Does NYC need a vice mayor? Also nukes
Throwback Thursday and Veeply Roundup
Ain’t that convenient. Almost a decade and a half ago, I wrote something about how Pakistan used its nuclear arsenal and how that could be a model for Iran. Pakistan, not so long ago, had proxies carry out terror attacks on India, knowing reprisals would be limited because of its nukes. But, India hit back harder and more successfully than in the past—sending the message that its qualitative military advantage over Pakistan was growing. Meanwhile, as everyone who doesn’t live under a mountain (that isn’t Fordo) knows, Israel and the U.S. have bombed Iran to keep it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. There was an interesting inverse to the situation with Pakistan. Israel had smashed Iran’s key terrorist proxy Hezbollah, giving it freedom to attack Iran with a far more limited fear of reprisal. Some parts of this analysis are dated, of course, but much of it remains relevant, particularly given Iran’s likely capacity to reconstruct its nuclear program: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
But first, your…
Veeply Roundup
Pretty much every political pundit out there has something to say about the NYC mayoral race. But NYC does not have a vice mayor (Veem? Vimyr?), so very much “not my circus, not my monkeys.” They do have deputy mayors however, a bunch of them in fact. The position originated with Mayor LaGuardia, who appointed a deputy mayor to handle ceremonial duties. The deputy mayors look like a combination of cabinet officers and high-level staffers. They are given a portfolio, usually overseeing an array of related city agencies. But they aren’t confirmed by the City Council, giving the mayor a lot of freedom in who they choose. Oddly, the role of the deputy mayors of NYC look similar to the vice presidents of Iran!
One of my core beliefs is that political leadership is hard and that chief executives of large, complex polities (nations, states, cities, etc.) could use a capable number two, who is a politician and therefore able to bring policy and political concerns together in making and implementing decisions. The deputy mayors appear to be political operatives and technocrats—but not politicians in their own right. Big city mayors, who face complex internal problems and have to deal with an array of other state, local, federal, and international agencies are could find this kind of help a real asset. New York City, given its scale, the spread of its suburbs across four states, and its unique role in the global economy, could probably use a vice mayor more than any other U.S. city. Creating this role would, in most cases, require changes to city charters and displacing other figures in the city’s line of succession.
I still need to write about how J.D. Vance is doing as VP. Pretty well in terms of his role and influence. He hasn’t fallen out with Trump, has managed to have at least some influence. I wrote before that Vance having his national security advisor move to the NSC as deputy national security advisor is a pretty big deal. Within the administration, Vance was a skeptic of hitting Iran, publicly he was vocal in supporting it, explaining how Trump was smarter than other recent presidents and wouldn’t get us into another Middle East imbroglio. Vance even outlined a Trump doctrine. Vance is a thoughtful guy and is trying to create a framework for Trumpism that will live beyond Trump. He was also assigned, or proposed for some sensitive assignments such as reaching out to Musk when he started throwing tantrums and potentially joining Steven Witkoff in negotiating with Iran.
The 2nd Spouse, Usha Vance was subject to a lengthy New York Times profile. I’ve written before on the modestly expanding role of the 2nd Spouse and on the role of Usha Vance in particular. Political spouses nearly always serve as advisors and surrogates. The profile points to how Usha Vance has smoothed some of the rougher edges off of her husband. He’s a good communicator, but sometimes jams his foot in his mouth. Also, he clearly had a temper. There are there two particularly interesting things that are unique to her.
She is obviously extraordinarily smart and capable, so the question remains what she will do with her new national profile? So far, she’s chosen to encourage reading, an incredibly good and non-controversial cause. But she cycles high and will need more projects. What will they be?
Usha Vance appears to have a standard coastal elite liberal background. She was a Democrat and worked at a progressive law firm. What is going on between her and her Trumpist husband? The profile has a few insights. She had clerked for Brett Kavanaugh and was angered by the attacks on him. Both she and her husband were offended when a business executive complained about Trump’s border crackdown (in his first term) and how it had reduced his supply of low-wage labor. JD Vance learned a lot from his wife, but she may have learned some things from him as well.
Iran’s Nuclear Future & Pakistan’s Present
The Iranian nuclear program is again in the news – it appears that the regime has made important technical progress in developing the capability to construct a nuclear weapon.
It is unclear how this will play out. Covert and overt action (like the Stuxnet virus or an Israeli strike) will delay, but not halt progress. At the same time, Iran may find it useful to maintain a state of nuclear ambiguity for some time. This policy will allow Iran to gain many of the benefits of nuclear power, while avoiding the worst of international opprobrium for violating the NPT.
It is useful to look at neighboring Pakistan for a picture of nuclear Iran’s future.
Pakistan faces and is obsessed with India, a far more powerful state that, with its own acquisition of nuclear capability cemented its superiority. Then Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father of the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto) declared:
If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. We have no other choice.
It is a prophecy that has come true. Pakistan’s nuclear capability has allowed it to continue a fruitless rivalry with India that has sapped the nation’s resource while abetting corruption and radicalism.
Part of Pakistan’s political culture is that the state was crippled in its very founding by India and its allies. Pakistan has sought the means to right this fundamental injustice. Weaker than India, Pakistan sought asymmetric means to balance India. Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the Afghan jihad was particularly instructive. The generals of Rawalpindi observed how a weaker power (that’s how the US was perceived) waged a low-level war, but kept the fighting within limits so as to prevent the situation from escalating. They perceived that nukes protected the US from more aggressive Soviet responses.
This is the strategy Pakistan has followed against India, low-grade war that, in Pakistani fantasies, will ultimately lead to the dissolution of India. Nukes allow Pakistan to continue a conflict (without nukes India’s ability to carryout devastating conventional retaliation would be a deterrent to Pakistan-backed terror). This gives Pakistan’s brass something to do and justifies their expanding hold on the country’s economy while helping Pakistan’s elites maintain the status quo (to the advantage of the traditional elites of course.) Meanwhile, Pakistan’s education system, infrastructure, and social services are sapped of resources.
On the international front, besides the general carnage caused by Pakistan backed terrorism, they have incubated jihadi groups to advance their aims in Afghanistan and India – but those groups have developed an impact beyond the sub-continent. At the same time, the ongoing tension between nuclear-armed rivals leads to the constant danger that the two sides will accidentally wander into a nuclear war.
This is all food for thought as Iran continues on its course. It is already a world champion supporter of terrorism. Will it feel even freer to do so if protected by a nuclear umbrella? Will nukes be the crutch that allows the corrupt and vicious Iranian regime to cling to power? Finally, will a nuclear Iran inspire other player in the region to follow suit – meaning more nukes and thus a greater chance for accidents?