Apocalypse Now (January 10, 2025)

Welcome to Home & Away. There is lots going on—so much that I keep changing the mix and the line-up of this week’s newsletter.

The Fires Next Door

We’ll begin out West, with the fires raging across various neighborhoods in Los Angeles County. At least a half dozen friends are among the thousands who have lost their homes. Fortunately, all of those friends are safe, although there have been escapes and experiences that can only be described as harrowing. The images are out of a Mad Max movie, bordering on apocalyptic. As of this writing, there is concern that the worst may still be to come given the lack of significant containment.

The blame game is less than edifying, although I would think what we are seeing results from a mix of the effects of climate change, periodic phenomena such as high winds, and questionable zoning and land, forest, and water management. There are also legitimate questions about the state of preparedness for such emergencies. Many tend to think of climate change as a problem with future consequences, but what the current situation in California underscores is that adapting to climate change, building societal resilience, must be an immediate priority. This country is overdue for a serious conversation about climate change, land use, and insurance availability, but our ability to have one is alas questionable.

I want to move north, which counts as Away, but barely. It certainly looks as though a change in government is coming to Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stepped down as leader of his party after nearly a decade in power. With polls continuing to show his Liberal Party badly trailing in polls and elections scheduled for this fall, he saw the writing on the wall and chose to step aside. What got things to this point was too much inflation, immigration, and wokeness…and simply too much time being on the scene. Politicians, like milk, have a sell-by date, and Trudeau seems to have reached his. Trump’s trolling of him as the governor of the 51^st state didn’t help; nor did Trudeau’s own supplicant visit to Mar-Lago. But the cake was baked long before. As we saw last year, it is not a good time to be an incumbent.

Speaking of Canada, it is hard not to notice the repeated threats voiced by the President-elect against Canada, Panama, Mexico, and Greenland. It is easy for many to dismiss all this as just bombast. Or as a negotiating tactic for future fights about border control, defense spending, and the like. Maybe it is. But part of me worries that it is instead indicative of something more troubling—that the 47th president’s foreign policy approach could prove to be a dangerous mix of isolationism (giving Russia and China a free hand in Europe and the Indo-Pacific) and interventionism in the Western Hemisphere. These threats from the President-elect signal too that friends and allies are nothing special when it comes to their relationship with us. If this sounds like it portends a world of spheres of influence and protectionism, of unilateralism rather than multilateralism, and of greater conflict and less wealth and freedom, that is because it does.

Politics and More Politics

Next up is another issue that bridges Away and Home, namely, the decision by President Biden to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. This is a head-scratcher and a head-shaker. It is bad foreign policy—we are treating Japan, arguably our closest and most important ally, as if it were China. It is also deeply hypocritical and cynical—we can, and do, sell our most advanced defense systems to Japan and trust the country to protect this technology but do not trust Tokyo with investing in a steel mill. We cite national security concerns to scuttle the deal even though Japan hosts more U.S. military personnel than any other country in the world. And all this from an administration that has rightly put improving alliance ties at the heart of its foreign policy.

The decision makes for equally bad domestic policy, as the already struggling U.S. Steel has warned of mass layoffs and mill closures should the deal not go through. Ultimately, the decision is politics, an effort to placate a union president, but why now? Last I checked, the election is behind us. While I didn’t much like it, I at least understood why the Biden administration kicked the decision beyond November given that Trump bashed the deal throughout his campaign, but there is no good reason for this now. Indeed, it would have been a good move for Biden to push through the deal and take the political blow, anticipating that his successor would want to steer away from it for his own political reasons. It would seem we are all protectionists these days.

This was the week of January 6, the day that every four years certifies the Electoral College result. The process is presided over by the sitting vice president, who this year (as was the case in 1961 and 2001) also happened to be the defeated candidate for the presidency. It is meant to be a ritual, which, as we know from experiences with religion or other elements from our own lives, can be important in instituting certain desired behaviors and norms.

Of course, what made this year’s January 6 event noteworthy was the contrast with the January 6 of four years ago, when the then-defeated candidate (who happened to be the incumbent president) stood aloof while a mob leaving his rally ransacked the Capitol. It is not a stretch to think we might well have had violence again this time around (in state capitals and the streets if not on Capitol Hill) had Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump. We avoided it because of the election result, not because of a renewed bipartisan commitment to democracy and the precept of putting country before party or politics. But no one should assume we are out of the woods, because we are not. Democracy is always fragile, but particularly so in an age of rapid technological change, algorithms that drive increased polarization, demographic changes, and reduced economic and social mobility. We should not take it for granted, which, among other things, reinforces the case for mandatory civics education and expanded public service.

On a lighter note, my favorite news item of the week was the following from the same President-elect, who nominated one Morgan Ortagus to be his deputy Middle East envoy. (One side item: The new administration will be awash in envoys. My favorite so far is the appointment of Mark Burnett, former producer of “The Apprentice,” as special envoy for the United Kingdom, a country where we will also have a resident ambassador.) But I digress. Here’s the Trump statement: “I am pleased to announce Morgan Ortagus as Deputy Special Presidential Envoy for Middle East Peace, to the Honorable Steven Witkoff. Early on Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson. These things usually don’t work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it for them. Let’s see what happens. She will hopefully be an asset to Steve, a great leader and talent, as we seek to bring calm and prosperity to a very troubled region. I expect great results, and soon!” It has to be the lukewarmest of endorsements ever.

