Vance’s stark warning to Israeli leaders: ‘Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel’
By sharply criticizing Israel, accusing it of blocking the agreement signed between Washington and Tehran on June 17, the US vice president exposed a lasting rift between the two countries.
The break was spectacular, sudden and deep. During a press conference on Thursday, June 18, US Vice President JD Vance delivered a harsh and almost threatening message to Israel, a longtime ally. “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally I have left,” Vance warned. He was referring to criticism from Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two far-right ministers, regarding the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran on June 17.
As if that warning were not enough, Vance went even further, criticizing Israel beyond just its government, using words that will resonate for a long time: “The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump. And anyone in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in,” Vance emphasized. In other words, Israel has been able to wage a war of annihilation in Gaza for two years, killing more than 73,000 Palestinians (according to Gaza’s health ministry), without provoking any US reaction. But criticizing or threatening a deal signed by Donald Trump is off limits.
This episode will leave its mark. The reality check is especially harsh for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has built his strategy around his personal relationship with the current US president, using it as leverage for military power and as a political asset in the upcoming fall elections. His close relationship with Trump allowed him to push hard to convince the United States to launch a large-scale strike on Iran at the end of February, a goal he had long hoped to achieve from an American president.
But Trump, more unpredictable than ever, changed course several times on Iran before ultimately signing the memorandum of understanding that is widely seen as extremely favorable to the Islamic Republic, a regime he had previously predicted and wished would collapse when launching the offensive.
Aggressive outbursts
As a result, facing the risk that Netanyahu might try to derail the process – as he has done in the past, notably in Gaza – Trump issued a series of aggressive (”You’re fucking crazy”) and threatening (”Without the US, there would be no Israel”) statements. But in the medium term and at the strategic level, the break is most significant and concerning for Israel.
Support for Israel has been a constant in US foreign policy for decades, regardless of the president’s political affiliation, and even more so after the attack carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023. “There is no greater friendship than the one between Israel and the United States,” Netanyahu has repeatedly said.
Militarily, except for a period when Joe Biden temporarily suspended the delivery of offensive munitions intended for use in Gaza, cooperation has never been smoother.
After the launch of the joint military operation against Iran on February 28, military experts competed in superlatives to praise the bond between the two militaries. Operationally, they shared Iranian airspace to bomb as many targets as possible. In response to Tehran’s retaliation, which involved more than 600 missiles fired at Israel, the US activated its air defense systems. Israelis saw this as integration; Vance sharply reminded them on Thursday that it was, first and foremost, dependence: “Over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.”
Difficult situation
Iran suffered considerable damage but did not yield. Its strategy worked, especially in recent weeks: by pushing Israel to respond to Hezbollah’s attacks by bombing Beirut, and thus jeopardizing ongoing negotiations, Iran drove a wedge into the historic alliance between Americans and Israelis. As a result, Netanyahu faces a difficult situation on the Lebanese front, where his army occupies a zone about 10 kilometers deep along the entire border.
The deal signed between the US and Iran, from which Netanyahu was completely excluded, calls for a halt to hostilities and respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity. For now, this remains wishful thinking: the ceasefire has never been implemented. Thursday night saw particularly violent clashes, with four Israelis killed and at least 25 people killed by bombings in Lebanon, which led to the cancellation of talks scheduled for Friday in Switzerland between Iran and the US.
Netanyahu said he refused to withdraw his army from southern Lebanon “because this zone is the barrier between Hezbollah terrorists and our citizens and communities,” he explained. His electorate, whipped up for years by promises of “total victory,” would not forgive him. He’s meanwhile tried to calm tensions with US leaders, avoiding any public criticism. “The fight is not over, and other challenges await us. They require discernment, a determined defense of Israel’s security interests and, at the same time, preserving our vital relationship with our American friends, who have stood by us in this fight, a partnership we deeply appreciate,” Netanyahu said on Thursday, while inaugurating a highway segment in the West Bank designed to accelerate settlement expansion.
Vance’s words are illuminating to Israelis who refused to acknowledge the strategic dead end of all-out war. Israel has continued to isolate itself over the past two years, implicitly or explicitly dismissing criticism as a form of antisemitism. It lost the support of many political leaders who had expressed their outrage after the October 7 attacks. More seriously and lastingly, it lost public opinion, especially in Europe and the US. “Israel just met the America that comes after Trump,” summed up Zvika Klein, editor-in-chief of the English-language daily Jerusalem Post, on Friday morning.
Douglas Murray in Conversation with Sean McMeekin,
Winner of the 2026 Hayek Book Prize
The winner of the 22nd annual Hayek Book Prize is Sean McMeekin, for his book To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism (Basic Books, 2025). McMeekin will be interviewed by Douglas Murray, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor of City Journal.
This year’s lecture is particularly timely. Dr. McMeekin’s scholarship shows how socialism has failed horrendously every time it has been imposed, just as Friedrich Hayek predicted.
Thursday, June 4, 2026
6:00 PM – 6:30 PM Reception
6:30 PM – 7:30 PM Program
7:30 PM – 8:00 PM Closing Reception
Racquet & Tennis Club
370 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Dress Code
Male members and guests are required to wear jackets, dress shirts, and ties. Female guests are required to wear clothing meeting similar standards. Guests in jeans, sneakers, or other similarly casual attire will not be admitted.
Editor: Reader don’t waste your time, with tired old and shopworn Neo-Liberal dogmas!! Jeffery Friedman (Editor) and his experts offer critical evaluations, not just carefully modulated aplogetics, that eventuated in the 2006-2008 Economic Collapse !
Critical Review: Hayek the Good, the Bad, the Ugly (Volume 25, Nos. 3-4, 2013) Paperback – January 1, 2013
Editor: it’s hard to make sence of Bret Stevens latest hysterical ditribe on Iran? Such is its swift and cartooish screecing about Iran, that reminds the reader of lame pastisch of Walt Disney, a little too much? But probably the reader might just surmise that Stephens riffed on his usual cobbled together themes, that failed to hit the mark?
Iran’s military leaders have greeted the cease-fire agreement with President Trump as a triumph, crowing that “through the imposition of their divine and iron will” they had “humiliated American and Zionist enemies.”
Mostly, they’re right.
Mostly, because it’s worth remembering that the current regime in Iran is far less formidable than it was before the Hamas assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Back then, Iran had potent allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. Its nuclear program was intact and steadily accumulating ever larger quantities of highly enriched uranium. It had a powerful military-industrial base, a weak but functional economy and a government that — for all its repressiveness — was internationally recognized as legitimate.
Today, much of that is either gone or diminished. Iran is no longer within sprinting distance of a bomb. Its ally in Syria was deposed. Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have lost much of their fighting strength. The Iranian rial is the world’s most worthless currency. The leadership rules an unhappy population that — outside of die-hard loyalists — would almost certainly overthrow it if given the chance. Its latest ballistic missile salvo against Israel failed to land a serious single blow. Its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz strained, but did not strangle, the world’s energy markets.
Editor: Stephens finally ignites his diatribe with this sentence pragment ‘evil, ambitious regime’ !
Those are real achievements against an evil, ambitious regime. Yet the outcome of war rarely rests on a tally of relative strength. War is a contest of wills. And in that contest, the hard men of Tehran appear to have scored a decisive victory over the vain man of Washington.
Editor: Mr. Stephens writes as a Zionist there can be no mistake about his loyalties!
I write this as someone who supported the war from the outset and hoped to see Trump carry it through to a decisive result: if not regime change, then at least a deal in which Iran would be forced to relinquish all of its enrichment capabilities and access to the Strait was unfettered. Those goals were well within the president’s reach, particularly if he had continued to attack Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure until it agreed to terms, rather than conducting most of the negotiations after the fighting had mostly stopped.
Editor: Stephens diatribe is awash in victimhood! For a person who has lived a highly privileged existant, this is the pureist expression of self-serving agitprop!
…
The worst betrayal, however, is of Americans who supported the war — not only neocons like me but also most of Trump’s MAGA base — because we believed that Iran, which has waged a 47-year war against us, posed an increasingly intolerable threat to our security and vital interests.
This cease-fire neither ends nor eases that threat; it hardens and magnifies it. It removes the one point of U.S. leverage over Iran — the naval blockade of its ports — before there’s any negotiation over its nuclear program, which the Iranians will almost surely drag out until Trump is out of office. It reminds the world of the adage that while it can be dangerous to be America’s enemy, it is fatal to be its friend. And it gives Iran’s leaders something even more vital: The confidence that, whatever Trump may threaten, they can withstand the most any American president or Israeli prime minister can throw at them.
There’s a word for this: debacle. Not because the war, for all its costs or errors of execution, was a mistake. It’s because this pretense of a peace is an act of geopolitical self-harm that will haunt our standing in the world for years to come.
Nothing quite prepares the reader for this declaration by Mr. Habermas:
Jürgen Habermas: I have been entrusted with the honour of saying a few introductory words about the subject of our conversation between our distinguished guest Emmanuel Macron and Sigmar Gabriel, our foreign minister who recently rose like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes. Both names are associated with courageous reactions to challenging situations. Emmanuel Macron has dared to cross a red line hitherto untouched since 1789. He has broken apart the entrenched configuration of the two political camps of right and left. Given that it is impossible in a democracy for any individual to stand above the parties, we are curious to see how the political spectrum will be reconfigured if, as expected, he is victorious in the French election.
The ‘as if ‘here is one of the central myths of the Neo-Liberal Dispensation: the ‘political reality’ that somehow the divide between ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ can be overcome- has been overcome by the particular political genius of Emmanuel Macron. This from an April 20, 2017 Eurozine interview of M. Macron conducted by Habermas and Sigmar Gabriel. The Mont Pelerin Olympus is echoing with hosannas.
Where is the Habermas of July 2015?
Speaking about the bailout deal for the first time since it was presented on Monday, the philosopher and sociologist said the German chancellor had effectively carried out “an act of punishment” against the leftwing government of Alexis Tsipras.
“I fear that the German government, including its social democratic faction, have gambled away in one night all the political capital that a better Germany had accumulated in half a century,” he told the Guardian. Previous German governments, he said, had displayed “greater political sensitivity and a post-national mentality”.
Habermas, widely considered one of the most influential contemporary European intellectuals, said that by threatening Greece with an exit from the eurozone over the course of the negotiations, Germany had “unashamedly revealed itself as Europe’s chief disciplinarian and for the first time openly made a claim for German hegemony in Europe.”
The outcome of the negotiations between Greece and the other eurozone member states, he said, did “not make sense in economic terms because of the toxic mixture of necessary structural reforms of state and economy with further neoliberal impositions that will completely discourage an exhausted Greek population and kill any impetus to growth.”
Habermas added: “Forcing the Greek government to agree to an economically questionable, predominantly symbolic privatisation fund cannot be understood as anything other an act of punishment against a leftwing government.”
That ‘privatization’ was not just symbolic, but the usual concerted attack on the Welfare State, using the bankrupt vehicle of Austerity as Neo-Liberal cudgel. Even in this Habermas lacks the necessary candor. See this report by Gillian Tett in the Financial Times titled ‘A debt to history?’ that reports on an after dinner speech by economic historian Benjamin Friedman, dated January 15, 2015. A telling excerpt, that puts the notion of German financial probity into a proper historical perspective :
The mandarins settled comfortably into their chairs, expecting a soothing intellectual discourse on esoteric monetary policy. But Friedman lobbed a grenade.
“We meet at an unsettled time in the economic and political trajectory of many parts of the world, Europe certainly included,” he began in a strikingly flat monotone (I quote from the version of his speech that is now posted online, since I wasn’t allowed to take notes then.) Carefully, he explained that he intended to read his speech from a script, verbatim, to ensure that he got every single word correct. Uneasily, the audience sat up.
For a couple of minutes Friedman then offered a brief review of western financial history, highlighting the unprecedented nature of Europe’s single currency experiment, and offering a description of sovereign and local government defaults in the 20th century. Then, with an edge to his voice, Friedman pointed out that one of the great beneficiaries of debt forgiveness throughout the last century was Germany: on multiple occasions (1924, 1929, 1932 and 1953), the western allies had restructured German debt.
So why couldn’t Germany do the same for others? “There is ample precedent within Europe for both debt relief and debt restructuring . . . There is no economic ground for Germany to be the only European country in modern times to be granted official debt relief on a massive scale and certainly no moral ground either.
“The supposed ability of today’s most heavily indebted European countries to reduce their obligations over time, even in relation to the scale of their economies, is likely yet another fiction,” he continued, warning of political unrest if this situation continued.
The Germans, like Merkel and Habermas, engage in the exercise of politically motivated self-willed forgetting. History made to measure.
Macron self-presentation is as prophet of the Rational Center:
The chief risk is of fatally weakening the very governments that are actually pursuing reforms. Because as long as these countries are in the grip of this inequality, the reforms are too slow to yield results that are politically and socially noticeable, and then it’s the reformers who are in the wrong. And that plays into the hands of populists and extremists.
