Ask Benito, Adolf, Fidel and Vladimir how things turned out. In order for them to consolidate and hold power they have to destroy their people and their economies. Eventually the house of cards collapses.
Totally agree . Dictatorships don’t have the course correcting signals that the political market provides through democratic elections.Also, most dictators accrue not only political power but wealth for themselves and their cronies, thus creating a society where merit does not determine your status in society and economic life. This tends to breed resentment among “the masses “ . Democracies fail when they let demogogic elected leaders between dictators in fact.
She is correct. Of course many dictators have not fared well, but Xi is an excellent modern example of the dilemma discussed here. I used to represent one of Japan's largest companies. We were in a negotiation that was very thorny. The issues were focused on the next several years. My client said, "we were founded in 1644. We have time."
Wow what an extremely well thought out and well written essay. The danger of partisanship reaches deep. We have entered a time of such hatred between political parties that by the time something does change the next group coming in is more interested in revenge then achieving anything positive for the nation. When the executive branch has such control over Justice that they use them as attack dogs to go after anyone and everyone not many people are willing to remain in government or civil service if they're forced to spend more time defending themselves then running implementing and managing their departments. If we ever hope to go back to a time of having strategic plans that go beyond the current president, people need to realize that there are things bigger than their angers and fear and personal beliefs.
Fortune does not favor the dictators. At least not historically. All the truly heinous dictatorships with just a few exceptions have ceased to exist. All the Democracies, including tiny Israel still survive and thrive with a great standard of living for its people even if those people don't appreciate it.
All Democracies make mistakes. Including Israel of course. The entire Oslo process was a catastrophic mistake. But the biggest threat facing the free world today is the absence of statesmanship and its replacement by venality and demagoguery. It causes people who have no business being near power to gain such power. No matter how right someone like Trump can be when he acts against the Iranian regime, he will NEVER have the willingness or even the ability to carry through such a policy to completion, to sell it to the people and to truly lead. The same is true of losers like Starmer and the genuinely pathetic American Democratic party. The gravest risk to the free nations is corrosion from within as the unacceptable becomes not just acceptable but preferable.
Whose money is used for "individual" or corporate gains? I can understand individual, why shouldn't someone's money be used for something that matters to them? And even for corporate. Should companies spend on things hostile to their shareholders' interests? You sound, sorry to say, a bit platitudinous.
At the risk of sounding snarky, dictatorships are all about power and democracies are all about politics. It's fairly obvious that in a competition, power will prevail over consensus, if a political entity were capable of it at all. Dictatorships need not bother.
The time line only exists because of the different systems; an effect rather than a cause. One is in a marathon because it owns the whole deal, the other is a sprint because it must earn its moment to lead by consent, intended to be brief.
Again, by virtue of definition, dictatorship destroys freedom while democracy is charged with defending it. Which is easier?
In an accelerated, ever shrinking world, the two systems are colliding constantly and the simple, obvious fact is that they are utterly incompatible. Unless we can find a way to get out of and stay out of each other's way, we'll simply battle to the death. There's no compromise between freedom and servitude.
While I agree with you generally (and it didn't sound snarky to me!) I think your conclusion is faulty: "There's no compromise between freedom and servitude.
There is compromise so long as there is no direct confrontation. While the situation may change for the worse, currently US-China are examples of such compromise, or at least parallel survival.
Excellent essay. Democracy is clumsy, and we need leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Lincoln, to make it work. I don’t see them in the 21st C, but we can hope.
Interesting configuration of events and their implication. The MOA was signed June 17th. It calls for a 60 day period of negotiations, which expires Aug. 16th. The mid-terms will take place Nov. 3rd., 189 days after June 17th, and 79 days after Aug 16th.
Item 1 of MOU: 1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.
Item 3 of MOU: The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
and
Item 13 of MOU: After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America will start negotiations regarding the final Deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
Items 10 and 11 deal with sanctions relief for Iran. According to Item 13, negotiations only start on a final Deal if and only if 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 are fulfilled by the US.
Iran now only needs to have Hezbollah fire rockets, drones, and RPGs at the IDF and Israeli communities to provoke two responses. The first is worldwide condemnation of Israel for its non-stop, unprovoked aggression against innocent Lebanese people (just as its attacks on Hamas fighters are framed as random violence inflicted on innocent Gazan civilians), thus further alienating support of Israel among the populace. This popular antipathy to Israel will translate into shaping voting positions of successful office seekers. It especially targets Trump's support of Israel because media influencers, Dems, and right wing Republicans will remind him that Israel is to blame when negotiations fail.
The second is it provides Iran with justification to stall negotiations leaving an unpopular Trump / Republican policy to continue alienating the electorate. Not only does the unpopularity of the Iran conflict align with the Dems ideological position on the war and Israel, it also allows them to stoke and exploit this conflict to their advantage at the polls.
As noted at the outset, despite the 60 day period of negotiations, the real timeline for maneuverability by the US is 189 days from the signing to remove the Iran conflict from public consciousness. However, it will only become a non-issue if negotiations are completed well before the elections.
For that to happen, according to the MOU, the US must fulfill its obligations of sanction relief and getting Israel to halt any defensive action against Hezbollah attacks. In reality there are only 79 days from the negotiation expiry date to the elections during which time Iran can exploit the terms and conditions of the MOU to stop the US from pressuring them on the nuclear file and intensify public discontent with the Republicans to permanently weaken Trump.
As we have already seen, Iran started exploiting this technical loophole to its political advantage when it cancelled the start of the negotiations in Switzerland this weekend on the pretext Israel — a non-signatory — violated the MOU.
I negotiated against the Islamic Republic man decades ago, after they expropriated my clients property. I also negotiated with Arabs many times. They are liars, slimy, untrustworthy and have a sense of endless patience. Only by recognizing that can yo beat them at their own game. Trump was nuts to not finish the job.
I read a lot. From many sources. This is one of the most perceptive and thoughtful essays I've read in months. She makes complete sense. She is right. Excellent work Ms. Berg!
One dissent: any optimism that democracies (other than Israel) can plan strategically is misplaced. All populations tend to be uneducated and with the internet, dumb ideas and false information travel at the blink of an eye. it takes a (relatively) thoughtful and cohesive population to elect leaders who adopt strategic thinking.
Israel is an exception because it has to be. Issues of life and death and survival lead to focus. The rest of the world's democracies govern populations leading somewhat frivolous lives. Israel has no such problem.
Nice work! Though given this perceptive view, I don't see reason for optimism.
Vanessa .. clear and articulate. Thank you. How it unfolds, remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure, Israel will continue to ensure its safety and security.
Vanessa, great essay. Looking at history however, democracy is not the norm, and most states built around democracy (and its other forms such as Republics) falter. Ancient Athenian Greece had a 200 hundred year run, Rome had a 250 year run as a Republic before becoming an Empire under the Ceasars which lasted for nearly 500 years as an autocracy with the trappings of a Republic. Fast forward and democracies either in the form of parliamentary governments or republics is again a new phenomenon which one could say began in the end of the 18th century. Ironically in the US we are reaching the 250 year mark of our claim to independence and the founding of our Republic.
You are absolutely correct in that democracies in their various forms are subjected to shorter term goals and pressures and that autocracies have longer horizons.
Thanks for this. Puts the finger on something I have so admired about Israel the last few years. You can be furious about some people and their ideas, but the wholeness of the atmosphere, the seriousness of the state, the soberness underneath all the day to day outrages, it is inspiring. With this attitude the west cannot lose.
Dictators have an advantage?
Ask Benito, Adolf, Fidel and Vladimir how things turned out. In order for them to consolidate and hold power they have to destroy their people and their economies. Eventually the house of cards collapses.
Totally agree . Dictatorships don’t have the course correcting signals that the political market provides through democratic elections.Also, most dictators accrue not only political power but wealth for themselves and their cronies, thus creating a society where merit does not determine your status in society and economic life. This tends to breed resentment among “the masses “ . Democracies fail when they let demogogic elected leaders between dictators in fact.
She is correct. Of course many dictators have not fared well, but Xi is an excellent modern example of the dilemma discussed here. I used to represent one of Japan's largest companies. We were in a negotiation that was very thorny. The issues were focused on the next several years. My client said, "we were founded in 1644. We have time."
Berg is right.
1) She is wrong.
2) Xi is destroying China - We have time to find out!!
3) Japan - great example - let's see - they had Tojo the Warlord - how did that turn out in 1945?
4) You are also wrong and delusional. Why don't you move to North Korea if dictatorship is your cup of tea?
Wow what an extremely well thought out and well written essay. The danger of partisanship reaches deep. We have entered a time of such hatred between political parties that by the time something does change the next group coming in is more interested in revenge then achieving anything positive for the nation. When the executive branch has such control over Justice that they use them as attack dogs to go after anyone and everyone not many people are willing to remain in government or civil service if they're forced to spend more time defending themselves then running implementing and managing their departments. If we ever hope to go back to a time of having strategic plans that go beyond the current president, people need to realize that there are things bigger than their angers and fear and personal beliefs.
Fortune does not favor the dictators. At least not historically. All the truly heinous dictatorships with just a few exceptions have ceased to exist. All the Democracies, including tiny Israel still survive and thrive with a great standard of living for its people even if those people don't appreciate it.
All Democracies make mistakes. Including Israel of course. The entire Oslo process was a catastrophic mistake. But the biggest threat facing the free world today is the absence of statesmanship and its replacement by venality and demagoguery. It causes people who have no business being near power to gain such power. No matter how right someone like Trump can be when he acts against the Iranian regime, he will NEVER have the willingness or even the ability to carry through such a policy to completion, to sell it to the people and to truly lead. The same is true of losers like Starmer and the genuinely pathetic American Democratic party. The gravest risk to the free nations is corrosion from within as the unacceptable becomes not just acceptable but preferable.
And too much selfish money in our political systems. Rather than the future of the greater good, it is used for individual or corporate gains.
Whose money is used for "individual" or corporate gains? I can understand individual, why shouldn't someone's money be used for something that matters to them? And even for corporate. Should companies spend on things hostile to their shareholders' interests? You sound, sorry to say, a bit platitudinous.
At the risk of sounding snarky, dictatorships are all about power and democracies are all about politics. It's fairly obvious that in a competition, power will prevail over consensus, if a political entity were capable of it at all. Dictatorships need not bother.
The time line only exists because of the different systems; an effect rather than a cause. One is in a marathon because it owns the whole deal, the other is a sprint because it must earn its moment to lead by consent, intended to be brief.
Again, by virtue of definition, dictatorship destroys freedom while democracy is charged with defending it. Which is easier?
In an accelerated, ever shrinking world, the two systems are colliding constantly and the simple, obvious fact is that they are utterly incompatible. Unless we can find a way to get out of and stay out of each other's way, we'll simply battle to the death. There's no compromise between freedom and servitude.
While I agree with you generally (and it didn't sound snarky to me!) I think your conclusion is faulty: "There's no compromise between freedom and servitude.
There is compromise so long as there is no direct confrontation. While the situation may change for the worse, currently US-China are examples of such compromise, or at least parallel survival.
Excellent essay. Democracy is clumsy, and we need leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Lincoln, to make it work. I don’t see them in the 21st C, but we can hope.
Interesting configuration of events and their implication. The MOA was signed June 17th. It calls for a 60 day period of negotiations, which expires Aug. 16th. The mid-terms will take place Nov. 3rd., 189 days after June 17th, and 79 days after Aug 16th.
Item 1 of MOU: 1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.
Item 3 of MOU: The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
and
Item 13 of MOU: After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America will start negotiations regarding the final Deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
Items 10 and 11 deal with sanctions relief for Iran. According to Item 13, negotiations only start on a final Deal if and only if 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 are fulfilled by the US.
Iran now only needs to have Hezbollah fire rockets, drones, and RPGs at the IDF and Israeli communities to provoke two responses. The first is worldwide condemnation of Israel for its non-stop, unprovoked aggression against innocent Lebanese people (just as its attacks on Hamas fighters are framed as random violence inflicted on innocent Gazan civilians), thus further alienating support of Israel among the populace. This popular antipathy to Israel will translate into shaping voting positions of successful office seekers. It especially targets Trump's support of Israel because media influencers, Dems, and right wing Republicans will remind him that Israel is to blame when negotiations fail.
The second is it provides Iran with justification to stall negotiations leaving an unpopular Trump / Republican policy to continue alienating the electorate. Not only does the unpopularity of the Iran conflict align with the Dems ideological position on the war and Israel, it also allows them to stoke and exploit this conflict to their advantage at the polls.
As noted at the outset, despite the 60 day period of negotiations, the real timeline for maneuverability by the US is 189 days from the signing to remove the Iran conflict from public consciousness. However, it will only become a non-issue if negotiations are completed well before the elections.
For that to happen, according to the MOU, the US must fulfill its obligations of sanction relief and getting Israel to halt any defensive action against Hezbollah attacks. In reality there are only 79 days from the negotiation expiry date to the elections during which time Iran can exploit the terms and conditions of the MOU to stop the US from pressuring them on the nuclear file and intensify public discontent with the Republicans to permanently weaken Trump.
As we have already seen, Iran started exploiting this technical loophole to its political advantage when it cancelled the start of the negotiations in Switzerland this weekend on the pretext Israel — a non-signatory — violated the MOU.
`
I negotiated against the Islamic Republic man decades ago, after they expropriated my clients property. I also negotiated with Arabs many times. They are liars, slimy, untrustworthy and have a sense of endless patience. Only by recognizing that can yo beat them at their own game. Trump was nuts to not finish the job.
I read a lot. From many sources. This is one of the most perceptive and thoughtful essays I've read in months. She makes complete sense. She is right. Excellent work Ms. Berg!
One dissent: any optimism that democracies (other than Israel) can plan strategically is misplaced. All populations tend to be uneducated and with the internet, dumb ideas and false information travel at the blink of an eye. it takes a (relatively) thoughtful and cohesive population to elect leaders who adopt strategic thinking.
Israel is an exception because it has to be. Issues of life and death and survival lead to focus. The rest of the world's democracies govern populations leading somewhat frivolous lives. Israel has no such problem.
Nice work! Though given this perceptive view, I don't see reason for optimism.
GOD BLESS ISRAEL AND ITS PEOPLE
Vanessa .. clear and articulate. Thank you. How it unfolds, remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure, Israel will continue to ensure its safety and security.
Vanessa, great essay. Looking at history however, democracy is not the norm, and most states built around democracy (and its other forms such as Republics) falter. Ancient Athenian Greece had a 200 hundred year run, Rome had a 250 year run as a Republic before becoming an Empire under the Ceasars which lasted for nearly 500 years as an autocracy with the trappings of a Republic. Fast forward and democracies either in the form of parliamentary governments or republics is again a new phenomenon which one could say began in the end of the 18th century. Ironically in the US we are reaching the 250 year mark of our claim to independence and the founding of our Republic.
You are absolutely correct in that democracies in their various forms are subjected to shorter term goals and pressures and that autocracies have longer horizons.
Thanks for this. Puts the finger on something I have so admired about Israel the last few years. You can be furious about some people and their ideas, but the wholeness of the atmosphere, the seriousness of the state, the soberness underneath all the day to day outrages, it is inspiring. With this attitude the west cannot lose.