Ben Friedman

This account is verified. Learn more

@BH_Friedman

Policy Director @defpriorities. Former stopper and B-Side Lounge patron. For restraint, pluralism, and the Celtics.

DC mostly. Boston in spirit. scholar.google.com/citations?user… Joined February 2017

1K Following 5.4K Followers 6.7K Posts

Latest posts 5

Ben Friedman @BH_Friedman 14h

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that a Ukraine settlement would include the forced demilitarization of a NATO country. I suspect what’s going on here is conflation of potential US sovereign decisions about where to put its troops with forcing others to not defend themselves, which is symptomatic of how wild the NATO / Russia commentary is.

Steven Erlanger @StevenErlanger 1d

good thread and true. but. part of a ukraine settlement without forcing sovereign nato countries to demilitarize or reduced allied forces on their territory, esp after russia invaded ukraine. that's a complete non-starter.
View quoted post on X

Ben Friedman @BH_Friedman 2d

If Iranian operatives had suceeded in attacking UK bomber bases where US bombers take off to bomb Iran, would it really be terrorism, as CNN claims here? Maybe there's a basis to say so under UK law, but it seems like an act of war to me.

Ben Friedman @BH_Friedman 3d

Just say you want to keep the war going if you're going to say the only acceptable deals are those Iran will obviously reject.

Andrea Stricker Verified account @StrickerNonpro 3d

Any credible nuclear deal must include Iran’s binding commitment to:

1) Full recovery of all 9,000+ kg of enriched uranium (including 440 kg of HEU) by the U.S., IAEA, or an international team.
2) Destruction of the stocks or access limited strictly to civilian nuclear fuel rods.
3) Permanent ban on uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing.
4) Full, permanent dismantlement/export/destruction of enrichment and reprocessing infrastructure, centrifuges, and manufacturing capabilities.
5) Complete, accurate declaration of the entire program, including past weaponization work, plus verified termination and IAEA verification of completeness.
6) Full restoration of IAEA access with “anywhere, anytime” inspections (including at military sites) and access to people, equipment, and documents.

NB: Any deal involving sanctions relief and removal of the blockade will undercut efforts to help the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors and contain Tehran's regional malign actions.
fdd.org/analysis/6-ess…
View quoted post on X

Ben Friedman @BH_Friedman 3d

Yes, and back then the "you can't support the troops while opposing the war" BS worked way better because the Iraq war was almost a 50-50 issue and thus way more popular than Iran is today. Also, we had ground troops there, who one could imagine being undercut by war criticism.

Gregory Brew Verified account @gbrew24 3d

For younger folks: this was a pretty common talking point in 2004-2006.
View quoted post on X

Ben Friedman @BH_Friedman 3d

Who is the audience for this? Hegseth is basically asserting that most Americans who just voted against the war are undercutting the troops, and that is facially absurd. Congress is not going to be intimated from opposing the war by this argument, especially given the election.

Fox News Verified account @FoxNews 3d

Secretary of War Hegseth says criticizing President Trump's military operations means criticizing the troops who carried them out, pushing back against Democrats over what he calls partisan political games.

Defending Trump's military decisions, Hegseth praises the president's leadership and the courage of American service members.

"I couldn't be more proud of what our president has done, the decisions that he's made, the courageous calls that he's made."

"Anybody who's paying attention knows that these are the kind of partisan political games Democrats have been playing for a very long time."

View quoted post on X