The key word ‘reform’ is the the rhetorical place holder for Macron’s Neo-Liberalism Lite: that acts the part of ‘Political Enlightenment’ in the face of a ‘stalled’ Europe, rather than a ‘stalled world economy’, in the watershed of the catastrophic failure of the ‘Free Market’ and its successor ‘Austerity’ and that produced that vexing ‘stall’. Notice too that Macron appropriates the notion of ‘inequality’ into his Neo-Liberal Lite propaganda. Macron adopts Thomas Piketty in his attempt to rescue ‘Europe’. Fillon’s prescription for France was Speed & Shock, Macron’s is Neo-Liberalism on Political Prozac. The ‘animal spirits’, the unslakable greed of the Trinity of Hayek/Mises/Friedman, in the view of political opportunist Macron, just needs some necessary consciousness raising. And to this end Macron’s appropriates the notions of ‘social justice’ and ‘redistribution’ re-expressed as ‘distribution’ and ‘fairness’.
As for Macron as political opportunist, see Simon Kuper’s essay of May 17,2017 titled ‘The chill behind Emmanuel Macron’s charm’ at The Financial Times:
Emmanuel Macron watches a smartphone video of an egg cracking on his forehead at a campaign event. He guffaws, then plays the video again. “It didn’t hurt. It came from a long way, did you see?” he marvels to his wife Brigitte and an aide. “The guy got lucky.”
The scene is from Emmanuel Macron, les coulisses d’une victoire (“Behind the scenes of a victory”)‚ a fly-on-the-wall documentary of his campaign that screened on French TV after he was elected president. It’s the most intimate portrait I’ve seen of a political leader. After the artificiality of the campaign, we’re starting to get to know Macron better. He’s a remarkable chap. But there is also something chilling about him. One man who knew him well for many years told me: “He seduces everyone. And then he kills.”
The key to Macron is that he is what the French call a grand séducteur. He quickly learnt that his charm could get him whatever he wanted. Almost every schoolboy fantasises about seducing his sexy high-school teacher. Macron did, even after Brigitte initially turned him down.
He also got used early to being the smartest person in the room. That doesn’t mean he has an original intellectual mind. He twice failed the entrance exams for the Ecole Normale Supérieure, France’s most cerebral “grande école”. But he’s a polymath who quickly absorbs everything from Rossini’s operas to Hegel. His father, a neurologist, had applied his brain more discreetly: his most cited academic article is on sneezing in cats. However, Macron’s charm required larger outlets. After writing his master’s thesis on Machiavelli, he got rich fast as a banker, then absorbed enough economics to be named finance minister.
Like his political ancestor Tony Blair, who walked into Downing Street 20 years ago this month, Macron is an actor at heart. (He met Brigitte when she taught him drama.) Watch the online video in which a journalist hands him a copy of Molière’s play The Misanthrope, a favourite of Macron’s, and suggests he mug up the opening scene so they can perform it together in a week. No, replies Macron, let’s do it right now. And he does, from memory: “Leave me, I beg of you . . . ” He also used to have ambitions of performing as a pianist.
Nothing quite prepares the reader for this utterly surprising, not to speak of candid contribution, from Sigmar Gabriel:
I think that before we succeed in doing what Professor Habermas has just called for, namely winning majorities for an extension of European competencies, we first need to change a few narratives. Because politics begins with saying what’s right. At the moment we like pointing at people who produce fake news – but there are also some bits of fake news that have become established here over the last thirty years, maybe even longer. The first bit of fake news is that Germany is the packhorse of the European Union: We are the net contributors! We are the ones who support everyone else! Unfortunately this is a story that has been told for decades, in politics, in the media, in the economy – pretty much irrespective of who happens to be in power at any given time.
Whenever the financial structure of the European Union has been discussed, we have always stuck to the standard cross-party view that we have to reduce our net contribution – the balance of which incidentally comes to about twelve billion euros. So whenever I’m told – correctly – how important the European project is, twelve billion euros isn’t a figure that blows me away. In the German federal budget we pay more for far less important things. That’s why first of all we must stop this narrative of Germany as the packhorse of the European Union. Ultimately it serves only to pander to people’s alleged national interests. The upsurge in nationalistic feeling that we’re currently seeing is not the beginning, but the result, of thirty years of false narratives. The root of the problem is purely national narratives in the member states of the European Union, particularly in our country. Whereas the truth is that Germany is the chief profiteer, indeed the net beneficiary, of the European Union.
One of the most prominent of the arguments, or better yet, points of propaganda during the 2014 Greek Crisis, was the promulgation of notions of The Virtuous Norther Tier vs The Profligate Southern Tier: The Germans vs. The Greeks. This, in its various iterations, became the touchstone of Anti-Greek Propaganda in the respectable bourgeois Western Press. Ms. Tett’s essay simply eviscerated the legitimacy of that rhetorical pose, at least for the well read.
Where does Mr. Gabriel take his dissenting argument, no matter how carefully it has been denatured? ‘False Narratives’, carefully presented as a blind to the notion expressed as the exercise of German Largess as EU Hegemon. The 4 Time Defaulter in the 20th Century, has not learned its lesson, nor practiced the kind of enlightened stance as argued by Prof. Friedman, but now assumes the role of ‘Leadership’ founded on a half-truth: Germany as benefactor of the EU. On the question of ‘Solidarity’ Mr. Gabriel remains committed.
So, to conclude, one more point on the topic of solidarity – which is a concept that, as a social democrat, I know something about – solidarity means acting responsibly, both towards oneself and towards the community one belongs to. This responsible action is what it’s all about. And I am quite sure that if we pursue this narrative we will also obtain the majorities we need to put it into practice.
On the question of reform of the EU, into an actual and functional democracy, instead of a Cartel, that is in sum a Federalism of Technocrats, remains out of the imaginative reach of this trio. What the reader must settle for is a ‘Franco-German New Deal’. So the German Hegemon must make way for the ‘Franco-German Hegemon’?
This first paragraphs of the Economist Essay plays by the rules, that are discarded at moments when political actors, are not actual political actors, but don usable disguises that ape actual political actors, that are nemeless but are projected by self-serving dishonest atribution.
ON FEBRUARY 28TH hundreds of American and Israeli warplanes took off simultaneously to launch the opening salvo of their war on Iran. For 40 days the two allies’ military partnership was intense and close. But as Donald Trump and Iran’s leaders this week reached an agreement that would extend the ceasefire and bring their war to an end, the nature of that partnership has shifted. Israel has been shut out of the negotiations with Iran. Judging by the details of the accord (Israel hasn’t received a copy) that have emerged so far, it deals with few if any of Israel’s concerns
Editor: Here is where things begin to fall apart. Reader think of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s Red Shoes, when in the final act a peace of scenery, or erent Play Bill come to vivid life before the audiences eyes, as if by an act of self-ill? The Economist writer/writers lack of the vision of Powell & Pressburger Élan and Vivacity. But reader I offer a selection of the attempts to capture an essence, that whithers before the gaze!
…
The outcome for Israel is, as one of the country’s diplomats in Jerusalem describes it, “a glorious failure”.
…
Iran retains the capability to fire ballistic missiles at Israel, the rest of the Middle East and beyond. The agreement with America is not expected to refer to Iran’s ballistic-missile programme at all.
…
Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, insisted that troops would remain in the “security zones” that Israel captured in southern Lebanon over the past three months, but Iran is demanding that an Israeli retreat should also be part of the deal with America.
…
An Israeli official who was previously stationed in Washington said that “a large part of the problem is that we no longer have the same kind of relationship with America in which officials spoke openly to each other at all levels.
…
A few voices in Israel’s defence and intelligence establishment warned their generals of this discrepancy in the first days of the war. They suggested that Israel must be more realistic about its aims. But their bosses were swept away by the success of early air strikes and supported Mr Netanyahu through 40 days of war.
…
Israel has failed to achieve its strategic goals. It has damaged its crucial ties with America, as well as its relations with Arab countries that regarded it as an ally against Iran.
…
That said, none of his challengers yet has an alternative strategy on Iran. Leaders of all the main opposition parties were just as gung-ho when the war began. For now their criticism of Mr Netanyahu is that he failed to deliver results, not that he launched the war. “We desperately need a new Iran policy,” one military planner observes. For now Israel has no prospect of getting one.
Political Cynic : TNR on the Hunter Biden political rehabilitaion offers no surprises ?
Hunter Biden is back, seven years drug-free, and spoiling for social media fights. He’s won kudos for his (only slightly creaky) clapbacks to his haters. “Hunter went from smoking crack to smoking MAGAs,” observed one fan last week. Last seen advising his father to defy common sense by staying in the 2024 presidential race, Hunter is today owning his crackhead days and flexing his recovery from addiction. He’s even launched a kind of secular ministry with the hope, he says, of “giving people the space to talk about what they’re going through” and helping them see “the incredible promises they can receive if they stay the course” of recovery.
…
Sobriety proceeds a day at a time, and it’s hard to know what Hunter Biden’s interior life is like these days.
On the one hand, Biden has exhibited real candor and willingness to help others in his recent tweets and interviews. On the other hand, it’s not clear how close he stays to the moral demands of true sobriety. “I know what I’ve done, I know the amends I have to make,” he now says. But Lunden Roberts, the mother of one of Hunter’s children, has written movingly and without rancor about raising their daughter in Arkansas while Biden first refused to acknowledge his child, then paid less than expected in support, then seemed to ghost his daughter. Making a complete amends to one’s children and partners is usually considered a first step toward lasting sobriety.
As Hunter Biden would surely be the first to attest, the path to sobriety is winding and difficult, and, as A.A. says, “We seek progress, not perfection.” Biden’s voice is welcome in the public sphere, and not for the zingers. Rather, he has opened the possibility—just the possibility—that with attention to our moral responsibilities we Americans might one day find a less furious, more honest, and more charitable way to live.
This address considers the epidemiology of narratives relevant to economic fluctuations. The human brain has always been highly tuned towards narratives, whether factual or not, to justify ongoing actions, even such basic actions as spending and investing. Stories motivate and connect activities to deeply felt values and needs. Narratives “go viral” and spread far, even worldwide, with economic impact. The 1920-21 Depression, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the so-called “Great Recession” of 2007-9 and the contentious politicaleconomic situation of today, are considered as the results of the popular narratives of their respective times. Though these narratives are deeply human phenomena that are difficult to study in a scientific manner, quantitative analysis may help us gain a better understanding of these epidemics in the future.
Robert J. Shiller Sterling Professor of Economics and Professor of Finance Cowles Foundation, Yale University 30 Hillhouse Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 robert.shiller@yale.edu and NBER
…
By narrative economics I mean the study of the spread and dynamics of popular narratives, the stories, particularly those of human interest and emotion, and how these change through time, to understand economic fluctuations. A recession, for example, is a time when many people have decided to spend less, to make do for now with that old furniture instead of buying new, or to postpone starting a new business, to postpone hiring new help in an existing business, or to express support for fiscally conservative government. They might make any of these decisions in reaction to the recession itself (that’s feedback), but to understand why a recession even started, we need more than a theory of feedback. We have to consider the possibility that sometimes the dominant reason why a recession is severe is related to the prevalence and vividness of certain stories, not the purely economic feedback or multipliers that economists love to model. The field of economics should be expanded to include serious quantitative study of changing popular narratives. To my knowledge, there has been no controlled experiment to prove the importance of changing narratives in causing economic fluctuations. We cannot easily prove that any association between changing narratives and economic outcomes is not all reverse causality, from the outcomes to the narratives. But there have been true controlled experiments showing that people respond strongly to narratives, in the fields of marketing (Escalas 2007); journalism (Machill et al. 2007 ); education (McQuiggan et al. 2008); health interventions (Slater et al. 2003); and philanthropy (Weber et al. 2006).
My goal in this paper is to describe what we know about narratives and the penchant of the human mind to be engaged by them, to consider reasons to expect that narratives might well be thought of as important, largely exogenous shocks to the aggregate economy. This address extends some earlier work I have done with George Akerlof (Akerlof and Shiller, 2009, 2015) and some of my own earlier work going back decades (Shiller 1984), but develops the analysis and captures a much broader relevant literature.
Of course, almost nothing beyond spots on the sun is truly exogenous in economics, but new narratives may be regarded often as causative innovations, since each narrative originates in the mind of a single individual (or a collaboration among a few). Joel Mokyr (2016) calls such an individual a “cultural entrepreneur,” and traces the concept back to David Hume (1742) who wrote that “what depends on a few persons is, in great measure, to be ascribed to chance, or secret and unknown causes; what arises from a great number may often be accounted for by determinate and known causes.”.
He also said Telegram messages recovered by the police between Lavrynovych and El Money showed he had been recruited, instructed and promised with payment in cryptocurrency for the fires. Pochynok had been recruited by Carpiuc to help Lavrynovych with the first fire, the court heard, while Carpiuc’s role involved planning and receiving payment.
“The evidence demonstrated that there was here, no coincidence,” said Atkinson. “Rather, the vehicle and the two properties in question had been targeted, and the acts of arson at these locations had been planned and directed, with those involved promised payment for their participation.”
The court heard more than 320 messages dating back to September 2024 were recovered between Lavrynovych and El Money, who communicated in Russian in contrast to the Ukrainian used by the defendants.
Jurors were shown CCTV footage of Lavrynovych buying white spirit in south-east London two days before the Toyota was set on fire, the court heard. Each of the properties was allegedly set alight by Lavrynovych in the “dead of night, when the occupants of the addresses would inevitably have been asleep”, jurors were told.
“The prosecution’s case is that when he did so he must have intended to endanger – to risk – the lives of the people living inside those houses,” said Atkinson.
He added: “Why else would you set fire to the front door, blocking the residents’ escape?”
Editor: Should the reader here wonder about the instructions to Jurors, about the mysterious El Money, as pay master to these political actors! What might that mean? The reader might recall that British Police have arrested citizens for expressing political dissent to the Gauza Genocide by imprisonment!
Jurors were told it was “no part of your considerations” to decide who El Money was and “what reason he might have had” to coordinate the defendants’ actions. Atkinson also said the jury did not need to decide “what motivated” the defendants to carry out the arson attacks.
“It does not matter whether they knew that the property they were targeting was connected to the prime minister or whether that formed part of their motivation,” said Atkinson.
After the attacks, El Money had encouraged Lavrynovych to leave London, the court heard. “Look, you attacked the home of a very high-ranking person in Britain. I’ll send you money, you need to leave the city,” said the message read in court.
“If the police detain you, secretly write the word ‘geranium’ and I’ll send a lawyer to you, I’ll give you money for a week and a new phone. We won’t be in touch for a week.”
The trial is expected to continue until the end of May.
Newspaper Reader.
Editor: On the pressing question of History, and its manipulations by Political Opportunist, begin your exploration with this issue of Journal of Cold War Studies Volume 15, Issue 4 Fall 2013:
This issue takes a critical look at the Gaddis biography, as the preferred methodology for assessing the career of Kennan. Here is an excerpt of Anders Stephenson’s assessment:
…
Here lies the crux of the matter, and so of Gaddis’s ediªce as well. Everything turns on two issues. The ªrst is “the Soviet issue” itself. The divergence between Kennan and Lippmann on this matter in September 1947 hinges on the notion of “normality.” Difference is inscribed in the world, but in Kennan’s depiction as opposed to Lippmann’s the Soviet regime is and has always been abnormal, alien, and hostile, and now because of World War II was also dangerously placed: an abnormality piled on an abnormality, as it were. From the moment Kennan began seriously pondering the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and into the summer of 1948, he ultimately declined to recognize Moscow’s legitimacy as an international actor (he did not consider the Nazi regime, unpleasant and aggressive though it might be, equally beyond the pale until the war). The “Long Telegram” and the “X” article express this posture. Their speciªc accounts of the Soviet Union and its foreign relations are empirically wrong and strangely structured: wrong in denying that Moscow had ever made “deals” and compromises when in fact it had made a whole string of them, as Kennan well knew; strange in rooting Soviet policy wholly in domestic sources as though the outside world had no meaning except as a construction set forth to legitimate the regime at home. Astonishingly, the massive, near-death experience of the Soviet Union in World War II is almost entirely absent from the article. Suppose the United States had gone through a similar experience, the area between the Rockies and the industrial northeast had been essentially leveled by the Wehrmacht, 25 million had been killed, New York had been under siege for 900 days, and New Yorkers, the lucky ones, had been forced to eat rats while Washington was being bombarded. Can one imagine a persuasive postwar analysis of U.S. foreign policy that largely ignored such a sequence of events? I think not (and one can visualize the kind of security claims the U.S. government would have insisted on afterward). Yet, despite the antinomies and palpable errors of the “Long Telegram” and subsequent “X” article, they were received with a stupeªed sense of discovery, a discovery of “truth revealed.” Lippmann never fell into that trap, and Kennan himself, once confronted with the effects of the truth revealed, which is to say the Cold War, began to look for alternatives and ways to reconstitute some kind of diplomacy proper. The “normality” argument did not go away. It was famously resurrcted in 1967 by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs; and Gaddis reiterates it now again in celebrating the virtues of the Long Telegram. In fact, the Soviet Union proved remarkably orthodox in its devotion to power politics and classical European notions of international relations. What was really “wrong” with Iosif Stalin was, one might say, his abnormal “normality”—his hyper-realist reduction of all meaning to pure and ruthless interest. This was a man who had had The Prince translated for himself and then marked it up with care. Thus one might have chosen another basis for rejecting dealings with Moscow; for example, on ethical grounds: “this regime is a horrible dictatorship and, regardless of what we said and did during our wartime alliance, one must not accept such a regime qua regime.” This is a coherent position but notoriously difficult to maintain insofar as, typically, one has to distinguish this particular dictatorship by degree from others that are worth dealing with. Right-wing dictatorships aside, the ethical aspect as regards “Communism” was soon effectively discarded because of the need to support Josip Broz Tito’s regime in Yugoslavia. In treating this issue, Gaddis seems to favor the idea that “domestic” Communism was of no real (i.e., strategic) concern to the United States as long as it did not support Moscow and expansionism in foreign affairs. The effortless oscillation between quasi-realist pragmatism and Cold War ideology is in itself characteristic of the Cold War as actual geopolitics: “freedom, indivisible and sacred, will everywhere be defended by the Leader of the Free World, but it may be that we are not really capable of doing that so China (1948–49) will have to be written off, though we will not put it exactly like that and certainly not in public.”
These two long paragraphs point to what Mr. Kuper uses, both of the Long Telegram and the Mr. X essay, as the rhetorical frame, that just alludes to Kennan’s change of mind about the Soviets. Mr. Stephenson ends his review of the Gaddis biography with these paragraphs:
Gaddis, on reºection, might well have agreed with this and gone on to take the other side of the argument. What he does is less interesting and indeed a bit tiresome. Having said that Kennan was essentially right in 1946– 1947, he faced the task of ªguring out what to do with half a century’s worth of withering Cold War critique, which in effect repudiated his erstwhile position. The predictable solution is a bracketing operation of another order:
Kennan the Early Prophet eventually proved right in the Age of Reagan when containment ªnally brought to maturity the Soviet regime’s “seeds of its own destruction,” a regime that had been so alien to Mother Russia. Meanwhile, Kennan the Late Prophet lost his way amid his emotions, his often charming eccentricities, and his ªxations on cultural degeneration in the West, all of which prevented him, tragically, from reconciling himself to the Truth of Reagan. Kennan’s half-century of critique, then, can be safely quarantined within a realm of egocentric peculiarity. The truth of the Cold War is duly preserved. I myself happen to think that Kennan was quite right in castigating Reagan as an egregiously irresponsible ªgure, a ªgure who, like Gaddis himself, seems to have been surprised that Soviet leaders actually believed there was danger afoot when the United States moved massively to resurrect the Cold War in the name of erasing the “Evil Empire” and so brought the world yet again, unnecessarily, to the brink of nuclear liquidation.
Political Observer wonders what are Mr. Roberts’s qualifications to utter such an irresponsible, indeed bellicose pronouncement?
Editor: Here is the portion of Mr. Roberts essay devoted to Vladimir Putin and the American and EU War in Ukraine. Mr. Roberts come from an Economist Tradition that produced that Great Oxbridger Tag-Team of John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge! That produced that classic apologetic for the War Mongering Bush The Younger: ‘The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America’ and his coterie of henchmen: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and ‘Turd Blossom’ Karl Rove! As a regular reader of The Economist from the 1990’s, till they closed the comments section. When I attempted to read ‘Right Nation’ I experienced déjà vu, the already seen, as the literary/political style these two re-write men.
Hello from London,
Will conflict with Russia escalate? Vladimir Putin, again, wants to make you believe so. Joe Biden may be poised, at last, to say that Ukraine may use western-supplied weapons to hit military targets—such as airfields, logistics bases, or missile launchers—in Russian territory. That would be welcome, if overdue. Mr Putin, who booted out some British diplomats to show his anger on Friday, suggests this would be a step towards outright war between the West and Russia. His goal, of course, is to intimidate the West into inaction. But with bullies, caving into threats is a mistake. The West must dare to confront the aggressor. Ukraine, as the victim of aggression, has every right to fight back. Its allies should support it.
Russia continues to rain missiles, drones and artillery shells on Ukrainian cities and villages. Its forces are creeping towards making meaningful gains in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Across the country, Mr Putin’s goal is to destroy power supplies ahead of the winter, to further spread misery for ordinary people. Even as his forces commit war crimes, however, he has threatened Ukraine’s foreign supporters that they must not cross his red lines. At the same time, his forces continue to carry out sabotage and attempt assassinations in Europe, and to meddle in elections abroad, including in America.
Mr Putin’s threats of escalation, therefore, must be seen for what they are. He is aggressive when he observes weakness in others, not when he is met by strength. Some in the West were previously fearful about supplying battle tanks to Ukraine, and then F-16 fighter jets. As on those occasions, the lesson to take is that standing by the government in Kyiv, helping Ukraine to fend off its aggressor, is the right way to act.
The Economist and their employee Adam Roberts attempt to re-heat The Old Cold War.
Reader begin your sturdy of that Cold War, with this issue of the Journal Of Cold War Studies Fall of 2013, that offers critiques of John Lewis Gaddis’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of George F. Kennan , with insightful critical evaluations by critics not sycophants!
