Mobile apps encourage rapid, reactive comments, whereas web-only platforms can foster more thoughtful, composed engagement. The friction of requiring a user to be at a computer may paradoxically improve the quality and civility of conversation by slowing down the interaction.
Any outcome short of regime change in Iran cannot be considered a true victory for its adversaries. This is because only a fundamental change in government can reliably guarantee that Iran will not become a nuclear-armed enemy, as any deal with the current theocratic regime is ultimately unenforceable.
Reacting to a Nicholas Kristof piece on alleged Israeli prisoner abuse, Harris argues for a nuanced view: the allegations are plausible given the grim realities of war, yet the journalist can still be a "useful idiot" for irresponsible, propagandistic reporting. This rejects a binary choice between dismissing claims or endorsing the journalism.
Despite the U.S. degrading Iran's military capacity, Harris argues Iran emerged more powerful. American actions inadvertently taught Iran and the world that it could hold 20% of the global energy economy hostage with little consequence, demonstrating a new form of leverage that military force couldn't counter.
While military capabilities can be questioned, overt corruption like the Trump administration settling a lawsuit with an agency it oversees has "set on fire" America's soft power. This reputational damage from becoming a perceived kleptocracy diminishes global leadership and trust more than a tactical loss.
The Trump administration's aggressive rhetoric against Iran, followed by repeated inaction when its bluffs were called, created a 'second worst scenario.' This approach projected incompetence and weakness on a global scale, arguably more damaging to US credibility than a more reserved policy would have been.