Another NYTimes op-ed targets Vance

Matthew Schmitz

… On Iran, Mr. Vance has no good options. He argued against the [Iran war] venture in internal deliberations but, having lost the argument, backed the war in public [as any vice-president would have to do]. Now he has to convince voters to give him credit for privately opposing the same war he was publicly defending. That dog won’t hunt, unless he breaks with Mr. Trump in a more forceful and dramatic way.

Publicly crossing the president would be risky, though, given that Mr. Vance has already changed his tune on Mr. Trump once, going from staunch critic in 2016 to vocal supporter in 2021. Another reversal would seem all too politically expedient. A hard break with Mr. Trump would also be risky given the president’s support among Republicans. Though his backing has declined among independents, 82 percent of Republicans still approve of the job he’s doing.

As for changing America’s relationship with Israel, that is a pseudo-populist nothingburger. It won’t improve the life of a single Trump voter (most of the money “sent” to the country is spent in the United States with U.S. taxpayer money, thus adding to the deficit) or eliminate the reasons the United States projects power globally [but it would keep us out of expensive foreign wars]. But cutting Israel loose is a lot easier to do than imposing tariffs and closing the border while keeping prices low. …