Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott

Thank you Rich Dornisch 🏳️‍🌈, Just Joan, Pamela, Joan Palmer, Kathryn Wallenstein, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Laura Grossman, Mary Brohmer, Sandra McKenzie, Tessa Spain, Danielle T, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steven A. Cook! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Karna Smith Bosman, Sue Narten, Rosalie Bycz, and many others for tuning into my live video with Sasha Ingber! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.cosmopolitics.news

There's been quite a dramatic shift in tone from the Biden administration regarding the potential assault on Rafah.

Until recently, the White House was reluctantly going along with the Israeli raid into Rafah to root out the last bits of Hamas. Not anymore.

Speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Monday for the first time in a month, President Biden told him that an assault on Rafah would be a “mistake” and unnecessary to neutralize the final remnants of Hamas.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters the US believes there are “viable ways” for Israel to win the war without a full-scale assault on Rafah, which would be disastrous for both Palestinians in Gaza and deepen Israel’s international isolation.

So what happened?

Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Aid agencies and advocacy groups are warning about the humanitarian catastrophe that could unfold in the event of a military incursion into Rafah, located on Gaza's southernmost edge with a population well over a million Palestinians. It's worth noting that many Palestinians sought refuge in Rafah at the behest of Israeli authorities for safety.

But this is about more than Rafah. The Biden administration is finally admitting that Israel does not have a coherent strategy for either the war in Gaza or the day after.

This is the “come-to-Jesus” moment President Biden has been talking about.

In inviting an Israeli delegation of military, intelligence, and humanitarian officials to Washington, the US is hoping to get Israel to reassess and recalibrate. Sullivan's cryptic talk about “clear strategic endgames” is code for stabilizing freshly cleared territories, bringing in humanitarian aid, and planning for the Palestinians to realize a political future. This is how the US believes Israel will ultimately sideline Hamas.

Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government has sketched out a vision the day after in Gaza that resembles the occupied West Bank, where Israeli forces move into the cities and operate at will. It’s pretty clear the US and Israel are talking past each other.

Over the course of the war, Netanyahu has taken Biden’s advice, like when he negotiated a temporary ceasefire with Hamas that saw more than 100 hostages released. Maybe his agreement to dispatch the Israeli team to D.C. shows a hint of willingness to listen to American concerns and examine alternatives to invading Rafah.

Or, maybe, Netanyahu is just humoring Biden. Addressing the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset a day after the call, Netanyahu recapped his discussion with Biden on Monday and said he "made it clear to the president in our conversation, in the clearest way, that we are determined to complete the elimination of these battalions in Rafah.”

"We are of course subject to increasing international pressure,” he added. “which we push back in order to complete the goals of the war.”

In my opinion, the negotiations in Doha, aimed at securing the release of more than 100 hostages being held in the Gaza Strip in exchange for a six-week ceasefire, represent a last-ditch effort to prevent an invasion of Rafah.

As I wrote last week, the Biden administration's approach could be characterized as passive-aggressive, trying to thread between criticism and restraint. While expressing displeasure and calling for ceasefires, the administration has been hesitant to impose consequences on Israel, such as conditioning U.S. military aid to humanitarian access Israel's military actions in Gaza, even though they are talking more about doing so.

Last week, Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant signed a letter of assurances to the Biden administration, committing Israel to use U.S. weapons in compliance with international law and to allow U.S.-supported humanitarian aid into Gaza. This action was prompted by a national security memorandum issued by President Biden in response to concerns raised by some Democratic senators regarding Israel's military actions in Gaza.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been tasked with certifying the letter's credibility by March 25, with the possibility of suspending U.S. weapons transfers to Israel in case of failure to obtain certification.

Biden may finally relent and get tougher if Israel indeed launches an assault on Rafah that includes an aerial bombardment. But by then, it would be too late.

Loose Change: Some related items

When former President Donald Trump lavishly praised Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at Mar-a-Lago, he wasn’t just admiring what he considered a “great leader, respected all over the world;” he was endorsing a playbook that has eroded democracy in Hungary.

“He’s a non-controversial figure because he says, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it, right?” Trump said of Orbán. “He’s the boss.”

Orbán, on his part, didn't miss a beat, praising Trump for his leadership and urging him to "come back and bring us peace." It's a curious appeal, considering Orbán's own track record of fostering anything but peace within the European Union, with his relentless crackdown on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, the judiciary, and the free press.

The notion that Trump is "learning" from Orbán is perhaps most apparent in their mutual disdain for democratic norms. Orbán’s Hungary is a masterclass in consolidating party with government, judiciary, and business into a monolithic power structure, undermining democratic checks and balances. His coinciding with President Joe Biden's State of the Union address was no mere coincidence but a statement – democracy, as we know it, is up for renegotiation.

To hear the full audio version of this post and support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber..

Orbán’s first term laid the groundwork for his autocratic attempt; his subsequent terms cemented it into a breakthrough. Since reclaiming power in 2010, Orbán has systematically dismantled Hungary’s democratic framework, redefining 'strong leadership' as an iron grip on the nation's judiciary, media, and economy. By retooling the constitution, enforcing retirement for hundreds of judges, and establishing a media regulator packed with loyalists, Orbán has turned Hungary into a democracy in name only.

It's this erosion of democratic checks and balances that seems to have caught Trump's eye, hinting at a kindred spirit in Orbán and a longing for the kind of power he wields in Budapest. Trump's presidency, marked by attacks on the judiciary, attempts to co-opt the media, and relentless pursuit of loyalty over competence, mirrors Orbán's tactics. The mutual admiration isn't just about policy alignment but a shared vision of governance where power is centralized, and dissent is marginalized.

Orbán’s strategy of state control over private entities and media is a blueprint Trump has shown a willingness to follow. Trump’s threats against CNN, the Washington Post, and other media were not idle; they were a clear indication of his desire to use state power to control and manipulate the press.

Economic collapse under Orbán's regime serves as a cautionary tale for free markets, where vitality exists only within the bounds set by a strongman’s whims. The silence of big business in Hungary underscores a dangerous acquiescence to autocratic capture, where the government uses regulatory powers to punish dissent and reward loyalty. We would be naive to think it can’t happen here in the U.S.

When Orbán addressed the conservative Heritage Foundation this week, which oversees the 2025 Project—an effort to create a governing blueprint for Trump’s next term—he spoke of “supporting families, fighting illegal migration, and standing up for the sovereignty of our nations.” These words might as well have been Trump’s. Their bromance is not just a meeting of minds but a convergence of autocratic ambitions, setting a dangerous precedent for the global order.

Yet, amidst the gravity of such a gathering, there's an ironic twist that can't be ignored. Here we have two leaders, seemingly at odds with the tide of global democracy, yet desperately seeking validation from each other and their base. Orbán's admiration for Trump's brand of politics, and vice versa, isn't just a mutual appreciation club; it's a mirror reflecting the growing chasm between populist rhetoric and democratic reality.

In a world where 'strongman' is often mistaken for 'strong leadership,' the Trump-Orbán playdate serves as a stark reminder of the slippery slope from elected office to autocratic rule. But as history has shown, strongmen may rise, but they also fall – often under the weight of their own hubris.

LOOSE CHANGE

It’s worth noting that Orbán was introduced at Heritage Foundation by failed GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who has been a fixture at the Hungarian embassy in DC over the past year and whose campaign pledges to shut down “the administrative state” and eliminate government such as the FBI, IRS and the Department of Education suggest some authoritarian leanings as well. If Trump is re-elected, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of him.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

In President Joe Biden's recent State of the Union address, viewers were not just treated to a traditional policy rundown; they were offered a vivid contrast between two visions of America.

This contrast was most vividly drawn through Biden's fiery and partisan rhetoric, distinguishing his presidency as one rooted in democracy, in stark opposition to the authoritarian leanings personified by "his predecessor," who he referred to about a dozen times but never mentioned by name. It was less a policy speech and more a call to the soul of America, framed around the stark dichotomy between a leader who upholds democracy and another who seemingly undermines it.

With his speech bookended by warnings about the state of democracy, at home and abroad, Biden framed his entire discourse within the broader narrative of democracy’s endurance, placing it on the ballot this November.

To hear the full audio version of this post and support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Through his vigorous critiques of Trump's foreign policy missteps, including the controversial stance on NATO and Russia, Biden aimed to present himself as a guardian of democratic principles, both domestically and internationally.

Echoing the urgency of Franklin D. Roosevelt's wartime speeches, Biden made it clear that history's eyes are upon us, urging Congress to stand firm against Russia and critiquing Trump for his unsettling deference towards Vladimir Putin. The speech sought to paint Trump not as a world leader but as a supplicant, tying domestic strife directly to global democratic challenges.

Biden sought to present a foreign policy that marries moral leadership with strategic interests. Forget about Biden’s plea to "stand with Ukraine;" Republicans refused to applaud the notion that Putin should not be allowed to invade his neighbor with impunity and failed even to muster applause for the defense of democracy. It shows the debate over Ukraine aid underscores a deeper struggle for the heart of American foreign policy.

The president’s narrative isn't merely a political strategy; it's a reflection of the broader ideological struggle defining our times. As Biden juxtaposes his vision of an America that stands as a beacon of democracy against Trump's more inward-looking, nationalist approach, the forthcoming election emerges as not just a contest for political power but a referendum on the values that will shape America's future and its role in the world.

But there are inherent tensions in his approach and the political ramifications of his policies on Israel and Ukraine. His balancing act on Gaza sought to navigate the complex political terrain at home. By announcing plans to build a port to deliver aid to Gaza, offering reassurance to progressives and younger Americans within his party concerned about his unconditional support for Israel that could dampen voter turnout in the fall elections, while supporting Israeli hostages and cautioning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against weaponizing humanitarian aid.

"Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip," Biden declared, marking perhaps his most forceful language yet on the conflict. “Protecting and saving innocent lives has to be a priority."

Biden's foreign policy discussion, especially his commitment to Ukraine amidst Russian aggression, served as a stark contrast to a potential foreign policy under Trump. The president emphasized, “Now assistance to Ukraine is being blocked by those who want to walk away from our world leadership,” invoking former President Ronald Reagan to underscore the ideological battle at play.

His frustration was palpable as he criticized those obstructing aid, marking a clear distinction from Trump, who once suggested NATO allies were on their own against Russian might, which he called “outrageous. It's dangerous and it's unacceptable.”

Those comments illustrate how the Ukraine conflict has become a litmus test for American foreign policy and the commitment of the U.S. to its allies. It’s a framing that not only seeks to rally support among his base but also aims to draw a clear line in the sand, challenging voters to consider the broader implications of their choice come election day.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe