The Wars in Ukraine and Gaza Have Changed. America’s Policy Hasn’t.

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Ezra Klein and Richard Haass argue that Biden’s foreign policy is stuck in outdated first-phase assumptions on Ukraine, Gaza, and the border. Haass says the U.S. should stop relying on gentle persuasion and instead use clearer leverage, stricter conditions, and a more independent posture toward allies whose goals diverge from America’s.

Main Topics: U.S.-Israel divergence over Gaza (Priority: 5/5): Haass argues the Netanyahu government’s “day after” plan amounts to indefinite Israeli occupation and that Biden’s quiet pressure has produced little change. He urges more explicit U.S. distance, including conditional arms use, UN actions, tariffs, and a direct presidential appeal to Israelis. Limits of persuasion and need for leverage (Priority: 5/5): A central theme is that the administration is relying on behind-the-scenes influence without a visible “so what.” Haass says U.S. policy must distinguish between supporting an ally and endorsing its current government’s choices. Ukraine: realism about military limits (Priority: 5/5): Haass says the administration correctly supports Ukraine but has overstated the possibility of total military liberation. He argues the U.S. should shift toward defensive support, preserve leverage, and prepare for future diplomacy rather than demand impossible battlefield outcomes. Domestic politics and Biden’s constraints (Priority: 4/5): Klein and Haass discuss how Israel and Ukraine have become domestic political problems for Biden, with Republicans moving toward Trumpism/isolationism and Democrats fractured over Gaza. Haass says Biden’s own discomfort also explains his caution. The changing Israeli political landscape (Priority: 4/5): Both discuss how American assumptions about Israel are outdated: the Israeli center and right have shifted significantly rightward, and many Israelis are less willing to accept U.S. pressure on two states or settlements than U.S. policymakers assume. A more honest U.S. foreign policy for friends (Priority: 4/5): Haass argues U.S. diplomacy is better developed for adversaries than allies. For friends like Israel and Ukraine, Washington needs a toolkit that supports them without giving blank checks or pretending U.S. preferences automatically shape their behavior. 2024 as a referendum on order vs chaos (Priority: 4/5): The conversation widens to the election, with Haass warning that Trump can exploit public frustration with inflation, the border, and wars by promising “order.” He sees this as a populist moment that could reward illiberal politics.

Key Arguments: The U.S. and Israel are no longer aligned on Gaza strategy, and public expressions of concern without consequences are ineffective. America should keep supporting Israel militarily but impose end-use restrictions and other conditions rather than grant carte blanche. Biden should speak more directly to the Israeli public, not only to Netanyahu, to explain why indefinite occupation harms Israel’s long-term interests. The two-state solution is not dead; U.S. policy should preserve the possibility by opposing settlement expansion and pushing Palestinians toward better governance. Ukraine’s full military liberation of all occupied territory is unrealistic; the U.S. should support Ukraine’s defense and prepare for future diplomacy. Frozen Russian assets should be preserved as leverage for a future settlement, not necessarily spent immediately on reconstruction. Republican opposition to Ukraine aid is mostly domestic politics and Trumpism, not serious foreign-policy debate. Biden’s biggest problem is not just policy error but an inability to clearly explain and adapt policy as circumstances change. The U.S. needs a stronger playbook for managing allies whose goals diverge from American strategy. Trump can turn public frustration into support for “order,” which may make an illiberal agenda politically attractive.

Data Points: Israeli “day after” plan for Gaza: Continued military occupation with “locals to work with”; no mention of Palestinian Authority - Haass’s reading of the Netanyahu government’s proposal UN Security Council vetoes: 3 - Haass says the U.S. had vetoed three resolutions before circulating its own draft Frozen Russian assets: About $300 billion - Funds held in Western financial institutions that Haass wants preserved as future leverage Defense spending during the Cold War: Higher than today; current spending is about 50%–60% of Cold War average as a share of GDP - Haass’s response to isolationist arguments about U.S. military burden U.S. health care spending: Twice the OECD average - Used to argue that high spending does not automatically produce better outcomes Israeli polling on two states: A majority preferred giving up American support over accepting a two-state condition - Klein cites polling to show how far Israeli public opinion has shifted Time elapsed in Gaza war: Five months - Haass says persuasion has had little effect after roughly five months U.S. military leverage near Israel: Battleships deployed nearby - Klein references U.S. deterrent posture against possible Iranian escalation

Pivotal Quotes: "What’s missing is any so what." — Richard Haass: On the Biden administration’s quiet criticism of Israel without concrete consequences "This is not a foreign policy position. This is one totally born of domestic politics." — Richard Haass: On Republican opposition to aid for Ukraine "The two-state solution is the worst possible approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, except for all the others." — Richard Haass: On why U.S. policy should still preserve a two-state outcome

Implications: The episode suggests Biden needs a more explicit, conditional, and independent foreign policy or risk losing credibility abroad and politically at home. It also warns that unresolved wars may fuel Trump’s “order” politics in 2024.