Friedman’s article is also dumb because of how shortsighted it is. He doesn’t examine the long-term consequences of the assassination. The assassination strengthened hardliners and provided evidence that the U.S. could never be trusted and bore aggressive intentions towards Iran. It also (predictably) caused Iran to move closer to China …
Friedman’s article is also dumb because of how shortsighted it is. He doesn’t examine the long-term consequences of the assassination. The assassination strengthened hardliners and provided evidence that the U.S. could never be trusted and bore aggressive intentions towards Iran. It also (predictably) caused Iran to move closer to China and Russia and to shore up its ties with its own proxies and allies in the ME.
It makes no sense to examine only the immediate, hyper-short-term consequences of the assassination, especially now that several years have passed since it happened. This is one of the problems of our political and media class: they can’t think in longer term timelines because they’re glued to the short-term news cycle.
Friedman’s article is also dumb because of how shortsighted it is. He doesn’t examine the long-term consequences of the assassination. The assassination strengthened hardliners and provided evidence that the U.S. could never be trusted and bore aggressive intentions towards Iran. It also (predictably) caused Iran to move closer to China and Russia and to shore up its ties with its own proxies and allies in the ME.
It makes no sense to examine only the immediate, hyper-short-term consequences of the assassination, especially now that several years have passed since it happened. This is one of the problems of our political and media class: they can’t think in longer term timelines because they’re glued to the short-term news cycle.