revolutionary Guards — may be willing to make meaningful concessions on the nuclear issue to get there.That is not how this conflict is typically framed in Washington. American debate tends to oscillate between two poles: either Iran is on the verge of collapse, or it is an irredeemably expansionist power that only understands force. What gets lost is the possibility that parts of the Iranian system may actually want integration more than permanent confrontation.“I think they want integration,” Arash said. “They want to be recognized as a major power in the region.”He is careful to note that this in no way makes the regime benign. Iran has backed militant proxies, fueled regional conflicts, and helped sustain Bashar al-Assad’s brutal war in Syria. He describes the Islamic Republic as containing contradictory impulses — part ideological revolutionary project, part traditional nation-state seeking stability and influence — and argues the second is now ascendant.One theory — increasingly visible in some parts of the Gulf — is that integrating Iran into a more stable regional framework could actually moderate its behavior over time. Another theory is that normalization would simply empower Tehran to pursue the same destabilizing policies with more money and legitimacy. As implausible as it sounds, Arash leans toward the former as the best way of restraining Iran.That argument will make many people deeply uncomfortable, particularly in Israel and among hardline Iran hawks in Washington. But it also reflects a reality becoming harder to ignore after months of war: Iran is not Libya. It is not Iraq. Despite immense economic pressure, assassinations, sanctions, cyber operations, and sustained bombing, Iran has not folded. Which raises an uncomfortable possibility for the Trump administration: maybe Iran cannot simply be bludgeoned into submission.That does not mean Tehran is winning. Far from it. Iran’s economy remains under severe strain. Inflation is soaring. The currency continues to weaken. Regional proxies like Hezbollah have been degraded. The regime itself remains deeply unpopular with much of its own population.But Arash argues that many in Washington fundamentally misunderstand how the Islamic Republic absorbs pressure. The question is not whether Iran is suffering — it clearly is. The question is what suffering produces politically.For years, American policy has operated on the assumption that enough pressure would eventually force either regime collapse or unconditional surrender. Two months of war appear to have complicated both theories.“What led to this particular war,” Azizi said, “was this temptation Trump had that he could dramatically change everything through military action. And that’s proven not to be the case.”Which helps explain why diplomacy — however chaotic, contradictory, and half-denied by all involved — is creeping back into the picture. The emerging framework reportedly under discussion would pause enrichment for more than a decade, require Iran to move highly enriched uranium out of the country, and create a broader negotiating process tied to sanctions relief and maritime security.It is not a peace treaty. It is barely even a roadmap. It is, essentially, an acknowledgment that nobody has found a military solution to the underlying problem. And perhaps that is the real story here.Not the skirmishes. Not the Trump posts. Not even the endless speculation over whether the ceasefire technically still exists. The real story may be that after all the fire and fury, everyone is slowly arriving back at the same uncomfortable conclusion: this ends with negotiation.The question is whether the politics — in Tehran, Washington, and across the region — will allow anyone to admit it out loud.As promised, Arash’s latest: Iran War -- deal or conflict Iran’s Leaders Mostly Want a DealIs a Militia Running Wartime Iran?and don’t forget to subscribe to Arash’s SubstackThere’s no shortage of shows built around people confirming what their audience already believes. That’s good for engagement. It’s not always good for understanding the world.What I try to do here is something different: conversations with people like Arash Azizi, whose understanding of Iran comes not from cable news panels or think tank groupthink, but from deep historical knowledge, real sourcing inside the country, and a willingness to challenge easy narratives.You may not always agree with what you hear. But ideally, you’ll come away thinking about these issues a little differently. That’s the point.If you value that type of coverage, I hope you will consider becoming a paid subscriber.Thank you Herman Jacobs, Linda Perry, Mara, Patty VanDyke, and many others for tuning into my live video with Arash Azizi! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Iran, Lebanon, the King’s speech, the WHCD shooting and more…. Danielle Pletka and I are back in full force! Join us TODAY at 5:30 ET for some cocktails and what promises to be a lively discussion. We had an audio glitch at the very end of the last question, but by then the essential point was clear: Lebanon is not just another front in the Iran war. It is where that war’s contradictions are most exposed — and where any real resolution will be tested.In a wide-ranging conversation with former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman, one theme kept resurfacing: across the region, there is motion without clarity. Ceasefires, negotiations, military pressure — all of it suggests activity, but not direction. Nowhere is that more true than in Lebanon. The war with Iran has settled into a strategic stalemate. Both Washington and Tehran face the same constraint: compromise looks like weakness. So nobody is compromising. Meanwhile, Iran has discovered leverage it didn’t know it had. The Strait of Hormuz — long a theoretical choke point — is now central to the conflict. As Feltman put it, the nuclear file concerned a handful of countries. Hormuz concerns the world. Tehran has noticed.It is against that backdrop that Lebanon matters — and why President Trump’s push for a ceasefire there is about more than Lebanon. Feltman’s read: the president didn’t want an additional reason for Iran not to negotiate. Whether that’s grand strategy or triage is an open question.What’s not in question is that this moment has produced something genuinely unusual: direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, conducted openly and over Hezbollah’s explicit objections. One Hezbollah spokesman reminded President Aoun of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s fate after talking to the Israelis. Aoun proceeded anyway. For decades, that would have been unthinkable. That alone marks a shift.And while the Lebanese state is negotiating, it does not control the forces driving the conflict. Hezbollah is not simply a militia and a terrorist group. It is a political party, a social services network, and a military force whose capabilities rival the Lebanese Armed Forces. It answers to Tehran. And since its leader Hassan Nasrallah’s death, even more so — his successor Naim Qassem is, in Feltman’s words, essentially a fully owned subsidiary of Iran, without Nasrallah’s ability to balance Lebanese politics against Iranian demands.But Israel’s continued occupation of southern Lebanon risks handing Hezbollah back the resistance narrative that made it powerful in the first place. This is the same ground Israel occupied from 1982 to 2000 — and Hezbollah was born in the rubble of that occupation. It knows how to tell that story. It’s been telling it for forty years.There is one shift working against Hezbollah from within. The war has displaced more than a million people from the Shia south — the very constituency Hezbollah claims to protect. The group no longer has the deep pockets it had after the war in 2006 to rebuild and buy back loyalty. That erosion of support is real. Whether the Lebanese government can translate it into political movement before the moment passes is another question entirely.The Aoun government is attempting something genuinely difficult: asserting sovereignty without triggering collapse. Push too hard against Hezbollah and you risk fracturing Lebanon’s sectarian balance. Move too slowly and you hand Israel and Washington the argument that Lebanon cannot act — which, Feltman notes, they are already making.The Lebanese Armed Forces are part of the problem. It is not just capability — though a soldier earning $200 a month is not rushing into a fight with Hezbollah’s drone units. It is cohesion. Any direct confrontation risks the army splitting along sectarian lines.The opportunity, if there is one, exists not because these problems have been solved but because the political space for incremental movement may briefly exist. The Aoun government’s best path, Feltman argues, is not sweeping declarations but tangible steps that are hard to dismiss — replacing Hezbollah’s social services with state services, implementing the goverment’s security plan and eroding the political narrative that sustains the group’s legitimacy.None of it will happen quickly. None of it without significant support. And the risk, as always in Lebanon, is that pressure outruns capacity — that Israel and Washington lose patience before Beirut has had time to show what it can do.If this effort fails, the outcome is unlikely to be a return to the status quo, but could be a broader, more destructive conflict. If it succeeds — even partially — it could begin to shift the balance toward a Lebanese state that actually governs its own territory.For now, Lebanon remains suspended between those two outcomes. Balanced, precariously, on a line that has broken before.There’s no shortage of podcasts where two people who already agree sit down and spend an hour being outraged together. It’s good for the algorithm. It doesn’t tell you anything you didn’t already know.That’s not what we’re doing here.I’m convinced the people worth talking to are the ones who make you reconsider something — not the ones who confirm what you already think. That means serious conversations with diplomats, intelligence officials, and policy architects who’ve actually been in the room. People like Jeff Feltman, who was there for the 2006 war in Lebanon, survived an assassination attempt by Hezbollah, met with the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and has spent twenty years watching the same dynamics repeat themselves.You might not always agree with what you hear. You’ll probably learn something anyway.That’s the point. If it sounds like your kind of show, I hope you’ll subscribe. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Lebanon is having a moment, people! After decades of successive government failures, Hezbollah’s stranglehold on the country, and Iran pulling the strings of its very own “Party of God” terrorist army — complete with missiles tucked behind hospitals and under UN posts — there may finally be a window. Trump picked up the phone, brokered a ceasefire (for now), and told Netanyahu and Lebanon’s new president to get in a room, which could help the President in negotiations with Iran. Whether this is an Abraham Accords moment or just a diplomatic sugar high remains to be seen, but we’ll take it.Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz standoff continues to be both entirely about nuclear leverage and somehow also not about that at all — depending on which hour of the day you’re reading the president’s Truth Social feed. The Saudis, bless them, are quietly rerouting their pipelines and taking the wind out of Iran’s sails. Literally.And Orban lost! The man who turned Hungary into MAGA’s favorite field trip destination — who got CPAC, JD Vance, and a Trump phone-in rally — got voted out. Turns out gutting democratic institutions is fine until the economy tanks and people actually have to live there. Who knew.Bottom lines: Lebanon has a window, but don’t redecorate yet. Iran negotiations are murky and the Strait is murkier. Orban is out, but the MAGA-Hungary romance tells us something interesting about where Vance wants to take this party by 2028. And Pete Hegseth quoted Pulp Fiction thinking it was scripture. We can’t make this up. A final note for this weekWe know a lot of people spend their days doom-scrolling and venting about the politics of the moment — and honestly, sometimes we do too. What we try to offer here is something different: a dispassionate look at the administration’s foreign policies, the week’s news, and the geopolitical forces shaping what comes next. Despite having plenty of our own outrage, we’ll leave that to everyone else — understanding the forces at play feels a lot more useful than preaching to the choir. We don’t always agree, but we disagree agreeably — with respect, some experience, and occasionally some humor. We hope our community appreciates what we’re trying to build here. And if this isn’t your thing, no hard feelings — there are thousands of other Substacks out there to scratch your particular itch. We do hope to see you next week!Preamble, A slap in the face for the right Cosmopolitics Live with Steven Cook#WTH The Hormuz blockade, and podcast with Miad Maleki#WTH A ceasefire with Hezbollah, for now, Cosmopolitics, Ceasefire selfies in the Strait, For those interest in energy, read this Substack by Robert Bryce Vice President JD Vance speech to Turning PointHegseth quoting the “bible” sure does sound a lot like the Pulp Fiction versionThank you Cash Flow Collective, Marcie Alexander, Herman Jacobs, Sanlugonena@25, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Seven weeks in, the war with Iran has morphed into an economic game of chicken — with a side order of nuclear negotiation.Having failed to get Iran to capitulate on the battlefield, the United States is now trying to squeeze Tehran into submission financially. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this week called the naval blockade “the financial equivalent of the bombing campaign.” Iran’s answer was to threaten to shut down trade across the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and Red Sea entirely. Both sides are turning the screws. Neither is blinking. And somehow, in the middle of all this, the two countries are also trying to negotiate a nuclear deal.I sat down with Steven A. Cook, one of the sharpest Middle East analysts working today, to make sense of the current moment — the collapsed talks in Islamabad, the blockade, the nuclear negotiation that has somehow materialized in the middle of a war about a strait. His bottom line was not reassuring. Trump backed himself into this war convinced Iran would fold in days. When it didn’t fold on the battlefield, he sought negotiations. When those broke down, he escalated. “This,” Cook told me, “is the most half-assed war ever.” No clear objectives going in. No clear theory of what winning looks like. No clear sense of what the administration is actually willing to settle for. The shrug emoji🤷🏻 he said, is basically his reaction to what the president is thinking. The problem with the blockade is that it cuts both ways. Yes, it puts economic pressure on Iran — whose economy was already teetering after six weeks of bombardment. But it also keeps the strait closed, which means oil prices stay elevated, which means Americans keep feeling it at the pump. Trump needs a deal before the midterms. Iran knows that. And Tehran has a long history of using negotiations not to reach agreements but to buy time — getting adversaries to ease military pressure in exchange for talks that go nowhere. The new old regime will run the same play.The nuclear talks, ostensibly the reason the US went to war in the first place, only complicate matters. The U.S. wants a 20-year suspension of enrichment. Iran offered five years. Those positions are far apart. But the deeper problem is that Washington is now asking Tehran for two concessions simultaneously: give up the nuclear program and relinquish control of the strait. Before this war, the nuclear program was Iran’s primary leverage. Now Iran also controls Hormuz — not hypothetically, but actually, with mines in the water and ships turning back. A negotiated settlement that leaves Iran with any formalized role over the strait puts Tehran in a stronger position than it was on February 28, before the war started. As Cook put it: who would take that deal?If you value serious foreign policy journalism that cuts through the partisan noise and smart conversations with experts like Steven, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.The ceasefire expires April 22. Three aircraft carriers are now in the region and thousands of additional troops are en route to the region. At the same time, Trump is telling Fox Business the war is “very close to over” and gas prices will be down by the midterms. Maybe. Or maybe this is what a stalemate looks like when one side needs an exit and the other side knows it.Thank you Marcie Alexander, David Galinsky, Barbara, Judy, Christopher Grassi, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steven A. Cook! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