Unexpected Opportunity

I want to share a piece I put out earlier this week in Foreign Affairs. The title, “The Iran Opportunity: What America Needs to do to Achieve a Breakthrough,” pretty much explains it.

I begin with the following assessment: It is hard to think of a country that has lost as much influence in as short a time as has Iran. Until recently, it was arguably the most important regional actor in the Middle East, more influential than Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey. Yet in a matter of months, the edifice of Iranian influence has come crashing down. Iran is weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades, likely since its nearly decadelong war with Iraq or even since the 1979 revolution.

I then go on to argue that three aspects of Iran’s behavior raise serious concerns: its nuclear program, its support for regional proxies, and its repression of the Iranian people. The problem is that a U.S. approach aiming for success in all three domains would almost certainly fail. Foreign policy must reach for the doable as well as the desirable, and an approach of such ambition would be unrealistic, in part because what would likely be essential to realizing one or two of the goals would be incompatible with accomplishing the third.

More specifically, I make the case for prioritizing stopping Iran’s nuclear program and its support for proxies over seeking regime change, which history, including Iran’s own, suggests can be difficult if not impossible to bring about, especially if success is defined as replacing existing authorities with something better within a specific period. It also argues for what can be accomplished by diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force and only introducing force if diplomacy fails. Here is a link to the full piece.

Gifts from Friends

I want to highlight three friends. First, my neighbor Chris Grisanti (a saint if for no other reason than he chairs the co-op board of the building we live in, the most thankless task in America next to being a university president.) Chris—in his spare time a well-known investor—just produced his annual “Ten Surprises for 2025.” As you will see, he is bullish on stocks, bitcoin, and Ukraine peace prospects, wary of renewed inflation, and bearish on the Trump-Musk relationship. I think he is right to be worried about a crisis in the South China Sea, and wrong in thinking revolution is coming to Iran. And he puts forward interesting predictions for the year regarding politics in New York City and New York state. You can read it here.

The second friend is none other than Peggy Noonan, who, as most of you know, writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal. Here is a paragraph that should be taken to heart from her first column of this new year:

Reading deepens. Social media keeps you where you are. Reading makes your mind do work. You have to follow the plot, imagine what the ballroom looked like, figure the motivations of the characters—I understand what Gatsby wants! All this makes your brain and soul develop the habit of generous and imaginative thinking. Social media is passive. The pictures, reels and comments demand nothing, develop nothing. They give you sensations, but the sensations never get deeper. Social media gets you stuck in you. Reading is a rocket ship, new worlds.

And then there is David Rubenstein. David is an old friend from my DC days, but then increasingly most of my friends are old friends, either because we have known each other for decades, they—like me—are getting old, or both. But again, I digress. David just received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for, among other things, his “philanthropy and generous support for the restoration of historic landmarks and the country’s cultural institutions.” It was a worthy choice.

David also puts out a newsletter reflecting what’s on his mind. A recent one is something of a primer on the debt and debt limit legislation given December’s government spending bill debacle. The debt went up by some $7 trillion under each of the past three presidents and now stands at some $36 trillion. Cutting it meaningfully won’t be easy given that some 80% of government spending is linked to entitlements, defense, and servicing the existing debt. All of which to say we are likely to face recurring tactical crises associated with the need to periodically raise the debt limit—and the strategic crisis that stems from a stock of debt that is already some $8 trillion greater than our GDP. This debt will eventually reach a scale when markets will grow weary and wary of financing it (forcing us to raise rates so we can borrow the money to service it) and/or find ourselves living in a world in which the dollar no longer dominates. It all adds up to a toxic mix of borrowed money and borrowed time.

Salute

I want to end with a few things from yesterday’s memorial service for President Carter at the National Cathedral. If you were not able to see it, try to find the time. The mix of ritual and pageantry, music and some fine eulogies, makes it more than worth it.

Four things stood out for me. First, Steve Ford giving the eulogy that his dad Gerald Ford wrote and would have delivered himself if he were still alive. Years after the close, and at times bitter, 1976 election, Ford and Carter became friends. It started on their way back from Anwar Sadat’s funeral, and they eventually grew close enough that the two agreed to deliver eulogies at one another’s funerals. Carter did just that at Ford’s. Their relationship was a reminder of a time when friendships could transcend politics. Second, Stuart Eizenstat’s eulogy. What Stu did well (and what I tried to do in my assessment of Carter) was make the case for Carter’s presidency and not just post-presidency. Stu pointed out that what matters is not how many terms a person serves but what he or she does with them, and that even a one-term president can have an enduring impact. I would argue that was true in Carter’s case. Third was Joe Biden’s eulogy, with his emphasis on character that seemed as much aimed at his successor as it was at celebrating Jimmy Carter. And last but not least, Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood singing “Imagine.” Sublime.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Saturday, January 4: Oxford Political Review (‘This has not been a golden age of American foreign policy’)

Sunday, January 5: Fareed Zakaria GPS (How will Trump deal with Russia and Iran?)

Sunday, January 5: Fareed Zakaria GPS (How Trump’s team is divided on foreign policy)

Sunday, January 5: The Bulwark (A Civics Deficit in the Classroom)

Tuesday, January 7: MedHead:The Michael Medved Show (On Trump’s foreign policy)

Thursday, January 9: Bloomberg Surveillance (On Jimmy Carter)

Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens