Rubio has always been an empty suit, someone others can project their hopes and dreams on, even though there’s no substance to the man. He sometimes gives off competence vibes, occasionally says sensible things, but nothing in his past or present gives any indication of a competent, thoughtful, or moral person living in that suit.
The fact is, the State Department was DOGEd last July and so many subject matter experts on issues like Iran and nuclear proliferation no longer work in government. That is on Rubio (and Musk and Trump).
Of course, would Trump have listened to them if they had been able to provide advice leading up to the war? - Probably not.
Would they have been able to contribute to the 'negotiations' between Witkoff/Kushner and the Iranians? - Probably not.
A lack of headcount, a loss of expertise, funneling talks through two people who have little experience in Iran. The whole thing was an accident waiting to happen.
There may be another element and that is that Congress seems to accept one of their own - if they served with or socialized with a former Senator, they don't hold them to the same standards.
The media and Congress should be hammering away at this dual role, especially now. In addition to the policy planning point, aren’t these roles meant to check each other to some extent?
What struck me is that this post partly answers its own question. If the environment is this leak-prone and politically charged, then opacity is not hard to understand. But the piece then slides from not knowing the endgame to assuming it should be visible, and from there into framing the situation as failure before the outcome is even known. That reads to me as more interpretive than conclusive.
That may be the concern, and it’s a fair one to raise. But even if someone is skeptical that much good will come of this, that is still different from assuming that because the endgame is not publicly legible there must be no strategy and the effort should already be read as failure.
But the endgame is publicly legible—either a disaster involving escalation (like “boots on the ground”) or trump being trumpy, caving, and declaring “victory.” Both are fraught with peril given the Iranians have a say. trump seems not to know he has limited involvement in how the endgame comes together other than choosing between the two.
I’m not sure why the publicly legible options have to be reduced to those two. There is also a middle possibility in which the result is limited, messy, and incomplete, but still materially weakens Iran’s position without producing either full-scale disaster or a purely theatrical “victory.” That seems at least as plausible as the binary you lay out.
I agree. It’s more likely to end in a muddle. But as of right now, the endgame has only two possible directions. What other directions do you think are possible that Iran, Israel, and the U.S. can effect? Iran won’t suddenly capitulate. Their regime isn’t going to collapse. There’s no outside coalition that will exert its collective will. The US can’t keep up the status quo of bombing the shit out of Iran forever. Both Iran and the U.S. can escalate. Given these conditions, yes, there are infinite possible outcomes, but the any outcome will fall somewhere between the poles of a falsely proclaimed US victory or a catastrophic escalation.
Things may not look great. I agree with that much. But we still don’t know enough to frame the ending this confidently in advance. The problem with the post is the assumption that the endgame should already be publicly legible to outside observers in real time, and that if it isn’t, the effort should already be read as failure. That’s also why I’m less persuaded by the “State was cut out” critique. In a leak-prone and politically hostile environment, more internal visibility does not simply mean more wisdom. It also means more opportunities for naysaying, leaks, and hostile framing before the results are even clear.
Be honest. There is no “end game.” That’s why our allies are uninterested in helping the US in any way. You don’t take a country to war without explaining WHY and what the goals are. There have been, at last count, almost 20 stated reasons for kicking the hornets nest that is Iran and most of the Middle East.
All of the other wars the US has started at least had a stated reason for the purpose of informing congress, the public, and our allies. Surely, you can’t think that Donnycon is playing 3 dimensional chess by blundering everything about this war?
I want to know WHY billions and billions of dollars of our taxpayer money is being spent on this unnecessary and unprovoked war instead of affordability issues like healthcare, food, and now gas. What a terrible waste.
Vance has to lookout for himself if he is aiming to succeed Trump. I don't see how he shakes Trump off whatever he does or does not do.
There is something very "pear shaped", as Freedman might say, with our system that has allowed this destruction (coup) to continue for a year and four months and counting.
You're mistakenly assuming that culpability will result in more condemnation than praise and kickbacks. The regime doesn't have to let the adults back into the room and all Rubio or any other successor to Trump needs to do to keep the grifter train running full steam ahead is to be marginally more attractive to the average voter than the next basket case Democrat identitarian whose polling places all get mysteriously closed.
Rubio was always a weasel, always willing to say or do anything to get ahead, no matter how much harm it did, no matter if it destroyed democracy in the United States of America; none of it mattered. Whatever he had to say or do to help his career, he would do it. Trump stands out as one of the most astonishingly dishonest people who has ever lived, but Rubio is also incredibly dishonest, but he almost always tries to be slick. He will usually try to say something that is true by some literal interpretation somewhere, but knowing full well that he is implying something that is incredibly false, and knowing full well that the vast majority of people will take it that way. So his dishonesty causes a special infuriation. Just an absolutely horrible human being, but it’s hard to find any who aren’t who would be working for Trump right now.
Great post! My feeling is that Rubio is the Western Hemisphere guy and people like Witkoff and Kushner are the Eastern Hemisphere guys (even though they are not actually formally in the administration!) And also Hegseth is obviously playing more of a role in foreign policy in the East with Iran because it's all about lethality baby!
I think we may be talking past each other. My point was not that expertise or staffing are irrelevant, but that the expertise being invoked here is not neutral, and that not knowing the endgame is not the same as showing there is none. In an environment shaped by leaks, internal opposition, and constant framing battles, wider visibility can just as easily undermine a plan as help it.
Rubio has always been an empty suit, someone others can project their hopes and dreams on, even though there’s no substance to the man. He sometimes gives off competence vibes, occasionally says sensible things, but nothing in his past or present gives any indication of a competent, thoughtful, or moral person living in that suit.
And those 2-sizes-too-big suck-up shoes.
The fact is, the State Department was DOGEd last July and so many subject matter experts on issues like Iran and nuclear proliferation no longer work in government. That is on Rubio (and Musk and Trump).
Of course, would Trump have listened to them if they had been able to provide advice leading up to the war? - Probably not.
Would they have been able to contribute to the 'negotiations' between Witkoff/Kushner and the Iranians? - Probably not.
A lack of headcount, a loss of expertise, funneling talks through two people who have little experience in Iran. The whole thing was an accident waiting to happen.
There may be another element and that is that Congress seems to accept one of their own - if they served with or socialized with a former Senator, they don't hold them to the same standards.
The media and Congress should be hammering away at this dual role, especially now. In addition to the policy planning point, aren’t these roles meant to check each other to some extent?
Right, as with Mullin’s confirmation for SEC DHS.
What struck me is that this post partly answers its own question. If the environment is this leak-prone and politically charged, then opacity is not hard to understand. But the piece then slides from not knowing the endgame to assuming it should be visible, and from there into framing the situation as failure before the outcome is even known. That reads to me as more interpretive than conclusive.
What does “success” look like in Iran for the US after whatever this is stops?
That may be the concern, and it’s a fair one to raise. But even if someone is skeptical that much good will come of this, that is still different from assuming that because the endgame is not publicly legible there must be no strategy and the effort should already be read as failure.
But the endgame is publicly legible—either a disaster involving escalation (like “boots on the ground”) or trump being trumpy, caving, and declaring “victory.” Both are fraught with peril given the Iranians have a say. trump seems not to know he has limited involvement in how the endgame comes together other than choosing between the two.
I’m not sure why the publicly legible options have to be reduced to those two. There is also a middle possibility in which the result is limited, messy, and incomplete, but still materially weakens Iran’s position without producing either full-scale disaster or a purely theatrical “victory.” That seems at least as plausible as the binary you lay out.
I agree. It’s more likely to end in a muddle. But as of right now, the endgame has only two possible directions. What other directions do you think are possible that Iran, Israel, and the U.S. can effect? Iran won’t suddenly capitulate. Their regime isn’t going to collapse. There’s no outside coalition that will exert its collective will. The US can’t keep up the status quo of bombing the shit out of Iran forever. Both Iran and the U.S. can escalate. Given these conditions, yes, there are infinite possible outcomes, but the any outcome will fall somewhere between the poles of a falsely proclaimed US victory or a catastrophic escalation.
Things may not look great. I agree with that much. But we still don’t know enough to frame the ending this confidently in advance. The problem with the post is the assumption that the endgame should already be publicly legible to outside observers in real time, and that if it isn’t, the effort should already be read as failure. That’s also why I’m less persuaded by the “State was cut out” critique. In a leak-prone and politically hostile environment, more internal visibility does not simply mean more wisdom. It also means more opportunities for naysaying, leaks, and hostile framing before the results are even clear.
Be honest. There is no “end game.” That’s why our allies are uninterested in helping the US in any way. You don’t take a country to war without explaining WHY and what the goals are. There have been, at last count, almost 20 stated reasons for kicking the hornets nest that is Iran and most of the Middle East.
All of the other wars the US has started at least had a stated reason for the purpose of informing congress, the public, and our allies. Surely, you can’t think that Donnycon is playing 3 dimensional chess by blundering everything about this war?
I want to know WHY billions and billions of dollars of our taxpayer money is being spent on this unnecessary and unprovoked war instead of affordability issues like healthcare, food, and now gas. What a terrible waste.
“At some point, the reckoning for his negligence will come back to haunt him.”
Will it? How?
Vance has to lookout for himself if he is aiming to succeed Trump. I don't see how he shakes Trump off whatever he does or does not do.
There is something very "pear shaped", as Freedman might say, with our system that has allowed this destruction (coup) to continue for a year and four months and counting.
You're mistakenly assuming that culpability will result in more condemnation than praise and kickbacks. The regime doesn't have to let the adults back into the room and all Rubio or any other successor to Trump needs to do to keep the grifter train running full steam ahead is to be marginally more attractive to the average voter than the next basket case Democrat identitarian whose polling places all get mysteriously closed.
Empty suit or not, I remember when he sold his integrity in 2011 by renouncing his own bill for DACA reform.
Rubio was always a weasel, always willing to say or do anything to get ahead, no matter how much harm it did, no matter if it destroyed democracy in the United States of America; none of it mattered. Whatever he had to say or do to help his career, he would do it. Trump stands out as one of the most astonishingly dishonest people who has ever lived, but Rubio is also incredibly dishonest, but he almost always tries to be slick. He will usually try to say something that is true by some literal interpretation somewhere, but knowing full well that he is implying something that is incredibly false, and knowing full well that the vast majority of people will take it that way. So his dishonesty causes a special infuriation. Just an absolutely horrible human being, but it’s hard to find any who aren’t who would be working for Trump right now.
//
Great post! My feeling is that Rubio is the Western Hemisphere guy and people like Witkoff and Kushner are the Eastern Hemisphere guys (even though they are not actually formally in the administration!) And also Hegseth is obviously playing more of a role in foreign policy in the East with Iran because it's all about lethality baby!
I think we may be talking past each other. My point was not that expertise or staffing are irrelevant, but that the expertise being invoked here is not neutral, and that not knowing the endgame is not the same as showing there is none. In an environment shaped by leaks, internal opposition, and constant framing battles, wider visibility can just as easily undermine a plan as help it.