For a brief moment Tuesday night, it looked like the Iran war might end the way it had unfolded — abruptly, ambiguously, and with more questions than answers.After a day of escalating threats — including a warning from President Trump that “a whole civilization” could be wiped out — the United States and Iran agreed to an 11th-hour cease-fire. The deal, brokered through intermediaries including Pakistan, pauses hostilities for two weeks and allows conditional passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the artery through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil flows.Markets rallied. Oil prices dropped. The immediate crisis passed. But the larger question remains unresolved: What, exactly, was this war meant to accomplish?That question sat at the center of my extensive conversation with former National Security Adviser John Bolton — a longtime Iran hawk who supports regime change but is sharply critical of how this war has been executed. His critique is not that the United States acted. It’s that it acted without clarity.“It was just a big jumble,” he said of the administration’s objectives.Tactical success, strategic driftBy conventional military measures, the United States and Israel have been effective. Iran’s military infrastructure has taken significant damage. Senior leadership figures have been killed. Its nuclear and missile programs have been degraded.But wars are not scored on damage alone. Six weeks in, Iran has demonstrated something more consequential: it can still shape the strategic environment. It has disrupted global energy markets, imposed costs on U.S. allies, and turned a long-hypothetical threat into reality — closing the Strait of Hormuz. That shift, Bolton noted, matters more than any single airstrike.The cease-fire appears to accept a version of that reality — one in which Iran retains influence over the flow of commerce through the Gulf. The United States may be winning tactically while conceding strategically.The missing objectiveFrom the outset, the administration’s goals have been fluid — sometimes expansive, sometimes contradictory. At various moments, the war has been framed as eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat, degrading its military capabilities, deterring regional aggression, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and even regime change. Each objective implies a different strategy, a different timeline, and a different level of commitment. Pursuing all of them simultaneously risks achieving none fully.Bolton, who has consistently argued that regime change is the only durable solution, was blunt: without a clearly defined objective, military gains are inherently temporary. He points to the Israeli habit of “mowing the lawn” — a cycle of degrading capabilities that can be rebuilt. As long as the regime survives, it adapts, rebuilds, and returns.Despite weeks of bombardment, Iran continues to operate, negotiate, and project leverage. Its leadership may be weakened, but it is not gone — and may be hardening.“If regime change was ever part of the plan,” Bolton said, “three weeks to put it together wasn’t enough.” A serious effort would have required months of groundwork: organizing internal opposition, encouraging defections, and coordinating pressure from within as well as outside.“That’s how you do regime change,” he said. “Nobody thought this through.”A cease-fire, but no resolutionThe cease-fire is not a negotiated settlement. It is a pause mediated through intermediaries, with each side interpreting its terms differently. The United States sees it as a step toward reopening global commerce. Iran presents it as a validation of its demands — including its role in managing access to the Strait.Even the mechanics remain unclear. Is passage through the Strait truly free, or contingent on Iranian approval? Early indications suggest the latter — a development Gulf states view with alarm. The cease-fire buys time. It does not resolve the underlying conflict.The cost of improvisationThe president’s rhetoric has oscillated between declarations of victory, threats of overwhelming destruction, and appeals for negotiation — sometimes within the same news cycle. At one point, Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Hours later, he announced a cease-fire.Bolton’s assessment was direct: there was no strategic communication behind it.“Presidents… should speak only in aid of a larger strategic plan,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any strategic thinking behind what is being said.”That inconsistency is not just stylistic. In a conflict where signaling shapes escalation, it creates real risk — of misinterpretation by adversaries, of misalignment within the administration, and of undermining U.S. credibility abroad.“There’s no filter between Trump’s brain and his mouth,” Bolton said, describing a pattern he observed during his time in the White House.Bolton argues that Trump’s domestic political considerations — fuel prices, political fallout — may now be driving decisions as much as strategic ones. The cease-fire, in that sense, may be less an endpoint than a pivot.Cosmopolitics depends on your support. If you value serious foreign policy journalism and interviews with newsmakers like John Bolton, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.The alliance problemUnlike previous major conflicts, the United States did not build a broad international coalition before launching military action. Allies were not meaningfully consulted. European partners kept their distance. Gulf states, while aligned against Iran, now find themselves exposed to the consequences of a partial outcome.You have to make the case,” Bolton said. “If you don’t… it’s going to cost us. It already has.”That absence of alignment limits leverage, complicates enforcement, and raises a fundamental question about U.S. leadership in a conflict with global implications.“The United States does think in global terms. We don’t have any choice,” he said. “What happens in the Gulf means a lot to the Europeans, even though they don’t take much oil directly from it… Iranian terrorist attacks have occurred all over Europe… Europe is within range of Iran’s intermediate-range ballistic missiles.”Both sides, he suggested, misread the moment — Washington by failing to consult, Europe by failing to engage.“They should have gritted their teeth,” he said, “and not responded to Trump’s juvenile taunts in a juvenile fashion.”The war that continuesThe cease-fire may pause the fighting. It does not end the war. The core issues remain: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its regional posture, and its demonstrated ability to disrupt the global economy. The regime — weakened but intact — continues to calculate its next move. Regional actors are recalibrating. China and Russia are watching.And the United States faces the same unresolved dilemma it did at the start: What is the objective?Bolton says until that core question is answered — clearly, consistently, and credibly — the risk is not just that the war will continue. It is that it will continue the way it began: without direction or an endgame.It is hard to win a war when you are not entirely sure what winning looks like.As promised, here are few of Ambassador Bolton’s latest pieces: Regime change in Cuba is different to Venezuela and Iran, The Australian Financial ReviewNato is in peril. Europeans must stay calm in the face of Trump’s baiting, The Sunday TelegraphFinish the Job: How Trump Can Still Win in Iran The New York TimesAnd don’t forget to join me and Danielle Pletka for Hot Takes Happy Hour tomorrow at our regular 5:30 time. LOTS to discuss! Thank you Suzette Jensen, Lulu Lew, Donna Krause, Mary Virginia Hughes, Becky, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you didn’t catch my Substack Live with Nancy Youssef, here is the recording.Nancy has covered wars in the Middle East for two decades. While she brings encyclopedic knowledge of the region and the U.S. military from her years at the Pentagon, she notes that the war in Iran is unlike any she has covered - in large part because of the Trump administration’s tight control over information coming out of the military. Still, her perspective is nuanced, sober, and essential.There is simply too much happening in real time - including a possible two week ceasefire - to fully make sense of it in any credible way tonight. Join me tomorrow 9am ET for a special live conversation with Ambassador John Bolton, former National Security Adviser during President Trump’s first term.Ambassador Bolton is as hawkish on Iran as they come and a longtime proponent of regime change. Yet he has serious concerns about the direction and conduct of this war.You won’t want to miss it.Thank you Cash Flow Collective, Stuart Cohen, Emily Kopp, Don Buckter, Herman Jacobs, and many others for tuning into my live video with Nancy Youssef! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

As a former Assistant Secretary of State and senior military officer who served in Iraq and at CENTCOM, he has watched campaigns that looked decisive on paper but far less so in practice — wars where early battlefield success masked a much harder question: what comes next?That’s why it was worth talking to him this week, at a moment when the conversation around the war with Iran is increasingly dominated by noise, rhetoric, and a striking lack of clarity about where this is actually going.By any conventional military measure, the United States has done what it set out to do in the opening phase of the war. Air and naval dominance are firmly established. Hundreds of strike missions have been carried out. Iranian military infrastructure has been significantly degraded. Not a single U.S. aircraft has been lost.On paper, it looks like a clean success. In reality, it looks like the beginning of a much more complicated problem. Because for all that operational progress, the central question remains unanswered: where is this headed?Kimmitt’s answer is telling. So far, he says, the war has been defined by Israel’s attempt at leadership decapitation and a massive U.S. bombing campaign. What we are entering now is something far less defined — a transition point where military pressure continues, but strategic clarity does not.That uncertainty isn’t a sideshow. It’s the story.The administration has been careful — almost to the point of semantic gymnastics — in how it describes the deployment of ground forces. They provide “options.” At a certain point, though, you wonder if “options” are flexibility or a placeholder for a decision that hasn’t been made.To Kimmitt, what makes this conflict particularly difficult is that the United States and Iran are not fighting the same kind of war. America is fighting a war. Iran is playing for time.The U.S. approach is familiar: degrade capabilities, destroy infrastructure, reduce the adversary’s ability to fight until it concedes. Kimmitt describes it as a war of “annihilation” — in its reliance on overwhelming force. Iran, by contrast, is fighting something closer to a war of endurance, or what he calls a war of “exhaustion.“They don’t have to win,” Kimmitt said. “They win by not losing. By living another day.”That distinction matters more than any individual strike. It explains why the destruction of targets does not necessarily translate into strategic progress — and why the idea of a short, decisive war may be more aspirational than real.Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value serious, independent foreign policy journalism and discussions with newsmakers like Mark, I hope you will consider becoming a paid subscriber.There is a familiar trap in wars like this: the belief that if you can measure it, you’re winning.In Vietnam, it was body counts. Today, it may be the number of strikes, missiles intercepted, or facilities destroyed. But Kimmitt warns these metrics are a “fallacy.” Tactical success, he notes, can create the illusion of progress without changing the underlying dynamics.None of this is to discount the military campaign itself. By Kimmitt’s assessment, it has been extraordinarily effective — one of the most precise bombing efforts he has seen. But breaking things, as it turns out, is not the same as achieving something.That disconnect becomes most visible when you look at what “success” is supposed to mean. For Kimmitt, the answer is straightforward and consistent with decades of U.S. policy: no nuclear capability, no ballistic missiles, and no network of regional proxies.“All this other stuff is noise,” he said.Overlaying all of this is a messaging environment that is, at best, confusing.Kimmitt is careful here. There is a case for unpredictability in war — for keeping the adversary off balance. Confusing the enemy can be useful. But there is also a second audience: the American public and U.S. allies.“It’s okay to confuse the enemy,” he said. “It’s not okay to confuse your own country.”Right now, both may be happening at the same time.For now, the United States is winning the part of the war it knows how to fight. Iran is playing the part it knows how to endure. How this is supposed to end is a question neither side seems in a hurry to answer.Thank you Emily Kopp, VickijH78, Don Buckter, Herman Jacobs, Tee Ree, and many others for tuning into my live video with Mark Kimmitt! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Is the war eliminating the dead wood in the Iranian regime? If the regime survives — and survival, in some form, remains likely — it may not be the same regime that went in. A different generation could emerge from the wreckage, and there’s no guarantee it will be a more moderate one. The scenario that should keep policymakers up at night is an Iran run by IRGC hardliners who are no longer constrained by the clerical establishment and have been jockeying for power for years. Be careful what you wish for.Cosmopolitics depends on support from our readers. If you value my my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Then there’s the fog of spin. There’s an enormous amount of disinformation out there right now, and some of it is coming from inside the administration itself. Is Trump quietly looking for an off-ramp? Is there real daylight between him and Netanyahu? Here’s a reality check: the 15-point framework Trump presented to Iran amounted to unconditional surrender. There is no diplomatic ladder being quietly constructed. What you see is what you get.The honest answer — the part no one in the foreign policy establishment wants to say out loud — is that we don’t really know where this ends. We are spitballing. The administration has been searching for an Iranian Delcý Rodriguez: a pragmatic insider willing to deal, to pivot, to be the face of a transition. That person doesn’t appear to exist in Tehran in any position to act on it. So the goal may be something more modest for now — setting the conditions for an organic transition, fracturing the regime’s internal coalitions, creating space for something different to emerge from within Iranian society. Achievable? Possibly. On what timeline? Nobody knows.As Dany put it — channeling Churchill in that way she has — “We are at the end of the beginning. We are not, at the beginning of the end.” Check out our conversation below with…..🎶 shownotes. We’ll be back next week, and yes — we are taking reservations for Dictator’s Café. Recipes welcome. See you there.* The UAE stands up to Iran – Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba (Wall Street Journal)* No, Trump is not losing his nerve on Iran – Marc Thiessen (Washington Post)* #WTH: The Iran War: All the details * #WTH: Trump’s Iran endgame: podcast with retired General Jack Keane * Cosmopolitics: Iran is fighting a war - and itself: podcast with Arash Azizi and…as promised..* Iran war – the movie trailer Thank you David Galinsky, Michael Martineau, Hava Salita, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you haven’t caught my Substack Live with Arash Azizi, here is the recording. I really enjoyed this conversation and I think you will too. In Washington and much of the media, the war is framed through the lens of US decision-making: what President Trump wants, what he might accept, what comes next. That focus obscures something more fundamental — Iran is not simply reacting. It is making its own calculations, shaped as much by internal politics as by external pressure.Right now, Iran is fighting a war while simultaneously trying to figure out what it is becoming. And that tension is shaping everything. Iran is not just resisting — it is regrouping. That distinction helps explain both the trajectory of the war and why it may not end as quickly or cleanly as some expect.A system without a centerThe death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not produce a clear succession. It produced diffusion.Power is now spread across a range of actors — from the Revolutionary Guards to political figures like parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf — navigating a system that is more decentralized and uncertain than it has been in decades. Even if someone wanted to strike a deal with the United States - and it is far from clear anyone does - it is not certain they could bring the system with them.Ending the war now, Arash argues, would mean turning inward at a moment of profound instability. The population is exhausted. The leadership is in transition. The economy is strained. A ceasefire would force all of those pressures to converge at once. Continuing the war, by contrast, buys time. It allows the regime to project resilience and to frame survival as success, while postponing harder internal questions about leadership and legitimacy.This war, he notes, is not fundamentally about nuclear capability or territory. It is about the survival of the Islamic Republic as a system. In that context, enduring the conflict can be cast as victory.The country behind the headlinesWhat often gets lost is how this looks from inside Iran.Arash describes a population grappling with a stark contradiction: many fear the war, but they also fear what comes after it. There is a growing concern that a regime that survives this level of external pressure could emerge more entrenched and more willing to turn inward.At the same time, early hopes that outside pressure might produce change have faded. The war has not created a clear path to transformation, and the idea that external actors will drive political change inside Iran now feels increasingly unrealistic. Iranians currently feel a mix of fear, resignation, and cautious hope for something gradual rather than sudden.The narratives most commonly predicted assume either imminent regime collapse or decisive transformation. Neither is likely. The opposition remains fragmented, without the leadership or organization needed to translate dissatisfaction into a political alternative. The security apparatus remains intact. There is no obvious force waiting to step in.Iran in transitionFor all the uncertainty, Arash sees this moment as part of a larger shift.Iran, he argues, is in a transitional phase — a period between what was and what comes next. The system shaped under Khamenei is already changing, even if its successor is not yet clear.That does not mean Iran is on the verge of democracy. Far from it. Arash believes the more likely outcome, at least in the near term, is a system that remains authoritarian but becomes less ideologically rigid and more pragmatic — particularly in how it engages the region. In time, that could open the door to a more normalized role for Iran, even potentially a different relationship with the United States.What stands out in Arash’s analysis is not just the structural argument, but the human one. His view of Iran is grounded in the lives of Iranians navigating this moment with fear, fatigue, and determination.He speaks not only about democracy, but about dignity — about the possibility of a more stable, more livable future. He wants Iran to be free, democratic and prosperous. Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value independent coverage of foreign policy and interviews with guests like Arash, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Arash does not expect that future to come quickly. But he believes this moment — as violent and uncertain as it is — may be part of a longer process moving the country in that direction.For now, the war continues. But it is unfolding inside a system already in transition, shaped as much by internal change as by external pressure. And that is the part of the story that is too often overlooked: Iran is not just the target of this war. It is an actor in it — and a country in the midst of becoming something new.Danielle Pletka and I hope to see you TODAY at 5:30 for Hot Takes Happy Hour. Thank you David Galinsky, Linda Jean, Endicott Mongoloid, Assa Brown, Brent Maier, and many others for tuning into my live video with Arash Azizi! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman is one of the few Americans ever to have met Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - a surreal encounter he experienced as a top UN diplomat accompanying Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to Tehran in 2012. As he told us in our conversation, he was struck by how little Khamenei actually understood about the United States. America’s picture of Iran may have its gaps, but Khamenei, Feltman said, described a caricature of the country - a portrait that bore little resemblance to the Great Satan his regime had spent half a century railing against. He wrote about the experience at length for Brookings, where he is currently a visiting fellow, and it’s well worth a read.What also struck him was Khamenei’s utter ack of charisma. That stood in sharp contrast to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime Hezbollah leader whose commanding personality had frustrated Feltman during his years as US Ambassador to Lebanon. Nasrallah was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut in September 2024 - ending a 32-year reign at the helm of one of the region’s most powerful armed movements.Cosmopolitics depends on our readers’ support. If you value serious - and independent - foreign policy journalism, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Few people understand the Middle East’s fault lines - and America’s complicated role within them - quite like Jeff, who has spent decades navigating the region’s most volatile moments from the inside. In our conversation, he shared his unvarnished read on the current war, Iran’s strategic calculus, and what kind of Middle East may emerge on the other side. Jeff - who oversaw the largest non-combatant evacuation in US history during the 2006 Lebanon war - had little patience for the Trump administration’s failure to evacuate Americans before this war began, calling it a flat-out “dereliction” of duty.If you missed the live interview, the recording is below. It runs a bit longer than usual, because Jeff had that much to say, and frankly, we could have kept going. Danielle Pletka and I are back in business later today with Hot Takes Happy Hour. Much to discuss. Hope to see you at 5:30p ET. Same bat channel, same old bats. 🦇🦇Thank you Marcie Alexander, Edward F Dijeau, Janice Driver, Renée, Rick, and many others for tuning into my live video with Jeffrey Feltman! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Wars are fought with bombs and missiles. But they are also fought with narratives - the explanations leaders give their citizens about why a conflict is necessary, what success looks like, and what sacrifices may be required.That was the focus of my conversation Emily Horne, founder of Allegro Public Affairs and author of the Substack Spin Class. Horne spent more than two decades in national security communications, including two tours on the National Security Council under Presidents Obama and Biden. She helped lead the Biden administration’s “declassify and share” information strategy ahead of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - a communications effort designed to prepare the public and allies for what was coming.Which is why the rollout of President Trump’s war with Iran has struck her as so unusual.“I’ll be generous and say the messaging has been inconsistent and messy,” Horne said. “But honestly, that’s the most charitable description I can offer.”Going to war is usually accompanied by a deliberate effort to explain the stakes. Even when administrations disagree about whether to seek formal congressional authorization, they typically attempt to level with the American people about the threat, the objective, and what success would look like. None of that clarity has emerged here. In a line I plan to borrow forever, Emily wrote in the lead up to the war that the administration shouldn’t be able to “yada-yada its way past” the prospect of attacking Iran.Instead, the administration has offered a series of shifting explanations - regime change, eliminating Iran’s nuclear capability, countering proxy militias, supporting Israel, backing protesters. Each may be part of the picture. But delivered piecemeal by different officials emphasizing different priorities, the result is confusion.“The American people don’t know what this war is actually about,” Horne said.She describes the problem in Spin Class using what she calls the “Underpants Gnomes theory of foreign policy.” The reference - borrowed from South Park - describes plans that leap from step one to step three while skipping the difficult middle.In this case, the logic looks something like: strike Iran, destabilize the regime… and then somehow arrive at a peaceful outcome. The missing piece is everything in between.Part of the problem, Horne argues, is the absence of the policymaking process that normally precedes a war. In previous administrations, proposals are stress-tested through an interagency process designed to anticipate second- and third-order effects before a president acts.“When you work at the National Security Council or the State Department, your job is to poke holes in ideas,” she said. “You stress-test them so that by the time a decision is made, you’ve thought through as many ways as possible that it could go wrong.”That process appears largely absent today.The communications environment has also changed dramatically. Most Americans no longer receive their news from traditional briefings or presidential speeches. They get it from social media and algorithm-driven platforms. A modern messaging strategy must meet audiences where they are.But that only works if there is a coherent policy to communicate.“A good comms strategy requires a good policy,” Horne said. “And right now we don’t have a clearly defined one.”At the same time, Trump has been conducting a steady stream of brief phone interviews with reporters, often offering new claims about the war or about Iran’s future leadership. The interviews may produce five minutes of exclusive headlines. But they also underscore the absence of something more important: a direct, sustained conversation with the American people about the road ahead.And some of those comments risk undermining the administration’s own stated goals.Cosmopolitics depends on support from readers like you. If you value serious, independent journalism about foreign policy please consider becoming a paid subscriber.If the objective is to give Iranians the chance to determine their future, publicly speculating about who should replace the country’s supreme leader is counterproductive.If Trump wanted to give the Iranian people the best possible chance at something new, he would say nothing about who leads Iran next. Every time he opens his mouth about succession, he makes the reformers’ job harder and the hardliners’ job easier.”In other words, the problem may not just be that the administration is misreading Iran. It may be that the messaging itself is actively working against the outcome it claims to want.Thank you Cash Flow Collective, I. Avila, Pamela Jiranek, Hava Salita, Jessica Koester, and many others for tuning into my live video with Emily Horne! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Folks: forgive me - I sent out the recording of the discussion with Dany - but meant to send this out. Dany will send her version of the recordings with show notes later, which I will forward in the chat. Sorry for the spam. Look forward to seeing you all tomorrow for some more important Iran discussions. If you missed my conversation with veteran Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, you can watch the recording here. As always, Barbara’s analysis of the conflict with Iran — and its potential consequences — is sharp and clear-eyed.Tomorrow Congress will vote on a war powers resolution, and much of the debate has focused on whether such authorization is even necessary. I’m less concerned about that question — administrations of both parties have often declined to seek it — than I am about the administration’s shifting rationale for war, and even more so about the endgame.A lot of this comes down to mixed messaging from the administration — which will be the focus of my next conversation, with Emily Horne, author of the whip-smart Substack Spin Class on messaging, communications strategy, and the politics that shape them. I highly recommend subscribing.In a recent column, Emily unpacks the messaging around the decision to go to war with Iran through what she calls the Underpants Gnomes Theory of Foreign Policy (yes, it’s a South Park reference). In a line I plan to borrow forever, she writes that the administration shouldn’t be able to “yada-yada its way past” the prospect of attacking Iran.Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value independent foreign policy journalism that treats you like an adult, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.I hope you’ll join us tomorrow at 1pm ET / 10am PT.Danny will be sending out today’s special Hot Takes edition on Iran, and we’ll be back tomorrow at our regular time — 5:30pm ET / 2:30pm PT.Thank you Emily Horne, David Galinsky, Lana, Courtney Busby, Maria I. Puerta Riera, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.Thank you Kimberly Briedis, The Nymph Channel, Kat Vav, Melissa Ebel, Henry Einav, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you didn’t catch my live conversation with Larry Diamond of Stanford University, here’s the recording. I encourage you to listen in full. Larry has spent his career studying how democracies die. He’s watched authoritarianism creep into Venezuela, Turkey, Hungary, and India. Now he’s applying that same analytical lens to the United States . Nobody wants to think of America in that light. But Larry tells me he is seeing patterns that should concern all of us, regardless of party.In our conversation, Larry walks through what he calls “the autocrats’ 12-step program” - the playbook used by leaders around the world to consolidate power: weaponizing state institutions, purging watchdog agencies, intimidating independent media, and manipulating electoral rules. He explains where we are on that trajectory and what he’s most worried about right now.Cosmopolitics depends on your support. If you value my foreign policy journalism and conversations with experts like Larry, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.This isn’t a conversation about despair. Larry talks about how authoritarianism has been reversed in Poland, Brazil, and Senegal. He explains what actually works - and what role each of us can play.As he says: “This is not a one-party problem.” This is about defending institutions that belong to all Americans. And this is not a time to sit around being outraged. It’s time to reclaim our civic agency, regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum. On that note, we hope to see you Thursday for Hot Takes Happy Hour. Danielle Pletka don’t always agree on the issues, but we debate them respectfully an effort to understand the complex challenges facing the country beyond the partisan noise. That’s the work! Thank you Maria I. Puerta Riera, Karen C-Collector of Books 📖, CRope, Judy, renée, and many others for tuning into my live video with Larry Diamond! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Yesterday’s conversation with Steven A. Cook drew the biggest turnout we’ve had yet! So many familiar faces and so many new ones. Smart questions, sharp pushback. The kind of crowd that reminds me why we started Cosmopolitics in the first place - to slow the news cycle down just enough to actually think. If you haven’t already, subscribe and join us. This community only works because you show up.Cosmopolitics s a reader-supported publication. If you value independent journalism with depth, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Steven and I tried to map the region the way it actually is - not the way press conferences describe it. And here’s where I think we landed:Everything right now looks like diplomacy. Everything right now also looks like war prep. Both things are true at the same time, which is… not exactly calming.But first: IranAfter his three-hour meeting with Netanyahu this week, President Trump posted:Preference. Not commitment. Not strategy. Preference.Meanwhile - and this is the part people in the region notice - the United States is massing serious hardware in the Gulf. Carrier groups, destroyers, air defenses. The kind of posture that says: we’re talking, but don’t mistake that for hesitation.It’s classic leverage politics: talk softly, park an armada offshore.The problem is that leverage has a shelf life. You can’t keep tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars’ worth of assets floating there indefinitely. At some point you either use it or you don’t, and everyone knows it.Still, it’s unclear what Trump’s bottom line is. That uncertainty is supposed to scare Iran, but it also scares allies - and occasionally, U.S. officials.Because here’s the quieter truth beneath the rhetoric: a big war with Iran would be hard, much harder than the slogans suggest.Tehran may be politically fragile - protests, sanctions, a battered economy - but militarily it still has teeth. Missiles, drones, proxies. Plenty of ways to make life miserable for U.S. bases and Gulf energy infrastructure.So Washington is threading a needle: threatening war while quietly rediscovering how complicated war actually is. And in the meantime, negotiations themselves may be giving the regime breathing room - which is exactly what makes Israel nervous.Netanyahu’s position hasn’t changed: a narrow nuclear deal isn’t enough. He wants missiles and proxies on the table too. Tehran has already said no. So the two leaders are aligned on pressure, but not necessarily on what “success” looks like. And when the objectives aren’t clear, leverage starts to look a lot like drift.Meanwhile: the West BankWhile everyone watches Iran, something quieter - and potentially more combustible - is happening closer to home for Israel.The West Bank story isn’t dramatic. No aircraft carriers, no summits. Just paperwork, permits, jurisdiction tweaks, expanded enforcement. Incremental steps that, taken together, look a lot like annexation without anyone wanting to use the word annexation. Call it bureaucratic geopolitics.At the same time, the administration is talking up diplomacy - Gaza stabilization, regional normalization, Trump’s nebulous “Board of Peace.” It’s a very Washington phrase that sounds great on a panel but is less clear on the ground.Publicly, Netanyahu is playing along. Privately, many in his coalition still believe force, not frameworks, is what actually changes facts.So again: diplomacy on top, pressure underneath. Same pattern as Iran. Talks in the daylight, tanks idling in the background.The throughline: Everyone is negotiating. No one fully trusts negotiations.Trump prefers deals but likes threats even more. Iran wants sanctions relief without real concessions. Israel wants guarantees that probably aren’t negotiable. The Gulf wants everybody to please calm down because they live inside the blast radius.It’s less a strategy than a standoff, and it produces this strange, unstable middle ground where talks continue right up until the moment they don’t.Which is why moments like yesterday matter. The headlines make everything sound binary - deal or war, diplomacy or strikes. The reality is murkier, more incremental, more human. It’s officials hedging, allies whispering, militaries planning for things leaders hope never happen. It’s uncertainty dressed up as strategy.Thank youOne reason I’m so grateful for this community is that we get to have these conversations without pretending there are easy answers. We can say: this is complicated, this is risky, nobody really knows, and still keep reporting, asking, pressing.If you haven’t subscribed yet, please do. Cosmopolitics runs on readers who want depth, along with some hot takes. Speaking of which, Danielle Pletka and I will be back next week with Hot Takes Happy Hour. Thank you for showing up yesterday. For reading. For caring about foreign policy when it’s easier not to. We’ll keep convening smart people, keep asking uncomfortable questions, and keep trying to figure out – together - whether all this “diplomacy” is headed somewhere real… or just buying time before the next crisis.More soon …Thank you David Galinsky, Kimberly Briedis, Emma Schreiber, ahyeahatx, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steven A. Cook! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you missed my conversation with former Undersecretary Tom Shannon, here’s the recording. It’s essential viewing for anyone trying to make sense of President Trump’s strategy for the Western Hemisphere. Tom’s insights come from decades serving at the highest levels of government on regional issues in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Tom sees Trump’s second-term foreign policy as an explicit shift from values-based alliance management to transactional “ownership” politics driven by threats and pressure. He warns the blowback could be strategic isolation. Trump’s approach is a coherent “power-and-assets” strategy - one that trades away legitimacy, alliances, and long-term U.S. influence for short-term gains. Everything Trump is doing in the region and beyond - Venezuela, Colombia, Canada, Mexico, Greenland, NATO - shows that coercion may yield short-term concessions but ultimately weakens America’s global position.Tom summed up his core thesis in one line I’ll be borrowing repeatedly: Power without principle is a weak vessel.Based on Trump’s remarks today during his two-hour press conference (if we can call it that), I predict we’ll see a deal with NATO on Greenland coming out of Davos this week - something short of outright American “ownership,” but one that allows Trump to claim victory. Trump will frame it as having focused NATO and Europe on the Arctic’s importance and securing agreement to move faster on boosting Greenland’s defenses against Russia and China. One could argue that’s what he was trying to do all along, just very badly. But given the way markets are turning, and the pushback from Europe and Republicans in Congress, I think Trump will be looking to pivot away from Greenland soon.I’ll write more later today after Trump’s speech at Davos.Cosmopolitics depends on support from readers like you. If you value my reporting and interviews with experts like Tom, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Thank you Donna Carrillo Lopez, Kimberly Briedis, Joseph Tucker, Marnie, Sloane, and many others for tuning into my live video with Tom Shannon! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you missed my conversation with former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder here’s the recording. Ivo walks through the strategic importance of the Arctic, how Greenland fits in and why cooperation with NATO strengthen’s US security in the region. My take is below.Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value serious foreign affairs journalism and interviews with guests like Ivo, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.The United States doesn’t need to own Greenland to secure it. Under a 1951 defense agreement, the U.S. enjoys sweeping military access - the ability to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases, “house personnel,” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.” We currently operate Pituffik Space Base, the northernmost deepwater port in the world, with a 10,000-foot runway and missile defense systems tracking threats across the North Pole.A 2004 amendment made clear that expanding operations requires only consultation with Denmark and Greenland. In practice, the U.S. has a free hand.More broadly, the Arctic is NATO territory defended by seven members with actual expertise: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, and the United States. These aren’t theoretical allies - they’re countries that coordinate patrols, share intelligence, and maintain installations throughout the region. Norway monitors Russian naval activity in the High North. Denmark’s special forces conduct long-range patrols across Greenland using those dog sleds Trump mocked. Iceland’s location makes it essential for tracking submarines. Finland shares an 830-mile border with Russia and brings decades of experience managing that relationship.Denmark just pledged $13.7 billion to upgrade Arctic security infrastructure and has repeatedly said it will accommodate any reasonable American security request. Finland and Sweden joined NATO specifically because they understand the Russian threat.Trump claims “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place” to justify the security threat. That contradicts both U.S. and Danish intelligence assessments. What’s actually happening is increased Russian and Chinese activity throughout the Arctic region - which NATO members are monitoring and responding to collectively.None of this requires American ownership. It requires American partnership – which would require acknowledging that allies have value.The new US world viewStephen Miller made the administration’s worldview explicit on CNN: “We live in a world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”That’s the rejection of everything NATO was built to accomplish. The alliance was designed on the principle that collective security is stronger than individual might - that democracies working together could deter aggression better than great powers carving up the globe in spheres of influence.The administration argues American security in the Arctic requires owning Greenland because NATO commitments aren’t sufficient. In their view, real security exists only for territories that are literally American.Every NATO member is watching and adjusting their assumptions accordingly. If the United States doesn’t trust Article 5 to protect Greenland - NATO territory - why should Poland trust Article 5 to protect them? Why should the Baltic states believe American security guarantees?What we loseDenmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was stark about the stakes: “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”The alliance doesn’t survive the United States attacking a member. Even the threat fundamentally undermines trust. We just watched European leaders stand in Paris with Trump’s envoys announcing security guarantees for Ukraine - and hours later, the White House reiterated that military force is “always an option” for taking Greenland.If the Trump administration genuinely cares about Arctic security - if this is really about deterring Russia and China rather than exploiting Greenland’s rare earth minerals - the solution is collective defense through the alliance that exists.Increase U.S. military presence at Pituffik under the existing agreement. Expand joint exercises with Nordic allies. Invest in Arctic surveillance systems. Share intelligence more effectively. Support Denmark’s $13.7 billion infrastructure upgrade. Work with Finland and Sweden on the Russian threat they understand intimately.All of this is not only possible but welcomed by allies who’ve been asking the United States to take Arctic security more seriously for years. The opposite, blowing up up the alliance to seize territory from a country that’s been accommodating American security needs for 75 years is not a strategy. That’s not even particularly creative imperialism. It’s a self-inflicted wound born from the failure to recognize that cooperation is real power.If the United States can’t figure out how to work with willing allies on shared threats, the problem isn’t Greenland’s sovereignty. The problem is Washington’s rejection of the idea that alliances matter at all.Thank you Margaret Groves, Levee, Susan J, Courtneye, HH, and many others for tuning into my live video with Ivo Daalder! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Folks: If you missed my conversation with former US envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams, I encourage you to watch the recording. Elliot’s knowledge and insights bring essential context and nuance to this complex story. I write more about how the administration’s strategy, or lack thereof, will impact the region well beyond Trump’s term in the post below. Tomorrow I will discuss the administration’s designs on Greenland and the potential consequences of the US moving to acquire it. Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value serious foreign policy journalism and interviews with guests like Elliot, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Three days into the new year, President Donald Trump did something that should make every American who remembers Iraq deeply uneasy: we invaded Venezuela, seized its president, and casually announced the United States would “run” the country until “we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”The successful raid was remarkable, but the phrase - “run Venezuela” - should haunt us. The last time American presidents talked confidently about managing other countries after toppling their leaders, we got two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan. Colin Powell famously called it the “Pottery Barn rule”: “You break it, you own it.” We owned both countries for decades. Trump himself was elected on promises to end these “forever wars.” This time he thinks he’s discovered a loophole.The LatAm PivotExactly two years ago, I wrote that Latin America was “the overlooked wallflower in American diplomacy” - viewed through the lens of immigration and drugs but sidelined for Middle East crises and the pivot to Asia. I argued it was time to wake up and smell the café con leche: the region’s strategic importance had been grossly underestimated.For decades, U.S. policy oscillated between heavy-handed interventions and benign neglect - like a gardener who only notices the garden when it’s overrun with weeds. This left a vacuum China gleefully filled. As Larry Summers put it: while the U.S. offers lectures, China builds airports.To Trump’s credit, his team finally recognized what I and others had been arguing: Latin America matters. The problem is how he’s acting on that recognition. Instead of strategic investment and partnership, Trump has embraced a military-backed spheres of influence approach- carving up the world where America dominates the Western Hemisphere, Russia gets Europe, and China takes Asia. Everyone stays in their lane.It sounds almost rational until you remember what spheres of influence produced in the 20th century: imperial powers dividing up other people’s countries without consent, leaving catastrophe in their wake. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was meant to keep European powers out of the Americas - not give American presidents license to invade them. Trump calls his version the “Donroe Document” and declared: “Under our new National Security Strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”Putin and Xi’s responses were surprisingly muted because Trump just adopted their playbook. “Ukraine belongs to Russia’s sphere” is Putin’s main argument. “Taiwan is part of China’s sphere” will be Xi’s justification. Trump just gave them permission slips.This is where Trump’s spheres of influence collide with Powell’s Pottery Barn rule.What Trump really wantsWhen asked why an “America First” president would take over a South American country, Trump didn’t equivocate: “We want to surround ourselves with energy. We have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves.”This obviously isn’t about democracy - drugs are a secondary concern. For sure it’s blunting Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence. But it’s mostly about oil and establishing that if you nationalized American oil assets in 1976, we can take them back 50 years later. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick helpfully noted steel and aluminum industries could also be revived “for U.S. benefit.”Here’s the problem: Venezuela nationalized its oil in 1976. So did Mexico in 1938, Iran in 1951, and Bolivia, Argentina, and Ecuador at various points. Trump just established that decades-old resource grievances justify military intervention. That’s not a doctrine. That’s a protection racket with an exceptionally long memory.The leftist regime domino theoryTrump’s ambitions extend beyond Venezuelan oil fields to a broader campaign driving out leftist governments across the hemisphere. His administration is engineering a political realignment across an entire hemisphere with military force as the lever.Cuba tops the list. Thirty-two Cuban military and intelligence personnel died in the Venezuela raid - that’s not just alliance, that’s entanglement. Trump noted Cuba’s critical vulnerability: “Cuba only survives because of Venezuela.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio - whose primary interest has always been Cuba - warned this weekend: “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.” Cut off the oil, watch the economy collapse, wait for the 66-year-old communist government to fall.Colombia - our decades-long partner on counter-narcotics - got sanctioned because President Gustavo Petro maintains an “alliance with Maduro.” Think about this strategic disaster: Colombia hosts 2.8 million Venezuelan refugees and possesses the critical intelligence we need. Many cartels operate in Venezuela precisely because Colombian cooperation pushed them out. We’ve eliminated our most important partner at the most critical moment.Mexico, our second-largest trading partner, is also on notice. Trump claims cartels run the country, and officials confirm he’s “very interested” in sending Special Forces. President Claudia Sheinbaum insists “it’s not going to happen,” but Trump’s Venezuela operation suggests sovereign consent is optional.Nicaragua’s Ortega also faces threatened 100 percent tariffs and increasing isolation.The pattern is unmistakable: pressure leftist governments while rewarding right-wing allies. Argentina’s Javier Milei got $20 billion. El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele got his travel warning removed. The Summit of the Americas - the premier hemispheric forum - was canceled for the first time in 31 years due to “deep divisions.” No exit strategyTrump is celebrating the capture of Maduro and declaring the U.S. is “in charge” of Venezuela. But he has no clear plan for what comes next.Trump apparently believes he can topple Maduro, install compliant leadership, extract oil concessions, and move on. But Venezuela is a failed state of 28 million people - twice the size of Iraq - where the regime maintains only fragile control beyond Caracas. The country is simultaneously heavy-handed authoritarian and absolute anarchy.And the regime hasn’t actually been removed. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino remains - also under U.S. drug indictment. Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello stays - also indicted. The military is intact. So is the Cuban-designed surveillance apparatus (albeit one that failed to detect the American raid).Trump says he’ll work with Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, as interim leader. This isn’t regime change - it’s dictator change. The same officials who created the worst migration crisis in Latin American history get to keep running things, just now with American blessing and oil company access.If Rodríguez doesn’t “behave,” Trump threatened a “second strike.” We’re not managing a transition - we’re threatening ongoing military intervention to coerce compliance. That’s textbook mission creep. The Pentagon has already built the largest U.S. military presence in the hemisphere in decades - more than 15,000 troops. Trump says America is “not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to.”And this is just Venezuela. Cuba’s government looks vulnerable without Venezuelan oil, and Florida Republicans are salivating for action. Ortega’s Nicaragua faces escalating pressure. Petro in Colombia continues criticizing U.S. policy, inviting potential escalation. Meanwhile, migration will continue because nobody’s actually fixing the conditions that drive people to flee.Before long, we could be managing - or more accurately, failing to manage - multiple weak states across Latin America, all demanding American attention, resources, and military presence. Unlike the Middle East, which we could at least pretend to pivot away from to focus on other concerns like Asia, this is our neighborhood. If being stuck in the Middle East felt endless, imagine being bogged down in simultaneous interventions in our actual backyard - each one supposedly quick and clean, each one metastasizing into something nobody intended.This is how a quick raid to grab one guy turns into a decades-long quagmire where nobody remembers the original objective.No three-year return policyPresident Trump will be gone in three years, term-limited out in January 2029. If Venezuela descends into chaos, if Colombia destabilizes, if we’re managing cascading crises across Latin America - none of it will be his problem. He’ll be in Mar-a-Lago, taking credit for “ending the Maduro regime.” He won’t be thinking about 2035, just his next golf game.But America will still be there with troops deployed and credibility further shredded by another regime-change adventure that morphed into something nobody intended. We thought we’d learned this lesson after Iraq’s phantom WMDs, after Afghanistan’s collapse during evacuation, after Libya became a militia playground. We supposedly internalized that toppling dictators is vastly easier than building stable governments.Trump has a different theory he’s now testing across the hemisphere: that power projection without responsibility is what dominance means. That the Pottery Barn rule was always just bureaucratic excuse-making. That you can break things and walk away.Whether Trump admits it or cares, America will own these pieces - sharp, dangerous, expensive pieces - long after he’s gone.. That’s not partisan criticism, friends. That’s how history works. Ask George W. Bush whether “Mission Accomplished” aged well.Three years from now, Trump will hand someone else this mess. And we’ll spend a generation cleaning it up.Thank you BY GLENN KESSLER, Cash Flow Collective, David Galinsky, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, GeorgeCarlinWasRight, and many others for tuning into my live video with Elliott Abrams! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

It was great to see so many of you on Monday for our year-end show . Danielle Pletka and love our #HTHH community! If you weren’t able to catch us live, here is the full recording…best watched with a strong cocktail.Look for more Hot Takes in 2026. In addition to our weekly news roundups, we’ll come to you with more analysis of breaking news and deeper dives on hot-button issues. We don’t have regular “show notes” this week, but I encourage you to check out this MUST READ by Dany. WTH: We need better leaders. You might have noticed that I’ve been offering more Cosmopolitics content without the paywall over the past few months. I have been trying to keep as much as possible free. But I need your help. Cosmopolitics is an entirely reader-supported publication, and it takes work to keep all of the reporting, critical analysis and interviews going.Thanks to all of you who have already taken advantage of our holiday sale—30% off an annual subscription, continuing through New Year’s Day. We have exciting things ahead for 2026. Unlock our full archive of nuanced foreign policy analysis and exclusive subscriber-only content now, all for less than the cost of a coffee a month! A gift subscription is also gift for that Cosmopolitan in your life looking for serious foreign policy coverage. They’re also discounted at 30 percent!I hope you all enjoy a wonderful and safe New Year and wish you and yours all good things in 2026. Thank you Cash Flow Collective, David Galinsky, Bud Jones, Candace Head-Dylla, Lana, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Always great to see you all:Dany has assembled some good reading material (links below about the debate over whether Congress has the sole power to declare war when it comes to Venezuela, as well as some objections to the President’s military campaign - including from conservatives -that are worth reading.Here’s a nice little outtake from an analysis by the Constitution Center In modern times, however, Presidents have used military force without formal declarations or express consent from Congress on multiple occasions. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea; President Reagan ordered the use of military force in, among other places, Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush directed an invasion of Panama to topple the government of Manuel Noriega; and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Some commentators argue that, whatever the original meaning of the Declare War Clause, these episodes (among others) establish a modern practice that allows the President considerable independent power to use military force.Dany (with an assist from her lawyer hubby, Stephen) notes that no White House has recognized the War Powers Resolution as binding or constitutional, and that’s unlikely to change. Which is why most conflicts in the modern era were fought without authorization and without a declaration of war—and without serious effort by Congress to claw back any prerogatives it might have. Congress isn’t without power, however. It can cut off funding for military action, for example. That isn’t being discussed because Congress is asleep at the wheel. When they wake up and decide to start governing, maybe they will consider it. Probably not.As Dany and I discussed—the issue here is not that President Trump is using military force. Like with many of his policies, including tariffs, deployment of the National Guard, and so many others, it’s the legal justification his administration uses. One reason could be that there are so many agendas, but no real strategy.Send us your comments and see you next week! Cosmopolitics and #WTH depend on your support. If you value the conversations Dany and I have, which cut through the noise and focus on the issue please consider becoming a paid subscriber.and please subscribe to Dany’s razor-sharp insights at What the Hell is Going On? SHOWNOTESDany’s piece #WTH Donald Trump is not wrong about EuropeElise’s piece : Power without Purpose and discussion with Barbara Starr on Venezuela, Hegseth and National Security StrategyKamala Harris interview with NYTSome Venzuela reading and war powers texts:The Terrorism Confusion in the Caribbean (National Review) War and the Constitutional TextDeclare War ClauseThank you David Galinsky, Quilt for change, Lana, Kevin Lehigh, lotta kuylenstjerna, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

I love talking with my friend and former CNN colleague Barbara Starr. Few journalists can cut through the noise to focus on what truly matters like she can - and this conversation was no exception. If you weren’t able to watch live, check out the recording. Barbara broke down the US military campaign in the Caribbean and the potential drain a long deployment could place on the force. She spoke to the heart of what the latest campaign against Venezuela is really about and explained how President Trump seems to be marginalizing Pete Hegseth. (Check out her latest below on who at the Pentagon now has Trump’s trust). She also has sharp insights on the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy: the broader dangers of abandoning NATO, and why the Venezuela campaign is a prime example of how military power alone—however important—won’t be enough to improve American influence in the Western Hemisphere.Cosmopolitics depends on reader support. If you value my work and conversations with guests like Barbara, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Barbara’s latest: Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is the man to watchElise’s latest: Power without PurposeThank you Frida Ghitis, Chris Kelley Cimko, Musings on Interesting Times, Kimberly Briedis, Rebecca Rains Floyd, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

For those of you who didn’t catch my live conversation with Steven A. Cook, here is the recording. As always, Steven’s insights on Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s visit to Washington, and the evolution of US-Saudi relationship were sharp, thoughtful, and essential for anyone looking to understand the transformation of the Gulf. Thank you GG Haegelin, lotta kuylenstjerna, Hava Salita, BCz, Align, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steven A. Cook! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Dany and I covered a lot of ground this week. We discussed this week’s elections and Democratic victories, including Zoran Mamdani’s win; the Supreme Court’s deliberations on President Trump’s tariffs and his meeting with Chinese President Xi; Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she won’t seek re-election; and the Heritage Foundation’s disturbing reaction to antisemitism among Republicans like Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson. If you didn’t get a chance to catch us live, here’s the recording. Show notes below.Let us know what you think and, as always, send us questions and topics for next week! As I mentioned, I spent last week at Stanford University meeting with various professors and officials about their civics programs. I was really encouraged by their efforts to teach students about civil discourse and civic engagement and encourage them to practice it on campus - something I feel passionately about and am actively working on. More on that to come.Having uncomfortable conversations with efforts to understand alternative points of view - and some humor! - is exactly what Danielle Pletka and I seek to do with this little weekly show. There’s a lot on which we agree, but just as much on which we don’t. Most importantly, however, we express our views respectfully. We hear each other and appreciate where the other is coming from, even when we hold opposing views on the details.If you value our discussions, please recommend #Hot Takes Happy Hour, What the Hell is Going On? and Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott to your networks and consider becoming a paid subscriber. SHOW NOTESDany’s piece: #WTH New York forgets its past (Substack, Nov. 4, 2025) and podcast: #WTH: What do Mandani and the Socialists really believe? (Substack, Oct 30, 2025)Elise’s piece on China: The art of the long game (Substack, Oct. 31, 2025)Trump’s China Deal Is a Major Indictment of U.S. Trade Policy (The Dispatch, Nov. 5, 2025)Trump: I’ll Work with China, Not Canada (AEI, Oct. 27, 2025)Heritage-affiliated antisemitism task force to cut ties with embattled think tank (Jewish Insider, Nov 6. 2025)How Tucker Carlson instigated an inevitable war within MAGA (Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2025)The Buckley Test: Can the Right Still Police Its Own? (The Free Press, Nov. 6, 2025)Dany’s piece on Heritage: #WTH Sorry is not enough (Substack, Nov. 3, 2025) and podcast: #WTH: How do we keep Neo-Nazi out of the conservative movementBonus: Hillary Clinton quote in Pakistan in 2011 about its support for the Haqqani network, a terrorist group launching attacks in Afghanistan :“You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors.”(Now you get the metaphor about MAGA’s association with antisemites like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes)Thank you David Galinsky, Hava Salita, Veronique Rodman, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Friends: Sorry I am sending out our recording and show notes later than usual - I’ve been traveling the last few days. Last week Trump finally discovered the sanctions button. After months of playing footsie with Putin while Europe nervously chain-smoked cigarettes in the corner, Trump concluded that “good conversations that don’t go anywhere” was in fact Putin’s way of blowing off his efforts to end the war. Russia helpfully announced they are “immune” to the sanctions. But India is reportedly ready to dump Russian oil. The Kremlin responded by hitting a Ukrainian kindergarten.In Israel, leave it to Netanyahu’s coalition to vote on West Bank annexation while Vice President J.D. Vance was literally in the country – kind of the diplomatic equivalent to setting your neighbor’s lawn on fire while they’re standing in your driveway. Vance called it “a very stupid political stunt” and said he was “personally insulted.” Which, let’s be honest, could be the most relatable thing Vance has ever said. And just when you thought the week couldn’t get more dystopian, the Pentagon decided to Marie Kondo the press corps, keeping only the outlets that “spark joy” by signing a pledge to serve as Hegseth’s propaganda, which apparently means Gateway Pundit and Mike Lindell’s fever dream streaming service. Fox News? Too mainstream. But LindellTV? That’s journalistic integrity, baby.Dany and I discuss all this and more. As always, let us know what you think - and send us suggestions for Thursday’s episode. Hope to see you then!Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my reporting and conversations with guests like Dany, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.SHOW NOTES: What’s the significance of US sanctions on Russian oil? (BBC, October 22, 2025)U.S. to Provide Ukraine With Intelligence for Missile Strikes Deep Inside Russia (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2025)Dany’s piece and podcast with Jack Keane – #WTH How to Destroy Hamas (Substack, Oct 28, 2026) Elise’s interview with Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: The Palestinian voice you need to hear (Substack, Oct 23, 2025)Why J. D. Vance Just Called an Israeli Parliament Vote ‘Stupid’ and an ‘Insult’ (The Atlantic, October 24, 2025)https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/10/why-j-d-vance-just-called-an-israeli-parliament-vote-stupid-and-an-insult/684676/Pentagon touts ‘next generation’ press corps of mostly right-wing outlets (The Hill, October 22, 2025)After U.S. bailout, Argentine voters give Milei a friendlier Congress (Washington Post, October 27, 2025)Trump Pardons Founder of the Crypto Exchange Binance (New York Times, October 23, 2025)Thank you David Galinsky, Bud Jones, Candace Head-Dylla, Lana, Kimberly M Schofield, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Hope you will join me and Danielle Pletka lTODAY at 5p for #Hot Take Happy Hour: On the menu: Russia sanctions, Vance and Rubio in Israel and #WTH in Venezuela. Plus whatever happens today - you just know there will be something. See you there!If you missed my conversation with Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib , the recording is essential viewing - and I mean that. In wide-ranging discussion that was at times heartbreaking and at others cautiously hopeful, Ahmed offered the kind of nuanced perspective on Gaza’s future that’s become vanishingly rare in our polarized discourse about this conflict.Ahmed, who writes the Substack The Radical Pragmatist heads Realign for Palestine at the Atlantic Council, but his credentials don’t capture why his voice matters so profoundly right now. He’s a Gaza native who left at 15 and received political asylum in the United States in 2007 - literally the day Hamas took over the Gaza strip. He’s lost about three dozen members of his family in this war, several of whom opened their homes to displaced families and were killed while sheltering dozens of Palestinians.Yet Ahmed has maintained remarkable empathy and clarity about both Israeli and Palestinian suffering and responsibility- a position that’s earned him serious threats from Hamas supporters while also drawing accusations of being insufficiently pro-Palestine from activists who’ve never set foot in Gaza. As he told me: “I wouldn’t do this differently. I hold Hamas responsible for our people’s suffering.”Ahmed’s assessment was blunt: While Trump deserves credit for stopping the killing and bringing hostages home, phase 2 of his plan is remains “strictly theoretical.” There’s no concrete plan for the international stabilization force, no clarity on which countries will contribute troops or funding, and no governance structure for Gaza..Meanwhile, Hamas has come out of its tunnels and reasserted control - deploying armed forces, executing alleged collaborators in public squares, and demonstrating they’re very much armed and still in charge. Ahmed noted that many pro-Palestine activists who opposed police violence domestically are now celebrating Hamas killing people they label as “gangsters and looters.” And he is convinced Hamas will attempt to be “recycled” into the new security apparatus rather than removed. One of the most compelling parts of our conversation addressed a question I hear constantly: where are the moderate Palestinian voices who can build a better future?Ahmed believes there is no shortage of Palestinian talent. Tens of thousands of Palestinians - academics, engineers, journalists, bureaucrats - are ready to serve. But the corrupt PA/Hamas/PLO infrastructure blocks them. He sees the solution as decentralized governance for the West Bank and Gaza separately under a “broad umbrella” of statehood,Ahmed sees Gaza as the test case - a chance to demonstrate that Palestinians can govern and prosper when given a fair chance. But the window is closing fast. If phase 2 of Trump’s deal stagnates, if Hamas gets rehabilitated instead of removed, if moderate Arab states remain sidelined, if no pathway emerges for new Palestinian leadership - the opportunity may be lost for a generation.“Moderates need wins to emerge, he said. “They must be able to show their people that moderation pays off. Moderation brings a better life.”Ahmed’s vision requires Palestinians taking agency, building state institutions, and moving away from perpetual victimhood narratives. But it also requires sustained international pressure to actually implement rest of the deal, sideline Hamas and empower moderate voices with tangible wins.Watch the full conversation. Ahmed’s perspective - informed by profound personal loss, deep connections across the region, and a commitment to breaking the cycle of violence - offers something increasingly rare: a pathway forward that doesn’t require choosing between Israeli and Palestinian humanity. We need more voices like his.Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my reporting and conversations with guests like Ahmed, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Thank you Cash Flow Collective, Tita D., and many others for tuning into my live video with The Radical Pragmatist! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted yesterday. Unlike the politicized cases against James Comey and others, this one has teeth. The Washington Post notes the indictment was signed by Kelly O. Hayes, a respected veteran prosecutor, and Tom Sullivan, who heads Maryland’s national security division—both career prosecutors, not Trump appointees overruling their staff. The timing may be political. The case itself? Less so.Venezuela: My conversation with Elliott Abrams, Trump’s former envoy to Venezuela, is essential viewing (link in show notes). If you think US action there is just about drug cartels, think again. Abrams offers crucial context on the administration’s regional strategy, US interests at stake, and what recent military strikes and Trump’s CIA directive really mean for Maduro’s regime.Party rebels gone wild: Sen. John Fetterman now faces a 2028 Democratic primary after his approval among Democrats collapsed from 80% to 33%—while Republicans suddenly love him at 62%. Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene is earning praise from Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer for breaking with GOP leadership on ACA subsidies and Epstein files, even as the White House calls her actions “hostile.”We are also watching Hamas fresh reign of terror in Gaza and Trump’s frustrating willingness to give Putin yet another chance with a potential meeting in the works. Stay tuned.Show NotesFormer Trump aide John Bolton indicted over handling of classified material (Washington Post, October 16, 2025) Elise’s conversation with Elliot Abrams, Is the US seeking regime change in Venezuela (Substack,m October 17, 2025)Top military officer central to Trump’s drug war will step down early (Washington Post, October 16, 2025) Puppet Regime (Instagram - GZero Media) Dany’s piece: In the Middle East, there is no “new beginning,” Substack, October 16, 2025) and podcast episode with Dan Senior #WTH Is Happening With Middle East Peace?Democrats plot Fetterman’s ouster (Axios, October 16, 2025)Why Marjorie Taylor Greene is defending Obamacare subsidies (Washington Post, October 17, 2025) Thank you David Galinsky, Andrea LeDew, Kathy J., JP, lotta kuylenstjerna, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you weren’t able to catch my conversation with Elliott Abrams here is the recording. As the former US envoy to Venezuela during President Trump’s first administration, his perspective is essential viewing for anyone trying to understand the administration’s current approach to Venezuela and its president, Nicolás Maduro.Lest you think recent US actions against Venezuela are simply about drug cartels, Elliott offered a wide-ranging assessment of the situation in the country, the administration’s broader regional strategy, and the US interests at stake—putting the recent military strikes and President Trump’s CIA directive in crucial context. I’ll be writing more about Venezuela in the coming days, informed by Elliott’s thoughtful insights.Cosmopolitics a reader-supported publication. If you enjoy my conversations with important guests like Elliot, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.Thank you David Galinsky, Lisa Staruch, Amber, Jean Rhode, P. Michael Weisser, and many others for tuning into my live video with Elliott Abrams! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

It’s worth repeating that President Trump pulled off a major feat yesterday: securing the release of Israeli hostages and and end to the fighting - at least for now - in Gaza.But as Air Force One lifted off from the Middle East, his “historic dawn of a new Middle East” was already colliding with a far messier reality on the ground—one that suggests the hardest part of ending this war hasn’t even begun.Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.The cracks appeared before Trump left Jerusalem. While he was still addressing the Knesset, Defense Minister Israel Katz was already signaling what would come next. Hamas had released only four bodies of deceased hostages instead of the 28 promised under the deal. “Each delay or intentional avoidance will be considered a blunt violation of the agreement and will be answered accordingly,” Katz posted on X.By Tuesday, Israel made good on that threat—cutting humanitarian aid trucks to Gaza by half, from 600 to 300 daily, until Hamas complied.While Trump celebrated in Egypt, Hamas fighters were moving back into neighborhoods Israeli forces had vacated, deploying hundreds of security personnel. By evening, they made their message clear: in a Gaza City square, Hamas gunmen dragged seven men—hands tied behind their backs—to their knees and shot them in front of dozens of onlookers, accusing them of collaborating with Israel.Hamas wasn’t fading quietly. They were reasserting control, enforcing authority through violence, and proving that whatever Trump’s plan said about disarmament, they considered themselves very much armed and in charge.Trump’s response was characteristically bombastic but strategically vague: “They will disarm or we will disarm them. Got it? And it’ll happen quickly and perhaps violently,” he declared.The gap between Trump’s rhetoric and ground-level reality runs through nearly every element of his plan. The international stabilization force meant to secure Gaza? Still theoretical—no clarity on contributors, funding, or mandate. The interim Palestinian governing committee? Undefined and contentious, with the Palestinian Authority excluded pending vague “reforms.” The $7 billion reconstruction fund? No mechanism for how it will be distributed or monitored. The declaration Trump signed in Egypt with more than a dozen world leaders to great fanfare was more of a statement of principles than a plan.Trump achieved something significant but incomplete: he used his leverage with Netanyahu to stop the immediate bloodshed and bring hostages home. That’s real—and it matters enormously to the families reunited and to Palestinians no longer being bombed daily.But the deeper issues remain untouched. Hamas still controls Gaza’s streets. Israel hasn’t abandoned its expansionist aims. The question of Palestinian self-determination is unresolved. And the only forces operating in Gaza remain the same two—Hamas and the IDF—that created this catastrophe in the first place.Netanyahu knows this better than anyone. While Trump declared victory, Netanyahu told Israelis the war “is not over” and is already laying the groundwork for renewed conflict—waiting for the next pretext: another Hamas attack, weapons-smuggling accusations, aid disputes, or his own political needs. His coalition includes extremists who want to resettle Gaza and reject any Palestinian statehood.Trump, for his part, showed little interest in the broader political horizon. When pressed aboard Air Force One, he brushed off the question: “We’re talking about rebuilding Gaza. I’m not talking about single state or double state or two state,” he said. “A lot of people like the one-state solution, some people like the two-state solution. We’ll have to see.”It was revealing. Moments earlier he had declared “the end of the age of terror and death” and “a historic dawn of a new Middle East.” Yet when asked about the central political question that would determine whether that new Middle East ever materializes, his answer was essentially: not my problem.Getting the hostages home was tangible and headline-grabbing. The slow, grinding work of governance, reconstruction, and political reconciliation is a far less glamorous slog, but it’s what will decide whether Trump’s “historic” moment endures or fades.President Trump got his victory lap and the headlines. He deserved them. What’s unclear is whether he’ll do the sustained, unglamorous work to turn a tactical win into strategic transformation. Because right now, despite the pageantry in Jerusalem and Egypt, the banners and declarations, the evidence suggests we’re in an intermission—waiting to see whether the next act brings peace or just another round of the same devastating conflict.Dany and I cover that, and more. Watch and let us know what you think.Thank you David Galinsky, Karen McHugh, Sloane, Hava Salita, Paul k, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you couldn’t catch Hot Take Happy Hour with me and Danielle Pletka, here is the recording. Dany will have her own piece on the deal and I have some of her previous work in the show notes below. Here is my take: After watching Trump’s first-term Middle East policy veer between genius and chaos, often within the same week, I approached his recent Gaza diplomacy with the skepticism of someone who’s covered enough peace processes to know how spectacularly they can fail. But credit where it’s due: Trump did what Joe Biden couldn’t and countless diplomats before him tried and failed to do.Now comes the part where I rain on the parade a bit. Because calling this “everlasting peace” - as Trump did on Truth Social Thursday - is like declaring mission accomplished on an aircraft carrier before the war actually ends. The hostages aren’t home yet. Hamas still controls Gaza. And Netanyahu’s far-right coalition is already talking about resuming the fight once Israel’s captives are freed.The real test of Trump’s diplomacy doesn’t come this weekend during the signing ceremony photo op he’s planning in Egypt. It comes in the weeks and months after, when he’ll need to do something that’s never been his strong suit: stay engaged in the unglamorous work of implementation.The art of the Middle East dealHere’s what Trump got right - and it’s worth acknowledging because it worked.First, he let himself be flattered into engagement. At the UN General Assembly last month, Trump convened Arab and Muslim leaders in what he later called his “most important meeting” at the UN. There, with the UAE organizing and leaders from Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others present, Trump unveiled his 20-point plan. Qatar’s emir told him: “We count on you and your leadership to end this war.” The prospect of chairing a “Board of Peace” overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction appealed to Trump’s construction-mogul instincts. And with his Ukraine peace efforts stalling, that elusive Nobel suddenly seemed within reach.But flattery alone doesn’t move Benjamin Netanyahu. What changed the dynamic was Qatar - and Trump’s willingness to actually confront an ally.On September 9, Israel unilaterally bombed Doha, targeting Hamas negotiators without consulting Washington. The strike failed to kill its targets but succeeded in enraging Qatar, host to the largest US military base in the Middle East and making Gulf states fear they could be next. Trump was furious. He forced Netanyahu to call Qatar’s prime minister during their White House meeting and read a formal apology. Then Trump issued an extraordinary executive order declaring any future attack on Qatar would be treated as an attack on the United States.Read that again. Trump essentially put an American security guarantee on an Arab state to protect it from Israel. That’s not the move of someone going through the motions.The message to Netanyahu was unmistakable: there were limits to American support. Trump told Fox News he had warned the Israeli prime minister that “Israel cannot fight the world,” adding pointedly, “And he understands that very well.”That leverage proved crucial. Trump also got Netanyahu to accept terms ruling out West Bank annexation and Palestinian displacement - positions the prime minister had previously rejected. When combined with the devastating American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities over the summer, which set Tehran’s program back years and weakened its ability to support Hamas, the pieces fell into place.The Arab states, seeing genuine American commitment and a pathway toward Palestinian statehood, put unprecedented pressure on Hamas. With Gazans exhausted by two years of war and blaming Hamas for their misery, and with Trump making clear Israel would resume operations with his “full backing” if Hamas rejected the deal, the militant group had few cards left to play.Here’s what Trump’s proclamation glosses over: Almost nothing has actually been resolved.Phase one calls for Israel to cease fire, Hamas to release all hostages within 72 hours, Israel to partially withdraw troops and release Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to flood Gaza. If that happens - and it’s still an if - it will be momentous. Hostage families reunited. Starving Gazans fed. The killing stopped, at least temporarily.Everything else has been kicked down the road. Who governs Gaza after Hamas? How does Hamas disarm, and who monitors it? What role does the Palestinian Authority play? When do Israeli troops fully withdraw? What does a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood actually mean?On these questions, the parties have fundamentally different understandings of what they agreed to. Hamas believes Israeli withdrawal is guaranteed once hostages are released. Israel says withdrawal depends on “milestones linked to demilitarization” - with no timeline. Netanyahu told hostage families Sunday that “as long as the last hostage has not returned, we will not move forward on any other point,” and that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority would govern Gaza. “Israel will be responsible for and involved in the disarmament of Gaza,” he said.Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was even blunter, saying Israel has a responsibility to “continue to strive with all its might for the true eradication of Hamas” after the captives are released. Translation, at least in Israel’s eyes: there is no phase two.Hamas, meanwhile, won’t disarm unless there’s a permanent end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal - conditions not in Trump’s plan. Senior Hamas leaders have said they received guarantees from Trump that Israel won’t resume bombing after hostages are freed, but Israeli officials have said no such thing publicly.We’ve been here before. Earlier this year, Israel and Hamas agreed to a 60-day ceasefire with hostage releases. It collapsed when Israel resumed operations. The risk now is even greater because once Hamas releases all living hostages, it loses its primary leverage. Netanyahu, facing pressure from his far-right coalition to continue the war, may find a pretext to restart operations.Why Trump can’t declare victory and go homeThe only thing preventing that outcome is sustained American pressure. And here’s where my skepticism kicks in.Trump projected confidence Thursday, saying “we ended the war in Gaza” and created “a lasting peace, hopefully.” But when asked whether there are guarantees Hamas would disarm and Israel wouldn’t return to bombing, Trump revealed the fragility: “First thing we’re doing is getting our hostages back. After that, we’ll see.”That’s not reassuring. Trump needs to engaged. Without that, his deal is as shaky as the ones before it.Trump plans to travel to Egypt for a signing ceremony once hostages are released, probably Monday or Tuesday. It will be cinematic - the kind of moment that makes history books and Nobel Prize citations. But a signing ceremony doesn’t create peace. It creates a photo op.The question is whether Trump will stay engaged after the immediate crisis passes. That means continued pressure on Netanyahu to withdraw troops, allow reconstruction, and engage seriously with questions about Gaza’s future governance. It means working with Arab states who are demanding a UN Security Council mandate for any international stabilization force and insisting Gaza and the West Bank be treated as one political entity leading toward Palestinian statehood. It means ensuring humanitarian aid continues flowing and that Gazans - tens of thousands of whom are starving, homeless, and living in ruins - can begin rebuilding shattered lives.These are unglamorous, grinding diplomatic tasks without clear victories or viral moments. They require patience, persistence, and sustained high-level engagement - qualities not typically associated with Trump’s approach to foreign policy.The opportunity Trump createdBut here’s the thing - and I say this as someone who spends more time criticizing Trump than praising him- if he can pull this off, it won’t just be historic. It will fundamentally reshape the region in ways that could last a generation.Israel’s military position is stronger than it’s been in decades. Iran is weakened. Hezbollah is gutted. Hamas is decimated. Syria’s Assad regime has fallen. The Abraham Accords demonstrated unprecedented Arab acceptance of Israel. Trump inherited favorable conditions; his contribution was forcing both sides to capitalize on them rather than letting the moment slip away.What makes Trump uniquely positioned for this moment is his immunity to conventional political constraints. He can demand concessions from Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic. He can negotiate with Arab states his Republican base once viewed with suspicion. He can push allies in ways traditional diplomacy can’t because his willingness to walk away - and be genuinely unpredictable about it - creates leverage others simply don’t have.Trump also understands what Biden never quite grasped: that diplomacy means nothing if it’s not backed by the credible threat of force. Biden let domestic politics influence his handling of Israel in ultimately counterproductive ways, while Trump knew instinctively that Israel needed to win militarily before diplomacy could succeed. As former Israeli Air and Missile Defense commander Ran Kochav put it: “Trump forced a plan on both Netanyahu and Hamas that neither of them really wanted.”That’s real power. The question is whether Trump will use it to see this through.Countless Israelis and Gazans spent Thursday celebrating massive progress toward ending their two-year nightmare. They deserve to celebrate. Hostage families deserve hope. Starving Gazans deserve relief.But until the question of who governs Gaza is resolved, the war isn’t over and peace will remain elusive.Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my approach to foreign affairs journalism, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. An A for effortNow, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Trump desperately wants that Nobel Peace Prize. And I mean desperately.He regularly claims to have ended “six or seven wars” since returning to office, a running tally that’s become something of a parlor game among foreign diplomats.And here’s the thing: I’ll give Trump an A for effort. His willingness to play hardball with allies and adversaries alike has produced results traditional diplomacy couldn’t. He got both sides talking when everyone else had given up. He applied pressure Biden couldn’t or wouldn’t. He leveraged relationships, used military strikes strategically, and bound himself personally to the outcome. That’s real diplomacy, however unconventional.Beyond Gaza, Trump has thrown himself into conflicts around the world – helping to mediate ceasefires between India and Pakistan, brokering talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, pushing Congo and Rwanda toward peace negotiations, and most notably, attempting to end the war in Ukraine with that high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska. Some of these efforts have produced tangible results, others remain works in progress, and a few (looking at you, Egypt-Ethiopia water dispute) were barely conflicts to begin with. But the sheer ambition of trying to solve multiple intractable conflicts simultaneously - however transparently motivated by Nobel dreams - represents a level of presidential engagement in global peace efforts we haven’t seen in years. That’s not nothing.But the Nobel isn’t a participation trophy for good intentions or dramatic gestures. It’s recognition of sustained achievement that makes the world more peaceful, more stable, more united. You get it for lasting peace. And you definitely don’t get it while simultaneously threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark bullying allies on trade, withdrawing from multinational treaties and generally dividing the world into winners and losers of Trump’s transactional diplomacy. You can’t separate one diplomatic achievement from a broader foreign policy that treats alliances like protection rackets and international cooperation like a sucker’s game.Should he get the Nobel someday? If this deal actually ends the war, if Hamas disarms, if Gaza rebuilds, if Palestinian statehood becomes reality? If this Gaza deal holds - and it’s a big if - Trump will have accomplished something significant worthy of the NobelRight now, Trump has brokered a ceasefire. That matters. That’s worth celebrating. But “everlasting peace” requires staying engaged long after the cameras leave, long after the Nobel announcement passes, long after the thrill of the deal fades.Show NotesElise’s piece: The Lost Plot of October 7 (Substack, Oct. 7, 2025)Dany’s piece: WTH: Two years after October 7, there is no path to peace (Substack, Oct. 6, 2025)Can Palestinian Politics Be Revived? (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sept. 24, 2025)Hamas charterRFK on autism (Oct 9, 2025 - trust me, you have to watch it to believe it)Thank you David Galinsky, Candace Head-Dylla, Courtneye, lindaloo, Sloane, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Hot Takes Happy Hour with myself and Danielle Pletka will take place FRIDAY at 4p in observation of Yom Kippur. May all those who celebrate have an easy and peaceful fast. There was so much news this week - Friday’s discussion should be next level! This week’s meeting at Quantico—and the remarks from both President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the assembled generals and admirals—drew shock, condemnation, some agreement, and plenty of memes. Most importantly, it raised critical questions about whether the U.S. military under Trump and Hegseth will be ready to fulfill its mission, and whether future generations, particularly women, will continue to serve. Few journalists can cut through the noise to focus on what truly matters like Barbara Starr. As I said yesterday, Barbara’s reporting is sharp, thoughtful, and essential—and this conversation was no exception. If you weren’t able to watch live, check out the recording.Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my foreign policy analysis and conversations with expert guests, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.SHOW NOTES: Barbara’s piece: Are you ready for a life-changing week ahead? (Substack, Sept. 27, 2005)Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Convocation, the Warrior Ethos, and Our Military’s Covenant with American Society (HR McMaster’s Substack, Sept. 30, 2025)Trump Tells Generals the Military Will Be Used to Fight ‘Enemy Within’ (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 2025)Hegseth’s Quantico Farce: Terrifying, or Oddly Reassuring? (The Nation, Oct. 1, 2025)Female veterans slam Hegseth’s questioning of their combat fitness (Axios, Sept. 30, 2025)Thank you Liz O’Connor, David Galinsky, Lucky, Karen McHugh, Lana, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Join me TODAY at NOON for a Substack live with Barbara Starr, former CNN Pentagon correspondent and current USC Annenberg fellow. We’ll discuss the unprecedented meeting between President Trump, Pete Hegseth, and American military generals, Hegseth’s proposed “warrior ethos” culture, the president’s suggestion to use American cities as military training grounds, and the latest Pentagon restrictions on journalists. Barbara’s analysis is sharp, thoughtful, and essential—don’t miss it.If you missed my conversation with Aaron David Miller, the recording is essential viewing. Aaron joined us for his first Substack Live—and if I have anything to say about it, there will be many more. Drawing on decades advising American presidents and Secretaries of State as a Mideast peace negotiator, Aaron examined Trump’s plan for Gaza and its implications for Israel and the Palestinians. We discussed Netanyahu’s broader calculations, Israel’s missed opportunities, and whether President Trump is committed to Mideast peace for the long haul.Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my foreign policy analysis and conversations with leading experts, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.SHOW NOTES: Elise’s piece: Trump’s plan to end the Gaza war (The Preamble, Sept 30, 2025)President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict Full text of Trump, Netanyahu statements on deal to end Gaza warEx-State Department negotiator talks about the global push for Palestinian statehood (NPR, Sept. 23, 2025)Join Aaron next Tuesday for a virtual event October 7th Two Years On: An Assessment and dont’ forget to check out his podcast: Carnegie ConnectsThank you Noble Blend, Martin Horsford, Lana, Andrew Goldstein, Janice Lynch, and many others for tuning into my live video with Aaron David Miller Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thanks for joining Danielle Pletka and I for our special coverage of the UN General Assembly. If you didn’t have a chance to watch us live yesterday, here is the video and here is the video of our UNGA show on Tuesday. We plan to do more special editions of Hot Takes Happy Hour for big and breaking stories. Let us know what you want to hear about. I’m wrapping up a week in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. UNGA, as it is not-so-affectionately know, has been called the diplomatic equivalent of speed dating - lots of meetings, little substance. But this week’s gathering revealed something more nuanced about how the international community has adapted to Donald Trump’s return to power: they’ve learned to separate the performance from the policy, and increasingly, they can live with both.I met with a lot of diplomats this week in New York and found Trump’s combative speech to the General Assembly wasn’t the bombshell many expected. Diplomats have heard the routine before - the attacks on climate policy, the immigration rhetoric, the grievances about whatever. What matters more to them now is what happens in the bilateral meetings, the private conversations, and the concrete policy shifts that emerge from Trump’s mercurial decision-making process. And on that front, many are cautiously optimistic.The price of accessMake no mistake: the current dynamic requires a level of diplomatic genuflection that makes many seasoned ambassadors uncomfortable. World leaders have spent much of the year learning how to appease Trump, understanding that embarrassing him publicly would be counterproductive. It’s the kind of careful choreography you’d expect around an unstable autocrat, not the leader of the free world.This represents a fundamental shift in how international relations operate. Traditional diplomatic norms - the careful language, the multilateral consultations, the respect for institutional processes - have given way to a more transactional approach centered on personal relationships with one man. It’s undignified, and many diplomats privately bristle at having to navigate Trump’s ego alongside complex policy issues. But they’ve also discovered it can be surprisingly effective.The key insight driving diplomatic strategy is brutally simple: Trump sets the tone, everyone needs him, and he knows it. This isn’t the Trump of 2017-2021, when world leaders thought they could manage or manipulate him. This is a more confident Trump who has consolidated power and demonstrated staying power. Resistance is futile; adaptation is essential.Trade wars that aren’tOne area where diplomats express genuine relief is trade policy. Trump’s threats of universal tariffs and trade wars had many fearing a return to 1930s-style protectionism. While Trump has indeed imposed significant tariffs - including what he calls “major tariffs” on Brazil in response to their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro- the damage has been more targeted than his campaign rhetoric suggested.The reality is that Trump’s bark on trade has often proved worse than his bite, at least for allies willing to play the game on his terms. Countries have learned to offer symbolic victories—increased defense spending, energy purchases from the United States, diplomatic support on key issues—that allow Trump to claim wins while avoiding the kind of comprehensive trade war that would devastate the global economy.The Ukraine surprisePerhaps the most significant development for European diplomats has been Trump’s evolving position on Ukraine. His meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week marked a dramatic shift from earlier suggestions that Ukraine should cede territory for peace. Trump’s social media post declaring that Ukraine could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form” represented exactly the kind of strong American support that European allies had hoped for but hadn’t expected.But here’s the catch: Trump’s history of policy reversals raises serious questions about whether this shift will hold. His statement that NATO can “do what they want” with American weapons suggests he may be stepping back from direct involvement while allowing others to escalate support. Which NATO ally will seriously plan long-term strategy around commitments that might reverse with Trump’s next social media post?Middle East balancing actOn Gaza and the broader Middle East, Trump’s approach has earned grudging respect from Arab and Muslim leaders. His promise not to allow Israel to annex the West Bank addressed a key concern among regional partners, while his criticism of Israeli settlement expansion as “counterproductive” suggested a more balanced approach than many expected.Trump’s emphasis on hostage releases and his pressure on both sides to reach a ceasefire deal has been welcomed by regional powers who see American engagement as essential to any sustainable resolution. While his methods may be unorthodox - including his apparent surprise at Israeli strikes in Qatar - the substantive positions he’s taking align with regional diplomatic priorities.A pragmatic accommodationWhat emerges from conversations with diplomats this week is a picture of pragmatic accommodation. They may not respect Trump’s methods or appreciate his treatment of multilateral institutions, but they can work with his positions on key issues. The theatrical elements of Trump’s presidency - the rambling speeches, the personal attacks, the institutional vandalism - are treated as background noise to be endured rather than engaged.This represents a remarkable adaptation by the international community. Rather than fighting Trump’s approach to diplomacy, they’ve learned to work within it, discovering that beneath the chaos and spectacle, there are deals to be made and interests to be protected. It requires patience, flattery, and a willingness to endure public humiliation, but it can produce results. On the issues that matter most—trade relationships, Ukraine support, Middle East stability - Trump’s positions are within the bounds of what they can work with.The concern, of course, is what this means for the broader international order. The normalization of Trump’s approach may have short-term benefits for specific countries, but it undermines the institutional frameworks that have underpinned global stability for decades. Diplomats understand this trade-off, but in a world where Trump controls American power, they’ve concluded that adaptation is preferable to isolation. The price of access may be high in terms of dignity and institutional norms, but the alternative - being shut out of American decision-making entirely—is worse.This doesn’t mean they’re comfortable with the broader trajectory of American leadership. Many express private concerns about America’s democratic institutions, political polarization, and attacks on press freedom and political opponents. But in the immediate term, they’re focused on managing the relationship they have rather than longing for the one they wish they had. For now, diplomats are keeping their heads down and trying to plow ahead, making the best of a situation they didn’t choose but can’t avoid.The world has learned to live with Trump. Whether it can thrive under his leadership remains an open question.SHOW NOTESAt UN, amid jeers and cheers, Netanyahu says Israel ‘must finish the job’ against Hamas in Gaza (Associated Press, Sept. 25, 2025) Video of Netanyuahu’s address ‘Palestine Is Ours,’ Abbas Tells U.N. General Assembly (New York Times, Sept. 24, 2025) Video of Abbas’ addressElise’s piece: “The hunt for a Palestinian Plan B (Cosmopolitics, Jan 26 2024)Dany’s piece, Enough with the Gaza Famine Canard (National Review, Sept. 5, 2025) and The Pretend State of Palestine, (What the Hell is Going On podcast with Elliot Abrams) Sept. 11, 2025) SU fraternity calls attack on Rosh Hashanah an ‘act of ignorance, intolerance and hatred’ (Syracuse.com, Sept. 25, 2025)James Comey, Former FBI Director, Indicted After Pressure From Trump, (New York Times, Sept. 25, 2025)Why More Adults Than Ever Are Being Diagnosed With Autism (Wall Street Journal, (May 25, 2025)Trump statement at odds with Hegseth’s directive about press access to the Pentagon (USA Today, Sept 22, 2025) Thank you David Galinsky, Los Gatos Sin Madrid, Lana, Gary Sorensen, lotta kuylenstjerna, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you weren’t able to watch Danielle Pletka and me live during our special UNGA Edition of Hot Takes Happy Hour, here is the recording. It was a good discussion about Trump’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the recognition of a Palestinian state by many countries at the French/Saudi summit and the whiplash on Ukraine. Dany and I are back THURSDAY at 5:30 ET with our regular programming. We hope you will join us! Show notes are at the end of this post. I will let Dany share her own thoughts on Trump speech, but here is MY take: I thought it was ominous when Trump began his speech announcing his teleprompter had broken. After nearly an hour of his stream-of-consciousness, it became a perfect metaphor for Trump’s entire approach to global leadership: improvised, unfocused, and careening wildly off-script. Where previous presidents used the UN podium to articulate grand visions for international cooperation, Trump delivered what can only be described as a word salad—the kind of rambling, incoherent monologue that recalled Fidel Castro’s legendary marathon speeches to the General Assembly decades ago.A stump speech that won’t dieThis was not diplomacy. It was Trump’s standard campaign rally performance, complete with the same grievances, conspiracy theories, and applause lines he’s delivered at a hundred campaign stops. He wasn’t speaking as the leader of the free world addressing fellow heads of state—he was playing to an imaginary audience of MAGA supporters, seemingly oblivious to the diplomatic catastrophe unfolding in real time.Trump has been giving the same performance for years: the complaints about broken institutions, the attacks on climate science as “the greatest con job ever,” the warnings about immigration destroying Western civilization. The message wasn’t broken by technical difficulties—it was broken by design.Every year at the UN General Assembly, there’s a faint hope that Trump might rise to the occasion, that the weight of the office and the gravity of the moment might inspire him to deliver something worthy of America’s global leadership role. He never fails to disappoint. This speech was perhaps his most tone-deaf performance yet, a stunning abdication of American leadership at precisely the moment when the world needed to hear a coherent vision for international cooperation.A missed opportunity Trump wasn’t entirely wrong about the UN’s problems. The organization desperately needed what Danielle Pletka called a “reckoning”—a fundamental examination of its bureaucratic inefficiencies, gridlocked Security Council, and inability to effectively address global crises. This was Trump’s moment to offer serious reform proposals, to challenge the international community with concrete plans for making multilateral institutions work in the 21st century.Instead, he delivered complaints about a broken escalator, a malfunctioning teleprompter and his anger over not being awarded a contract decades ago to renovate the United Nations headquarters - as if these were the real obstacles to world peace. His criticism boiled down to “empty words don’t solve wars”—but he offered no alternative framework, no innovative mechanisms for collective action, no vision for how international cooperation might actually function. It was a spectacular waste of American soft power and moral authority.Ambassador Mike Waltz, confirmed by the Senate on the eve of Trump’s speech, now has the unenviable job of picking up where Trump left off—trying to translate incoherent rambling into actual diplomatic strategy. Waltz inherits a mission that should have been clearly defined by presidential leadership but instead must be reverse-engineered from a president’s stream-of-consciousness complaints about UN infrastructure.Trump’s casual contempt for America’s traditional allies - “Your countries are going to hell” - bordered on diplomatic suicide. He accused European allies of being “invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before” and warned that “immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.”This wasn’t tough love or constructive criticism—it was the kind of condescending lecture that destroys relationships and undermines decades of alliance-building. At a time when American influence at the UN is already diminished by funding cuts, an eight-month ambassadorial vacancy, and the perception that the U.S. sides with Russia over Ukraine and protects Israel in Gaza regardless of consequences, Trump’s speech is only likely to deepen America’s diplomatic isolation.The evidence of declining American influence was on full display this week, as moved forward with recognizing Palestinian statehood despite American opposition. These aren’t adversaries thumbing their noses at Washington—these are America’s closest allies concluding they can no longer wait for coherent U.S. leadership on critical international issues.China, Russia, and Qatar were quietly filling the leadership vacuum America has created. These autocratic regimes are reshaping UN institutions to their advantage, offering funding and hosting arrangements that come with their own political strings attached. Trump’s speech did nothing to counter this trend—if anything, it accelerated it by demonstrating that America under his leadership is more interested in grievance politics than global governance.Ukraine whiplashTrump’s handling of Ukraine policy perfectly encapsulated his erratic approach. During his address, he offered no new strategy beyond threatening tariffs on Russia while berating European allies. But hours later, after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump completely reversed course, posting on social media that Ukraine could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”When asked if NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft entering their airspace, Trump said “yes” but added that U.S. support would depend on “the circumstance.” It’s exactly the position NATO allies and President Zelensky were waiting for. But will NATO allies will take Trump seriously or rely on American backing after witnessing such policy volatility? It is hard for members of the alliance to formulate strategies when the American president might change his position based on his next social media postThe message is clearTrump was indeed more confident on the world stage than during his first term, clearly seeking his Nobel Prize as a global peacemaker while projecting American power and strength. He may be stronger in his convictions. But world leaders who once laughed at his bombast now sit in uncomfortable silence, concerned about where America is heading with a leader who fundamentally doesn’t understand the weight of his office.Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The teleprompter may have been broken, but the message came through with painful clarity: The world needed American leadership. Instead, it got a word salad that would have made Castro proud, delivered by a president who never grasped that the UN podium isn’t just another campaign stop. The consequences of this diplomatic malpractice will outlast Trump’s presidency, as allies hedge their bets and adversaries fill the vacuum left by America’s retreat from serious global engagement.SHOW NOTESDany’s pieces: #WTH The Pretend “State of Palestine” (Substack, Sept. 22, 2025) and The U.N. Deserves a Trumpian Reckoning w/ Brett Schaefer (National Review, Sept 23, 2025)Elise’s piece: “A Gesture of Despair”: The Push for Palestinian Statehood(Preamble, Sept 24, 2025) Trump tells world leaders their countries are ‘going to hell’ in combative UN speech (Reuters, Sept. 23, 2025)Trump Unloads on UN but Does Not Clarify Future US Engagement (AEI, Sept. 23, 2025)A blunt, fearful rant: Trump’s UN speech left presidential norms in the dust (The Guardian, Sept. 23, 2025)Donald Trump post on Ukraine (Truth Social, Sept. 23, 2025) Thank you David Galinsky, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, shonanbrioche, Endicott Mongoloid, Larissa, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you didn’t get a chance to catch this week’s Hot Takes Happy Hour live show, Danielle Pletka and I hope you will watch the recording. The main takeaway here is simple: if Charlie Kirk's murder has taught us anything, it's that we must stop demonizing one another simply because we disagree. People who hold beliefs different from ours are not bad people. Period. We need to make space for those with different viewpoints - we don't need to agree with them, but they may teach us something. Whether you agreed with Charlie or not, Dany pointed out that he didn’t let his supporters trash those who opposed his views and came to challenge him. There's been considerable concern about free speech following Jimmy Kimmel's suspension by ABC. Dany and I agree his comments were ill-timed, insensitive, and in poor taste. They weren't funny. We also agree that he has the right under the First Amendment to say them. When the government attempts to censor free speech through intimidation or regulatory pressure, it crosses a line that is distinctly un-American.Let us know what you think in the comments. And join us next week for coverage of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Dany and I will be discussing President Trump's speech and those of other world leaders, as well as the hot button issues being debated - Gaza, Iran, and Ukraine.Let us know what you think in the comments. And joint us next week for coverage of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Dany and I will be discussing President Trump’s speech and that of other world leaders, as well as the issues being discussed like Israel, Iran and Ukraine. SHOW NOTESPam Bondi Needs a Free Speech Tutorial (Editorial Board, WSJ, Sept. 16, 2025)Pam Bondi’s First Amendment Follies (Editorial Board, National Review, September 17, 2025)Bondi Prompts Broad Backlash After Saying She’ll Target ‘Hate Speech’, New York Times, Sept. 16, 2025After Kirk’s killing, a growing conservative campaign seeks to get his critics ostracized or fired, PBS, Sep 15, 2025 11:41 AM EDTJD Vance attacks Europe over free speech and migration, BBC, Feb 15 2025McCain Counters Obama ‘Arab’ Question (Associated Press, Oct 11, 2008)The Dividing Line ( Erick Erickson Substack, Sept 16, 2025Trump, allies seek to punish speech they dislike following Kirk killing, Washington Post, Sept 18, 2025Ronald Reagan on Constitution, Reagan FoundationFIRE statement on FCC threat to revoke ABC broadcast license over Jimmy Kimmel remarks about Charlie Kirk , September 18, 2025Why Kirk Assassination Is a Warning to the Left, New York Times, Sept 16, 2025 Advice for Liberals (Jim VandeHei, Axios, Sept 17, 2025)and if you didn’t see my last Cosmopolitics post, Late night with Viktor Orban, please check it out! Thank you BY GLENN KESSLER, Kiwi Rebel, David Galinsky, Wendy Bowis, Mark Kimmitt, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

For those who missed my conversation with Barbara Starr, I highly recommend giving it a listen. Barbara's Pentagon reporting and deep knowledge of America's armed forces ranks among the finest in journalism, and her incisive analysis of the Trump administration's escalating operations against drug cartels in the Caribbean, the deployment of National Guard forces to American cities, and the recent rebranding of the Defense Department as the Department of War is both sharp and sobering. She also had some good insights on Russia’s recent testing of NATO by sending drones to Poland and Israel’s audacious strike in Qatar. (More on that tomorrow)I look forward to welcoming Barbara back on Cosmopolitics soon. In the meantime, please subscribe to Barbarastarrreports for more of her exceptional reporting.I want to address yesterday’s senseless murder of Charlie Kirk. While I disagreed with his views on virtually everythink, I respected his commitment to engaging young people in political discourse—something I'm passionate about myself. His willingness to debate those with opposing views, exemplified by his "Prove Me Wrong" college tour, should be celebrated, not silenced through violence. He was a devoted husband and father whose family deserved to have him with them.This alarming mainstreaming of political violence in America is rooted in an even more troubling phenomenon: the systematic dehumanization of those who think differently than we do. We've moved beyond simply challenging ideas we oppose to questioning the basic worth and dignity of those who hold them. The moment we start viewing political adversaries as mortal enemies rather than fellow Americans, when we characterize whole groups as dangerous threats to our way of life, when we treat people as collateral damage in our political battles, we create the conditions where violence seems not only justified but necessary.Twenty-four years ago on September 11th, Americans made a solemn promise to stand united in the face of terror. In those dark days, we briefly rediscovered a fundamental truth: that whatever divides us politically pales in comparison to what we risk losing if we let violence and hatred destroy the democratic ideals and common bonds that make us one nation.For me, this isn’t rhetoric. I try to live by this principle and keep my critiques to the policies themselves. This is precisely why my friendship with Danielle Pletka means so much to me. Though we frequently disagree on policy issues, we share an unwavering commitment to debating our differences with the goal of mutual understanding while never losing sight of our shared humanity. This is the spirit behind our weekly Hot Takes Happy Hour—making sense of our complex world together through friendship, respect, and genuine dialogue. On that note, this week's Hot Takes will take place this Friday at 4 PM. We hope to see you there.Thank you Al Pessin, Janice Lynch, Phil Johnson, Karen Klauseger, Andrea Garfinkel, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Cosmopolitians! In case you missed it, check out my Substack Live on World Review with Ivo Daalder and Yasmeen Abutaleb on next steps in Ukraine. It was a lively discussion that dissected the week’s frantic diplomacy, but also takes the conversation on Ukraine forward. It was great to be Yasmeen, who has covered the White House for years and has a sharp perspective on how this White House operates. Thanks to Ivo for hosting, and look forward to returning the favor and having him here on Cosmopolitics Danielle Pletka and I will be back today at 5:30 ET/2:30 PT for Hot Takes Happy Hour. We are calling this the Let’s Make a Deal Edition, and I’m sure we will have some creative ideas about what Putin deserves behind doors # 1, 2 and 3. Donald Trump's approach to ending the Ukraine war resembles nothing so much as a reality TV producer who's lost the script halfway through filming. He improvises wildly from scene to scene, treats every meeting like a photo opportunity, and seems genuinely surprised when the other contestants don't follow his made-up rules. The only problem? Putin isn't playing reality TV - he's playing chess, and he's been at it for two decades.The combination of that bizarre summit in Alaska with Vladimir Putin and the only slightly less surreal gathering of NATO leaders in Washington was the latest reminder that Trump operates as a well-meaning amateur in a professional's game. He doesn't prepare, doesn't have subordinates lay the groundwork beforehand, and arrives at each meeting not knowing what he wants or where his red lines are. He has no strategy and isn't interested in the details, so he just improvises as he goes.Trump's Ukraine "peace process" is fundamentally a personal quest to win a Nobel Prize and, apparently, help him get into heaven. He genuinely wants to stop people from dying. "If I can get to heaven," he told FOX and Friends, "this will be one of the reasons." Yet his approach treats Ukraine like a particularly complex real estate transaction rather than a nation of 40 million people fighting for their survival. In the Fox & Friends interview following his White House meetings, he demonstrated a grasp of Ukrainian history that would embarrass a high school student. The war, he explained, started because of Crimea and NATO - echoing Putin's early propaganda talking points that even the Kremlin has largely abandoned. He described Ukraine as existing merely as a "buffer" with the West and suggested that Ukrainian demands to return their own territory were "very insulting" to Russia. Most remarkably, he seemed to blame Ukraine for the conflict, noting "You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size" - apparently unaware of who actually invaded whom.This isn't just ignorance - it's a combination of unwillingness to learn and surrounding himself with advisors who either won't educate him about the region or are afraid to contradict his preconceptions. Trump's seat-of-the-pants approach becomes genuinely dangerous when the person improvising doesn't understand the basic facts of the situation and shows no interest in acquiring them.The most telling detail about Trump's summit prep? His special envoy Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer whose knowledge of Russian culture may not extend much beyond the borscht at the Russian Tea Room on 57th Street, reportedly misunderstood Putin's core demands in spectacular fashion. When Russia demanded Ukrainian "peaceful withdrawal" from contested regions, Witkoff apparently interpreted this as an offer of Russian withdrawal from those same territories—essentially hearing the exact opposite of what Putin was actually proposing. This kind of fundamental miscommunication could have been avoided entirely if Trump had proper briefings beforehand. If he'd known the Russians weren't budging on their maximalist demands, the summit could have been a phone call and Trump could have spared himself the embarrassment.Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio - who actually understands how real diplomacy works - is now working with Europeans on security guarantees for Ukraine, which offers some hope for a coherent formula. But Rubio seems to vacillate between acknowledging that negotiations are inherently difficult while giving the president credit for trying to end a devastating war, and attempting to justify the very Putin talking points that Trump has absorbed. Successful negotiations like those at Dayton or Camp David have one thing in common: they're meticulously prepared with advisers and working groups for weeks, if not months, to lay the groundwork for success. Rubio knows this playbook - the question is whether he can execute it while managing the expectations of a president who prefers dramatic gestures to patient groundwork.What Putin accomplished in Alaska was breathtaking in its audacity. He got Trump to abandon his pre-summit demand for an immediate ceasefire, embrace Russia's preferred timeline for a "sweeping peace agreement," and essentially give Moscow permission to keep bombing Ukrainian civilians while they negotiate. In exchange, Putin offered exactly nothing - no territorial concessions, no meaningful commitments, just vague promises about "security guarantees" that he's broken repeatedly over two decades.The trolling was genuine and immediate. On Monday morning Russian state media posted a video of what appeared to be a U.S.-made armored personnel carrier flying both American and Russian flags. The vehicle had allegedly been captured from Ukrainian forces and was now being used to attack Ukraine. The message was clear: America and Russia were now on the same side against Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov showed up to the summit wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with "CCCP"—the Cyrillic letters for the Soviet Union. Not exactly subtle.Here is where it really gets absurd. Russia wants a say in Ukraine's security guarantees and wants territory it doesn't currently control. Putin's demands amount to asking Ukraine to cede regions where Russian forces have failed to achieve full control, while granting Russia veto power over Ukraine's future defense arrangements. It's like asking the burglar to help design your home security system.Is Trump willing to give Russia back Alaska? Because that's the historical precedent Putin's invoking—the idea that territories can simply be transferred between great powers when it's convenient. Putin even suggested that Zelensky travel to Moscow for talks, a proposal so far-fetched that it revealed Russia's true contempt for the entire process.As much as Europeans need to have Ukraine’s back, they also need to have Trump's—not because he doesn't want concessions from Putin, but because he can't get them. Trump isn't just an admirer of Putin or naive about Putin's motives; he's genuinely intimidated by him. Every time Trump sits across from Putin, he transforms from America First strongman to star-struck fan boy, eager to please a man who has spent decades perfecting the art of manipulating American presidents.The sight of Ukrainian President Zelensky thanking Trump fifteen times in four and a half minutes during their White House meeting on Monday wasn't diplomatic courtesy - it was the desperate performance of a leader trying to prevent his country from being sold out by an American president who mistakes flattery for friendship.Trump does have leverage. He could use it. But instead of wielding America's substantial economic and military advantages, Trump was seduced by Putin's personal charm and the fantasy that he could solve Europe's most complex crisis through pure charisma. Putin will eventually show his true colors again—he always does—but by then, how much Ukrainian territory will have been bargained away?Putin didn't go to Alaska seeking peace—he went seeking a piece of Ukraine, preferably the whole piece if he could get it. Until Trump understands that fundamental difference, his peace process will remain what it's always been: great television, misguided diplomacy, and a gift to Vladimir Putin that keeps on giving.Thank you Cash Flow Collective, Noble Blend, P. J. Schuster, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, Tracye Tallent, and many others for tuning into my live video with Ivo Daalder and Yasmeen Abutaleb! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Cash Flow Collective, David Galinsky, Amit Sen, The Nymph Channel, Gary Sorensen, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you missed Thursday’s Hot Takes Happy Hour with Danielle Pletka and me, do yourself a favor and watch the replay here. We had one of those conversations that reminds you why nuanced debate still matters in a world obsessed with picking teams.Dany and I agree on most things, but Gaza? That's where it gets thornier – and where things get interesting. We can have a heated discussion about Israeli policy, Palestinian statehood, and the mess of Middle East diplomacy without questioning each other's moral credentials or storming off in a huff. Revolutionary concept, I know.What makes our dynamic work is something increasingly rare in foreign policy discourse: We actually listen to each other. I hear where Dany's coming from, even when I think she's wrong on the details. She extends the same courtesy to me, even when she's rolling her eyes at my arguments. It's called disagreeing without being disagreeable – a lost art in the age of Twitter takedowns and cable news shouting matches.Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Gaza debate exemplifies everything wrong with how we discuss foreign policy, and politics in general, today: The death of nuance. You're supposed to pick a side and plant your flag: Team Israel or Team Palestine, with no room for the messy middle ground where most reasonable people actually live. But the real world doesn't operate in Twitter-sized moral absolutes, and neither should serious policy discussions.Which brings me to this week's UN conference and the recognition circus that followed…This week's UN conference on Palestinian statehood produced all the expected diplomatic theater: soaring speeches about justice, carefully choreographed recognition announcements, and the familiar pageantry of international moral positioning. The conference unfolded against the backdrop of reports, and a new assessment by the world's leading body on hunger, that the worst-case scenario of famine is now unfolding in the Gaza Strip – a humanitarian catastrophe that Israel insists isn't happening while the rest of the world watches emaciated children on their news feeds. Originally scheduled for two days, organizers had to tack on a third day because apparently everyone and their diplomatic cousin wanted a turn at the microphone. The symbolism of the some 125 UN members attending a conference on Palestinian statehood was unmistakable – and profoundly disconnected from reality. These weren't lifelines thrown to drowning Palestinians; they were paper boats launched into a hurricane.As I wrote last week, I believe in the creation of a Palestinian state living alongside Israel in peace and security. The brutal reality is that recognition doesn't get them there. It doesn't create the institutions necessary for statehood, build hospitals or schools, or develop functioning governments. Most importantly, it doesn’t feed starving children. What it does do is give Israeli hardliners ammunition to argue that the international community rewards terrorism, potentially pushing any real Palestinian state even further into the distance.The death of nuance in foreign policy discourse means we're supposed to pick sides: Either you support Palestinian statehood or you don't. Either you condemn Hamas or you're anti-Palestinian. Either you criticize Israel or you're complicit in genocide. This binary thinking is precisely what perpetuates conflicts rather than resolving them.The reality is messier and more hopeful than the Twitter debates suggest. Israel has legitimate security concerns that won't disappear with recognition ceremonies. Palestinians have legitimate aspirations for statehood that won't be fulfilled through European parliamentary votes. And Arab states have finally accepted the uncomfortable truth that Hamas is an obstacle to Palestinian aspirations, not their champion.This is what got lost in all the breathless coverage of moral virtue signaling: The truly remarkable development from this week's UN conference wasn't the predictable recognition parade. It was something far more significant that barely registered in the headlines.For the first time in history, the world's Arab countries joined unanimously in calling for Hamas to lay down its weapons, release all hostages, and end its rule of Gaza. The 22-nation Arab League – including countries that have hosted Hamas leaders and mediated on their behalf – endorsed a declaration condemning the October 7 attacks and demanding Hamas disarm as a condition for Palestinian statehood.Let that sink in for a moment. Qatar, which hosts Hamas's political office, signed on. Countries across the region that have long maintained working relationships with the group essentially told Hamas: Your time is up.This wasn't some hastily drafted statement. It was the product of months of painstaking work by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to create what they call "the conditions for a Palestinian state" – detailed working groups on governance, security arrangements, and stabilization missions. Real diplomatic architecture, not hashtag activism.In three decades covering the Middle East, I can’t recall a similar declaration from Arab states. Even those who might sympathize with armed resistance recognize that Hamas must be eliminated militarily and politically for the West to be fully engaged in ending the occupation.This represents a fundamental shift in regional dynamics that the recognition crowd completely missed. When Qatar – Hamas's primary patron – signs a declaration calling for the group's disarmament, that's a seismic development. When Saudi Arabia spends months crafting detailed governance proposals rather than just demanding statehood, that's serious diplomacy.The seven-page “New York Declaration” envisions something resembling actual statehood: the Palestinian Authority governing all Palestinian territory, backed by "a temporary international stabilization mission" under UN auspices. It's a roadmap that acknowledges the messy realities of post-conflict governance rather than the clean lines of diplomatic recognition.Hamas's response? A masterclass in missing the point. The group welcomed "any effort" to support Palestinian rights while demanding "unconditional international recognition" and pointedly avoiding any commitment to disarm. Classic Hamas: Take the praise, ignore the accountability.Which brings me to the uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to acknowledge: Several things can simultaneously be true. Hamas bears responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in, AND Israel is the military power in Gaza with the ability to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Expecting Hamas – a terrorist organization that has never demonstrated concern for Palestinian welfare – to suddenly prioritize civilian lives is a fool's errand. You can’t call yourself a democracy that abides by international law on one hand and hold yourself to a different standard: principles and values are only meaningful when they are inconvenient. Moreover, its time for Israelis to realize that continuing this war isn't helping Israel. We've entered the realm of diminishing returns, where each additional day of conflict costs more in international legitimacy than it gains in security. Even Israeli analysts are calling the resumed campaign a "total failure" that has achieved none of its stated objectives while turning allies into critics.The smarter play? End the war, flood Gaza with aid, and let the Arab League's unprecedented consensus work. When Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are all telling Hamas to disarm, that's not European colonialism or Western imperialism talking – that's the neighborhood association laying down the law.But recognizing a Palestinian state as punishment for Gaza's humanitarian catastrophe? That's virtue signaling masquerading as diplomacy. It brings the war no closer to an end and Palestinians no closer to actual statehood. If anything, it reinforces that symbolic gestures matter more than grinding diplomatic work. More importantly, it signals that Hamas' brutal October 7 attack bore fruit.The path forward isn't through empty gestures from Paris or London. It's through the hard work of building actual institutions, creating security arrangements that work for all parties, and developing economic frameworks that give Palestinians something to build rather than just something to resist.That doesn't mean Israel gets a free pass to continue policies that make peace impossible. Settlement expansion, restrictions on Palestinian movement, and the systematic destruction of Palestinian institutions all undermine the very governance structures that any future state would need. But it also doesn't mean that symbolic recognition from distant capitals creates facts on the ground.The Arab League's declaration offers something far more valuable than European virtue signaling: regional legitimacy for a post-Hamas future. When Palestinians' own neighbors are saying Hamas must go, that carries weight that no UN resolution ever could.The question now is whether the international community will support this regional consensus with the kind of sustained diplomatic and economic engagement that actually builds states – or whether we'll continue settling for symbolic gestures that make Western leaders feel better while accomplishing zero for the people they claim to support.After decades of failed peace processes, maybe it's time to try something different: Less moral preening, more practical diplomacy. Less theater, more institution building. The Palestinian people deserve better than paper boats in a hurricane. They deserve partners willing to do the hard work of actually building a state, not just recognizing one that doesn't yet exist.Thank you Dr. Lisa, Joanna Kirkwood, Marti, Wendy Bowis, Paul kirkpatrick, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Cosmopolitans: I’m back after a week of some family commitments. Dany and I had a lot to catch up on - if you didn’t catch our Hot Takes Happy Hour, have a listen. Stay tuned for my next post on developments in Israel and Gaza, and of course - our weekly edit. Substack live interviews will resume next week. Hope to see you there! Let me know what is on your mind in the comments below, or send me a DM.Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thank you Noble Blend, David Galinsky, Elaine Newton, Mary Lynn Culver, Paul kirkpatrick, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.cosmopolitics.newsI really enjoyed this conversation with Ivo Daalder.There was plenty to say about NATO's "Trump summit," as Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it. Ivo agrees that the alliance bent itself around Trump's ego, preferences and attention span—from Secretary General Rutte's fawning praise (calling Trump "daddy"), to shortening the multi-day summit from two days to 2…

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.cosmopolitics.newsI love taking with Steven A. Cook. Steven is the Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a columnist at Foreign Policy. He's also a good friend. His recent book, The End of AmbitionAmerica’s Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East offers a pragmatic vision for American Middle East policy in tod…

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Linda Kemp, Patricia Wren, Mindy Forrest, Deborah Hamberlin, Mary Lynn Culver, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steve Schmidt! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you David Galinsky, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, Mel, lotta kuylenstjerna, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

When President Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, the first person I wanted to speak with for the Cosmopolitics community was Barbara Starr, my friend and former colleague at CNN, where she covered the Pentagon for decades.Understanding the traditional role the military is meant to play in our society is crucial to grasping just how precarious this moment is. As protests spread throughout the country and Trump threatens to send troops to other cities as well, both the politicization of our military and the militarization of law enforcement have consequences that extend far beyond Los Angeles.Barbara's insights are sober, balanced, and exactly what we need right now. We'll definitely bring her back for more. Thank you Kathy J., Lauryn P., and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

This episodes cocktail: Spicy Hot Takes Marg Thank you Jaime HG 🇺🇸, Genia Sklute, Aaron Rubin, Irene, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Drink of the week: Purple Haze Thank you David Galinsky, Wendy Bowis, Paul kirkpatrick, Irene, Robert Wade, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

This week’s Hot Takes Happy Hour cocktail: The Mission ImpossibleThank you David Galinsky, Liz O’Connor, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, Wendy Bowis, Robert Wade, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Earl Brownlee, ArleneMach, and many others for tuning into my live video with Tom LoBianco! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Tara Palmieri discusses a new group of conservative State Department workers that could reshape the traditionally non-partisan culture of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus.Thank you Tom LoBianco, AnaMaria🌸, Mary Brohmer, Rosalie, Melissa Ober, and many others for tuning into my live video with Tara Palmeri! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Align, Gayle Grigson, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe