Why the Left Blames Liberals for Trump's Authoritarianism
The Trump administration is carrying out a brazen crackdown on academic freedom: deporting students for writing op-eds, withholding funds from colleges that defy his control, and justifying it all as a response to anti-Semitism. Who is to blame for this? According to one popular theory on the left, the answer is liberals who have consistently supported free speech and opposed Donald Trump.
The logic of this diagnosis has a certain superficial appeal. Many of President Trump's authoritarian moves have been justified in terms of arguments that originated on the center-left. Liberals condemned the far left for fostering an intolerant atmosphere in academia. They criticized the message and methods of some pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Trump has seized on these complaints as a pretext to extort universities and target student demonstrators for deportation.
According to many left-wing critics, this sequence of events shows that, as David Klion writes in The Nation, 'erstwhile free speech champions' have 'helped lay the groundwork for Trump's second term.' An April article in Liberal Currents directs contempt toward 'the infamous Harper's letter,' an open letter defending free speech from threats on the left and the right, and blames mainstream Democrats for having 'laid the groundwork for where we are now.' These are just two examples of a very well-developed genre.
The implication of these arguments is that Trump would not have won, or would now be having a harder time carrying out his neo-McCarthyite campaign of repression, if liberals had only refrained from denouncing left-wing cancel culture and the excesses of the post–October 7 protests. But to the extent that these events are connected, the responsibility runs the other way. It was the left's tactics and rhetoric that helped enable Trump's return to power as well as his abuse of it. The liberal critics of those tactics deserve credit for anticipating the backlash and trying to stop it.
A similar dynamic is playing out now, as liberals warn about the danger of violent infiltrators disrupting immigration protests while some leftists demand unconditional solidarity with the movement. The debate, as ever, is whether the left is discredited by its own excesses or by criticism of those excesses.
The bitter divide between liberals and leftists over Trump's neo-McCarthyism has deep historical roots. The two camps fought over the same set of ideas, making many of the same arguments, in response to the original McCarthyism of the 1950s. The lessons of that period, properly understood, offer helpful guidance for defeating the Trumpian iteration.
What made liberals vulnerable to McCarthyism was the fact that some communists really did insinuate themselves into the government during the New Deal. Communists accounted for a tiny share of the population, but they had a visible presence among intellectuals, artists, and political activists. The American Communist Party enthusiastically cooperated with Moscow. It managed to plant Soviet spies in the State Department, the Manhattan Project, and other important government institutions. The 1950 perjury trial of Alger Hiss, a high-ranking diplomat who spied on Roosevelt's administration for the Soviet Union, was a national spectacle vividly illustrating the Soviet spy network's reach. (Many American leftists maintained Hiss's innocence for decades, until the opening of the Soviet archives conclusively proved his guilt.)
In the face of this espionage threat, most liberals severed all ties with American communists. The AFL-CIO expelled communists from its ranks. 'I have never seen any reason to admire men who, under the pretense of liberalism, continued to justify and whitewash the realities of Soviet Communism,' the prominent intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote at the time.
The synthesis these liberal anti-communists arrived at was to oppose McCarthyism and communism simultaneously. They would defend the free-speech rights of accused communists (though not their right to hold sensitive government jobs) while denouncing communist ideas.
But they found themselves squeezed in a vise. The right was trying to use communist espionage to discredit the entire New Deal. Many leftists, meanwhile, bitterly castigated their former allies for their betrayal, and adopted a posture of anti-anti-communism—not endorsing communism per se, but instead directing all their criticism at the excesses of anti-communism, so as to avoid a rupture on the left. Still, as difficult as their position might have seemed, liberals managed to beat back McCarthyism and retain public confidence in their ability to handle the Cold War.
Many on the American left never surrendered their resentment of the center-left's anti-communist posture. In their eyes, liberals empowered McCarthy by validating the notion that communists were an enemy in the first place. And now they see the same thing happening again. By denouncing the illiberal left, they argue, the center-left has opened the door to right-wing repression.
Clay Risen: When America persecutes its teachers
To be fair, some free-speech advocates who criticized the left for shutting down debate have revealed themselves to be hypocritical when it comes to anti-Israel speech. An especially ugly episode transpired in late 2023, when the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT refused to crack down broadly on anti- Zionist speech on campus, only for members of Congress in both parties to smear them as anti- Semitic. But the complaints on the left are not limited to liberals who betray their commitment to free-speech norms. Their critique is aimed at liberals who uphold those values. And that is because they oppose liberal values themselves.
When the Harvard psychologist and Harper's -letter signatory Steven Pinker wrote a long New York Times essay assailing the Trump administration's campaign against academic freedom, online leftists castigated him for having supposedly cleared the way for Trump by critiquing groupthink in the academy. 'Lot of good push back here from Pinker but at the same time his critiques of higher ed helped open the door for the attacks on the university he now dreads, and especially those directed at where he works,' wrote Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, a social-studies professor at Wesleyan. Pinker has never endorsed Trump or Trumpism. But the mere fact of his having opposed left-wing illiberalism supposedly makes him complicit in the right-wing version.
Likewise, many leftists consider it self-evident that criticizing campus protesters' use of violent pro-Hamas messages, such as 'Globalize the Intifada,' was akin to fascism. Liberals of course had good reason to worry about violent, apocalyptic rhetoric, and the ideas inspiring it, which more recently has contributed to a spate of terror attacks on domestic Jewish targets. But to some leftist critics, raising those concerns was functionally a vote for Trump.
'Even those [Democrats] issuing mild statements of concern can't help but front-load their polite chiding of the White House with pointless, preening condemnations of the target of Trump's arrests and harassment regime,' Adam Johnson and Sarah Lazare write in the left-wing In These Times. Jeet Heer, writing in The Nation, likewise argues, 'Biden's slander of pro-Palestinian activists helped splinter the Democratic coalition during the 2024 election' and, yes, 'laid the groundwork for the current crackdown on dissent.'
The left is not alone in seeking to erase the liberal middle ground between the political extremes. The dynamic is identical to that of the 1950s, when the right tried to paint all opponents of McCarthyism as communists (just as the left wished to paint all anti-communists as McCarthyists). Trump's allies are attacking pro-free-speech liberals for having supposedly enabled radicalism. When Harvard faculty signed a letter denouncing Trump's threats against academic freedom, conservatives sneered that professors had only themselves to blame. 'Many of these signatories have been entirely silent for years as departments purged their ranks of conservatives to create one of the most perfectly sealed-off echo chambers in all of higher education,' wrote the pro-Trump law professor Jonathan Turley.
Both the far right and far left have a good reason to erase the liberal center: If the only alternative to their position is an equally extreme alternative, then their argument doesn't look so out-there. The liberal answer is to resist this pressure from both sides.
A decade ago, illiberal discourse norms around race and gender began to dominate progressive spaces, leaving a pockmarked landscape of cancellations and social-media-driven panics. Even as many skeptics on the left insisted that no such phenomenon was occurring—or that it was merely the harmless antics of college students—those norms quickly spread into progressive politics and the Democratic Party.
The 2020 Democratic presidential campaign took place in an atmosphere in which staffers, progressive organizations, journalists, and even the candidates themselves feared that speaking out against unpopular or impractical ideas would cause them to be labeled racist or sexist. That was the identity-obsessed climate in which Joe Biden first promised to nominate a female vice president, and then committed to specifically choosing a Black one. This set of overlapping criteria narrowed the field of candidates who had the traditional qualification of holding statewide office to a single choice whose own campaign had collapsed under the weight of a string of promises to left-wing groups who were out of touch with the constituencies they claimed to represent, as well as her limited political instincts. Kamala Harris herself was cornered into endorsing taxpayer-financed gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners and detained migrants, a promise that Trump blared on endless loop in 2024. Her own ad firm found that Trump's ad moved 2.7 percent of voters who watched it toward Trump, more than enough to swing the outcome by itself.
Trump's election had many causes. One of them was very clearly a backlash against social-justice fads, and the Democratic ecosystem's failure, under fear of cancellation, to resist those fads. If either party to this internal debate should be apologizing, it's not the liberals who presciently warned that the left risked going off the rails and enabling Trump to win.
Thomas Chatterton Williams: What the left keeps getting wrong
The political gravity of the campus debate after October 7 tilts in the same direction. Some progressives decided that the plight of Palestinians was so urgent and singular as to blot out every other political cause. The effect was to elevate the salience of an issue that split the Democratic coalition: Both the most pro-Israel constituents and the most anti-Israel constituents in the Democratic coalition moved heavily toward Trump's camp. Many pro-Palestine activists openly argued that the stakes were high enough to justify risking Trump's election. That is precisely the direction in which their actions pushed.
Trump's election, and his subsequent campaign to crush demonstrations, is precisely the scenario that liberal critics warned would occur. That this outcome is being used to discredit those same liberals is perverse, yet oddly familiar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Strike US assets, disrupt global trade, race for a bomb: How will Iran respond to Trump's attacks?
US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities puts the Middle East in a volatile position, with all eyes now on Tehran's next move. Speaking in Istanbul, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday his country has 'a variety of options' when deciding how to respond to the US attacks. From striking US bases in the region, to possibly closing a key waterway to global shipping, Iran is likely mulling its next moves. All carry inherent risks for the Islamic Republic, Israel and the United States. Here's what to know: Direct US involvement in the conflict could see Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activate what remains of its proxies across Iraq, Yemen and Syria, groups which have previously launched attacks on American assets in the region. While Iran's strongest ally in the region was once Lebanon's Hezbollah, that group has been significantly weakened by Israeli attacks. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) says the US maintains a presence at 19 sites in total across the region, with eight of those considered by analysts to have a permanent US presence. As of June 13, the CFR estimated some 40,000 US troops were in the Middle East. In Iraq, for example, there were 2,500 US troops as of late last year. An Iranian attack on these forces is not inconceivable. In 2020, an Iranian missile attack on a US garrison left more than 100 soldiers with traumatic brain injuries. The Iranians have said 'several times' that if the US 'joins this war and attacks their nuclear facilities, they will retaliate against US forces in the region, against US interests, and there are a lot of those,' CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid said. A resurgence of attacks from Yemen against US assets is already on the table. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels previously vowed to attack American ships in the Red Sea should the US join Israel's conflict with Iran. A prominent Houthi official said in a social media post early Sunday that 'Trump must bear the consequences' of the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. It is unclear if this marks the end of a US-Houthi ceasefire struck in May, in which Washington said it would halt its military campaign against the Houthis in exchange for the group stopping its attacks on US interests in the region. Knowing that it can't outright win a conflict against Israel and the US, experts have said that Tehran could seek to engage in a war of attrition, where it tries to exhaust its adversary's will or capacity to fight in a drawn-out and damaging conflict, which Trump at the outset of his presidency said he wanted to avoid. Iran also has the power to influence the 'entire commercial shipping in the Gulf,' Ravid said, should it decide to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route. There have so far been no material disruptions to the global flow of oil. But if oil exports are disrupted, or if Iran tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, the global oil market could face an existential crisis. The strait links the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is a key channel for oil and liquefied natural gas exports from the Middle East to the global market. About 20 million barrels of oil flow through the strait each day, according to the US Energy Information Administration. A prominent adviser to Iran's supreme leader has already called for missile strikes and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 'Following America's attack on the Fordow nuclear installation, it is now our turn,' warned Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, a well-known conservative voice who has previously identified himself as a Khamenei 'representative.' Geographic leverage over global shipping gives Iran the 'capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, collapse Trump's economic agenda,' Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran expert and editor of the Amwaj news outlet, told CNN. Some experts say that Iran is very likely to race for a nuclear bomb now, even if the current regime collapses and new leaders come in place. 'Trump just guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next 5 to 10 years,' Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said on X. 'Particularly if the regime changes.' Parsi has said that even if the regime collapses and new military elements assume power, they are likely to be much more hawkish than the current regime and race toward a nuclear weapon as their only deterrent. Experts have previously said that Iran likely moved its stocks of enriched uranium from its key nuclear facilities amid Israeli strikes.. Nuclear power plants that generate electricity for civil purposes use uranium that is enriched to between 3.5% and 5%. When enriched to higher levels, uranium can be used to make a bomb Israel and the US accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons; Tehran insists its program is peaceful. Iran is also likely to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, under which it has pledged not to develop a bomb. 'Iran's response is likely not just limited to military retaliation. NPT withdrawal is quite likely,' Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, said on X. Iran's first response to the US' attack on its nuclear sites was to attack Israel, not US bases. Iranian missiles hit a group of buildings in Tel Aviv, where 86 people were admitted to hospital with injuries overnight and on Sunday morning, according to Israel's ministry of health. Knowing it may not be able to sustain a full-on confrontation with the US, and hoping that Trump will scale back on his involvement following Sunday's strike, Iran may merely seek to perpetuate the status quo, fighting only Israel. Trump may follow the same playbook as in the 2020 attack that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, Shabani told CNN's Becky Anderson. Trump at the time wanted to 'send a big message, get the headlines, show US resolve, but then avoid a wider war,' Shabani said. While Iran may feel it has to retaliate to save face, it may be a bloodless response, similar to what happened in 2020, when it launched a barrage of missiles at US bases in Iraq, which resulted in traumatic brain injuries to personnel but no deaths. Two military analysts have said Iran could resort to 'asymmetric' measures – such as terrorism or cyberattacks – to retaliate against the US because Israeli attacks have reduced Iran's military capabilities. 'I think the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) is probably trying to figure out what capabilities it has left' as its missile stockpile dwindles, said CNN national security analyst David Sanger. 'I think (the IRGC is) going to be a little bit careful, and I suspect that's going to take us to all of the asymmetric things they can do: cyber, terrorism. I think that they're probably going to be looking for things where the US cannot just put up the traditional defenses,' he added. Similarly, retired Maj. Gen. James 'Spider' Marks, head of geopolitical strategy at Academy Securities, an investment bank, told CNN that Israel 'did a pretty good job of damaging Iran's capacity to launch its rather robust missile inventory.' But, 'albeit wounded,' the IRGC still has 'some tremendous capacity,' he said. 'It has capabilities that are already within the region and then outside the region. We are vulnerable… around the world, where the IRGC has either influence or can make things happen asymmetrically.' Iran has refused to return to the negotiating table while under Israeli attacks. On Sunday, Araghchi said he does not know how 'much room is left for diplomacy' after the US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities. … We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defense,' Araghchi said. Parsi said that by doing so, 'the Iranians have cornered themselves.' 'Their aim is to force Trump to stop Netanyahu's war, and by that show his ability and willingness to use American leverage against Netanyahu,' Parsi wrote. 'But the flip side is that Tehran has given Israel a veto on US-Iran diplomacy – by simply continuing the war, Israel is enabled to block talks between the US and Iran.' Iranian and European officials met Friday in Geneva for talks, which an Iranian source said started out tense but became 'much more positive.' Speaking Sunday, Araghchi said the US had decided to 'blow up' diplomacy. 'Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3 (group of European ministers)/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy,' Araghchi said on X. Vaez, of the International Crisis Group, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the 'Iranians were reluctant to negotiate with a gun to their head, and that gun has already been triggered. 'The more likely situation is that the talks are over for now.' CNN's Eve Brennan, Brad Lendon and Mostafa Salem contributed reporting.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Flights to and from Dubai cancelled after US air strikes on Iran
Flights to Dubai and Doha have been cancelled following the US strikes on Iran. The decision comes after Donald Trump ordered US air strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites. Though not actively involved, the UK Government was briefed before the strikes which saw B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched missiles in use. In efforts to calm tensions, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary David Lammy had attempted to dissuade the US from aligning with Israel's strikes on Iran, advocating for a move towards de-escalation and diplomatic talks. Nevertheless, President Trump proceeded with the strikes, asserting they had completely destroyed pivotal nuclear facilities. In a Pentagon press briefing today it was announced that 14 bunker-busting bombs were dropped across two of the sites. READ MORE: Road closed as five people rushed to hospital after crash READ MORE: I won't divorce my Egyptian toyboy husband but I wish I'd never met him Before the strikes took place, British Airways (BA) flight from London Gatwick to Dubai was diverted to Zurich Saturday night. The BA109 flight departed from the UK at 9.53pm on Saturday and reached Saudi Arabia before the Boeing 787 Dreamliner changed its course, landing in Switzerland, according to flight-tracking website Flightradar24. All of the airline's flights to Dubai and Doha that were scheduled to depart from Heathrow on Sunday have been cancelled, including return flights, the company said. Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. The US struck three nuclear sites in Iran overnight prompting Tehran to launch a retaliatory ballistic missile barrage against Israel. In a statement, British Airways said: 'As a result of recent events, we have adjusted our flight schedule to ensure the safety of our customers and crew, which is always our top priority. 'We are contacting our customers to advise them of their options while we work through this developing situation.' BA is offering a flexible booking policy for customers already booked onto flights to Dubai and Doha between Sunday and Tuesday who wish to change their dates of travel. According to Gatwick's website, flights to and from the airport to Doha and Dubai are continuing as scheduled. For the latest news and breaking news visit Get all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you. Join the Liverpool ECHO Breaking News and Top Stories WhatsApp community to receive the latest news straight to your phone by clicking here.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Strike US assets, disrupt global trade, race for a bomb: How will Iran respond to Trump's attacks?
US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities puts the Middle East in a volatile position, with all eyes now on Tehran's next move. Speaking in Istanbul, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday his country has 'a variety of options' when deciding how to respond to the US attacks. From striking US bases in the region, to possibly closing a key waterway to global shipping, Iran is likely mulling its next moves. All carry inherent risks for the Islamic Republic, Israel and the United States. Here's what to know: Direct US involvement in the conflict could see Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activate what remains of its proxies across Iraq, Yemen and Syria, groups which have previously launched attacks on American assets in the region. While Iran's strongest ally in the region was once Lebanon's Hezbollah, that group has been significantly weakened by Israeli attacks. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) says the US maintains a presence at 19 sites in total across the region, with eight of those considered by analysts to have a permanent US presence. As of June 13, the CFR estimated some 40,000 US troops were in the Middle East. In Iraq, for example, there were 2,500 US troops as of late last year. An Iranian attack on these forces is not inconceivable. In 2020, an Iranian missile attack on a US garrison left more than 100 soldiers with traumatic brain injuries. The Iranians have said 'several times' that if the US 'joins this war and attacks their nuclear facilities, they will retaliate against US forces in the region, against US interests, and there are a lot of those,' CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid said. A resurgence of attacks from Yemen against US assets is already on the table. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels previously vowed to attack American ships in the Red Sea should the US join Israel's conflict with Iran. A prominent Houthi official said in a social media post early Sunday that 'Trump must bear the consequences' of the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. It is unclear if this marks the end of a US-Houthi ceasefire struck in May, in which Washington said it would halt its military campaign against the Houthis in exchange for the group stopping its attacks on US interests in the region. Knowing that it can't outright win a conflict against Israel and the US, experts have said that Tehran could seek to engage in a war of attrition, where it tries to exhaust its adversary's will or capacity to fight in a drawn-out and damaging conflict, which Trump at the outset of his presidency said he wanted to avoid. Iran also has the power to influence the 'entire commercial shipping in the Gulf,' Ravid said, should it decide to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route. There have so far been no material disruptions to the global flow of oil. But if oil exports are disrupted, or if Iran tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, the global oil market could face an existential crisis. The strait links the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is a key channel for oil and liquefied natural gas exports from the Middle East to the global market. About 20 million barrels of oil flow through the strait each day, according to the US Energy Information Administration. A prominent adviser to Iran's supreme leader has already called for missile strikes and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 'Following America's attack on the Fordow nuclear installation, it is now our turn,' warned Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, a well-known conservative voice who has previously identified himself as a Khamenei 'representative.' Geographic leverage over global shipping gives Iran the 'capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, collapse Trump's economic agenda,' Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran expert and editor of the Amwaj news outlet, told CNN. Some experts say that Iran is very likely to race for a nuclear bomb now, even if the current regime collapses and new leaders come in place. 'Trump just guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next 5 to 10 years,' Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, said on X. 'Particularly if the regime changes.' Parsi has said that even if the regime collapses and new military elements assume power, they are likely to be much more hawkish than the current regime and race toward a nuclear weapon as their only deterrent. Experts have previously said that Iran likely moved its stocks of enriched uranium from its key nuclear facilities amid Israeli strikes.. Nuclear power plants that generate electricity for civil purposes use uranium that is enriched to between 3.5% and 5%. When enriched to higher levels, uranium can be used to make a bomb Israel and the US accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons; Tehran insists its program is peaceful. Iran is also likely to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, under which it has pledged not to develop a bomb. 'Iran's response is likely not just limited to military retaliation. NPT withdrawal is quite likely,' Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, said on X. Iran's first response to the US' attack on its nuclear sites was to attack Israel, not US bases. Iranian missiles hit a group of buildings in Tel Aviv, where 86 people were admitted to hospital with injuries overnight and on Sunday morning, according to Israel's ministry of health. Knowing it may not be able to sustain a full-on confrontation with the US, and hoping that Trump will scale back on his involvement following Sunday's strike, Iran may merely seek to perpetuate the status quo, fighting only Israel. Trump may follow the same playbook as in the 2020 attack that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, Shabani told CNN's Becky Anderson. Trump at the time wanted to 'send a big message, get the headlines, show US resolve, but then avoid a wider war,' Shabani said. While Iran may feel it has to retaliate to save face, it may be a bloodless response, similar to what happened in 2020, when it launched a barrage of missiles at US bases in Iraq, which resulted in traumatic brain injuries to personnel but no deaths. Two military analysts have said Iran could resort to 'asymmetric' measures – such as terrorism or cyberattacks – to retaliate against the US because Israeli attacks have reduced Iran's military capabilities. 'I think the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) is probably trying to figure out what capabilities it has left' as its missile stockpile dwindles, said CNN national security analyst David Sanger. 'I think (the IRGC is) going to be a little bit careful, and I suspect that's going to take us to all of the asymmetric things they can do: cyber, terrorism. I think that they're probably going to be looking for things where the US cannot just put up the traditional defenses,' he added. Similarly, retired Maj. Gen. James 'Spider' Marks, head of geopolitical strategy at Academy Securities, an investment bank, told CNN that Israel 'did a pretty good job of damaging Iran's capacity to launch its rather robust missile inventory.' But, 'albeit wounded,' the IRGC still has 'some tremendous capacity,' he said. 'It has capabilities that are already within the region and then outside the region. We are vulnerable… around the world, where the IRGC has either influence or can make things happen asymmetrically.' Iran has refused to return to the negotiating table while under Israeli attacks. On Sunday, Araghchi said he does not know how 'much room is left for diplomacy' after the US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities. … We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defense,' Araghchi said. Parsi said that by doing so, 'the Iranians have cornered themselves.' 'Their aim is to force Trump to stop Netanyahu's war, and by that show his ability and willingness to use American leverage against Netanyahu,' Parsi wrote. 'But the flip side is that Tehran has given Israel a veto on US-Iran diplomacy – by simply continuing the war, Israel is enabled to block talks between the US and Iran.' Iranian and European officials met Friday in Geneva for talks, which an Iranian source said started out tense but became 'much more positive.' Speaking Sunday, Araghchi said the US had decided to 'blow up' diplomacy. 'Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3 (group of European ministers)/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy,' Araghchi said on X. Vaez, of the International Crisis Group, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the 'Iranians were reluctant to negotiate with a gun to their head, and that gun has already been triggered. 'The more likely situation is that the talks are over for now.' CNN's Eve Brennan, Brad Lendon and Mostafa Salem contributed reporting.
