Guess I'll check that interview out. I've always taken Tucker with a grain of salt especially with his CIA proximity, but Tom's not exactly gospel either.
What I will say, though, is that by removing...
Just started it, but just noting that my initial gut reaction to the idea that Israel dragged us into this is to think back to when Kissinger influenced Anwar Saddat. While Kent is right, we could have stopped them from going in by taking something away, I do wonder to what extent emboldening them to go in, in order to leave them exposed to be weakened in the process, wouldn't also be a viable move.
Egypt sure hasn't been a threat since Saddat, acting effectively as an agent of Kissinger, allowed their forces to be defeated, and their economy gutted. Kissinger didn't stop the attack from happening; he rendered it into one of the biggest own goals in military history.
I think politically speaking, if an American leadership team is to put Israel in their place, it's much wiser to do so surreptitiously, rather than taking them head on. It'd be political suicide to visibly stand against them, but if we go to war with them in such a way that it drags them into far more damage than we take, while simultaneously giving some other frenemies a black eye, it could be strategically viable.
Egypt sure hasn't been a threat since Saddat, acting effectively as an agent of Kissinger, allowed their forces to be defeated, and their economy gutted. Kissinger didn't stop the attack from happening; he rendered it into one of the biggest own goals in military history.
I think politically speaking, if an American leadership team is to put Israel in their place, it's much wiser to do so surreptitiously, rather than taking them head on. It'd be political suicide to visibly stand against them, but if we go to war with them in such a way that it drags them into far more damage than we take, while simultaneously giving some other frenemies a black eye, it could be strategically viable.
2❤️1