Yael Avidan

Product, startups, mindfulness and politics. Journaling is my gem.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

Helpful perspective and breakdown

[Melissa Chen @MsMelChen]

May I offer a different perspective on the whole transatlantic family feud brewing over NATO.

Europeans are furious at what they call American unilateralism and "wars of choice," while Americans are done subsidizing allies who won't lift a finger when Washington actually needs them. Given all the sentimentality and historical baggage, there’s been a lot of bad blood and high grade insults thrown both ways.

A lot of pride here is at stake. But given that I am not American or European, what I can provide is an Asian perspective. The whole thing looks very different as there are no blood ties or cultural nostalgia to pull me either way. Because of distance, the default Asian lens on America has always been colder, clearer, and far more pragmatic than the European one.

Asians have never lived under the illusion that their relationship to the US is one based on shared values. If they ever did, the illusion was shattered during the Cold War. Instead, Asian nations saw the relationship to America as a cold, interest-driven bargain in a dangerous neighborhood full of communists, insurgents, and bigger powers.

Fast forward to today, and this lesson still holds. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia all partner with America because their interests (not values) align - especially when it comes to countering China.

These nations have reasons to be alarmed about Beijing's ambitions in the South China Sea, around Taiwan, and across the Indo-Pacific. They don't need lectures about democracy or liberal international order to see the value in US forward presence, intelligence sharing, tech transfers, and security guarantees. It's a straight-up transactional deal: the US keeps the sea lanes open and the PLA at bay. Meanwhile, Asian nations host your bases, buy your weapons, and join your alliances (Quad, AUKUS, etc.). When interests diverge, they adjust pragmatically, without the drama and meltdown.

Probably not many in the West know this, but one of the forces that shaped this attitude was the US pullout of Vietnam and the rest of America’s Cold War shenanigans. Lee Kuan Yew was one of America’s loudest cheerleaders in Southeast Asia. In 1967 he flew to Washington, testified to Congress, and begged Lyndon Johnson (and later Nixon) not to cut and run in Vietnam. He warned that a hasty US exit would trigger the dominoes - Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and then pressure on the rest of Southeast Asia.

Singapore became a logistical hub, providing a haven for US troops on R&R, oil refineries supplying the American war machine, and Lockheed servicing aircraft. At one point, US military-related spending made up 15% of Singapore’s entire GDP. Singapore didn’t support the war because it loved American democracy but because it kept the communists tied up and bought Southeast Asia time to build up its own economy and military.

Then came the pullout - the Paris Accords in 1973 and then Saigon falls in 1975. Despite all the lobbying, despite the blood and resources America had spent, domestic politics in the US (the anti-war movement, Congress, Vietnam syndrome etc.) ended it. LKY watched in disbelief as the superpower that had promised to hold the line simply walked away.

The lesson was that American commitments are real only as long as they serve American interests and American voters don’t get tired. It’s a brutal one to internalize. LKY was disappointed and noted American “unreliability” but Singapore didn’t collapse into panic or anti-Americanism. They just recalibrated and kept pursuing pragmatism by building its own deterrent, diversifying partners, and later offered the US naval logistics access (Sembawang port) when the Philippines kicked them out of Subic Bay in the early 1990s.

Malaysia drew the same conclusion. The Tunku was pro-Western and anti-communist early on, but Malaysia never joined SEATO and pushed ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality) instead. When the British announced their East-of-Suez withdrawal in 1968 and Nixon’s Doctrine (1969) told Asians “you defend yourselves first, we’ll just help,” Kuala Lumpur accelerated its neutralist tilt.

The message was clear - don’t count on Washington to bleed indefinitely for distant allies.

South Korea is similarly pragmatic but it operates under far higher stakes due to baggage from the Korean War and the ongoing North Korean threat. American intervention literally saved the South from conquest, resulting in a bond that is forged in blood. While South Korea had to learn the same lessons - that the American umbrella isn’t permanent, sharing a border with a nuclear-armed adversary forces tighter coupling with Washington.

The reverberations of Nixon’s 1973 opening to Beijing cannot be understated. It shocked the entire region that America, the great anti-communist crusader, suddenly would cozy up to Mao to counter the Soviets. If Washington could flip on core principles when interests demanded it, why should smaller states pretend the relationship was about anything deeper?

The core Asian critique of the European approach to dealing with America is that it is entirely bound up in moral values and civilizational kinship. This means that every disagreement feels like a betrayal and breeds resentment on both sides.

Because Europe is so hyped up on abstract values, it makes NATO feel like a sacred club that America is disrespecting. Asia's interest-based lens sees alliances as tools - useful until they're not. Maybe Europe thinks the Asian approach is cynical but the irony is that this is actually what keeps Indo-Pacific partners far more reliable counterweights to China than many NATO members ever were against Russia.

[Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain]

If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.

Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack

[eran shir @eranshir]

אתגרתי את קלוד לנסות להתמודד עם התזה שסגירת מיצרי הורמוז ואפקט העלייה במחירי הנפט יהיו קצרי מועד יחסית, ויצא לנו מהתהליך מאמר מעניין שחוזה טווח של 8-12 שבועות עד שהמחירים יחזרו לקדמותם. החכמתי.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

Evergreen.

[Tim Scott @TimScottUK]

British govt policy towards the Middle East crisis explained in 4 easy steps.

[Dinesh D'Souza @DineshDSouza]

Oh oh. If Qatar joins the US and Israel in attacking Iran, whose side is Tucker going to take?

[Ahmed Al-Khalidi @khalidi79397]

Can you be both the mayor of NYC and an interim ayatollah? Asking for a friend.

[Chris Cappy @Cappyarmy]

topple Iran and Venezuela and that's 20% of China's oil energy supply. China will have to turn more to Russia for cheap oil. Remove El Mencho cartel leader in Mexico and you get rid of the criminals taxing 15% off the top of US-Mexico trade. That is all critical to US plan to decouple from China. The actions we're seeing over the past week are connected.

The US is implementing a grand strategy designed to weaken China's position. The goal is, If China moves on Taiwan in the next two years they will do so without support in the middle east, without proxy cartels in Mexico and without a Russia able to launch any attacks on NATO. The US goal is to focus 100% on the pacific in the next two years.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

the new season of tehran is just getting weirder and wierder

[The Spectator Index @spectatorindex]

BREAKING: Palestinian Authority condemns Iranian attacks on Arab countries

[Gummi @gummibear737]

Let me explain how it benefits Americans
1) No nukes for Iran
2) No ICBMs capable of hitting the US
3) Eliminates proxies and funding for terrorism
4) Hurts BRICS
5) Puts China’s energy suppliers under US influence
6) Stability/security in ME
7) Epicenter of Islamism is gone

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@gnoble79 Trying to sign up for the conference but getting an error msg across different browsers and computers. Is the site still up? Thanks!

[Elica Le Bon الیکا‌ ل بن @elicalebon]

After screaming this for years, I can’t believe it’s taken 12,000 Iranians murdered by the IRGC—to the world’s deafening silence—for people to finally see that the whole human rights movement & its social justice warriors was a gigantic, spectacular farce.

I feel so fucking sick

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@tferriss Recognizing that I’m only repeating your book… experiment :) what people do >>> what people say they’ll do

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@KingofPPC @DembinDC הכל טוב ומסכימה עם זה 😊

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@KingofPPC @DembinDC יש הבדל כי מי שמנהל מדינה יש לו אחריות שאין לאדם פרטי. ספציפית פה, אני חושבת שבניתוח פוליטי יותר עוזר להתמקד בהבנה עמוקה של האינטרסים בצורה ענינית ולא לצפות שמדינות יעשו דברים מסיבות אלטרואיסטיות. מכל העמים, אנחנו כישראלים יודעים טוב ששקט (יחסי) מגיע כתוצאה מהרתעה ולא רצון טוב.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@DembinDC תראה, אני לא חושבת שמה שאני אומרת הוא כזה שנוי במחלוקת - כל מה שאני אומרת זה שאיך שהיינו רוצים לראות את העולם זה לא איך שהעולם באמת עובד - במיוחד בעידן הזה - אז אני מנסה לראות את המציאות ולהבין את מפת האינטרסים בין השחקנים הראשיים.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@KingofPPC @DembinDC מוסריות קיימת בין אנשים,לא מדינות. בין מדינות יש אינטרסים.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

All the bleating about "international law" shows just how completely deluded some of our elites have become.

International law was a pleasant fiction that lasted for a few decades. It was never real and now the world has reverted to its default setting: Great Power politics.

This is why, as a strong Ukraine supporter, I have never talked about international law or called Putin's attack an "illegal invasion".

Laws are based on submission to an overarching authority backed by force. There is no such international authority and even if you view the UN as one, it does not have the ability to use force against those who violate "international law" other than against small countries with weak militaries.

When the US attacked Iraq, the UN did nothing.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UN did nothing.
If China invades Taiwan tomorrow, the UN will do nothing.

If you cannot enforce a law, it's not a law.

I do not support Ukraine because naughty Vlad broke the rules. I support Ukraine because it's not in OUR interest in the West to have Russia marauding its way through friendly countries on the borders of Europe. It's in our interest for us to be as strong as possible and for our adversaries to be as weak as possible.

President Trump is a realist and a pragmatist. He sees through the fictions other "leaders" cling to.

A good leader advances the national interests of his country. If more Western leaders did this, our civilisation would be in a much better place.

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@tferriss @bgurley His perspective on the VC asset class now and in the next 5-10 years given the inevitable (??) liquidity changes. Also - looking back, were VCs correct in focusing on a handful of sectors/categories over the years . Lastly - who did he learn the most from

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@aripap I hear you but it sends the wrong msg. If there’s a short term H1B shortage, people can work around it and maybe wait for political change but this type of move signals a potential long term change that may make people change their plans and not come here

[Yael Avidan @yaela]

@aripap You’re forgetting that H1B is not just used by IT workers but also by PHDs and other advanced degrees. Making H1B Prohibitively expensive means more smart folks go to school in their home country and the US is losing its edge as the place that attracts the best and the brightest