Elizabeth N. Saunders

@profsaunders

Professor of Political Science, Columbia. New Book: The Insiders' Game: How Elites Make War and Peace

3,604 Following26,879 Followers4,036 Posts

Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and profsaunders.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jun 17

On Monday, June 22 at 1pm ET, I'll be participating in a webinar with @pbfritz.bsky.social to discuss his essay on my book "The Insiders' Game: How Elites Make War and Peace" @princetonupress.bsky.social. Current events might come up? Join us! Register here: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

Webinar information for book discussion with Elizabeth Saunders and Paul Fritz, June 22, 1-2pm ET.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jun 10

There's the fog of war, and then there's this. Basic communication and trust breakdown from the US government to (1) itself [important for fighting wars!] and (2) its citizens. via @shipwreck75.bsky.social

Conflicting reports from Trump and an unnamed US official on whether strikes are ongoing or soon to be over.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· May 12

Don't believe me? This is the opening paragraph (published in @intsecurity.bsky.social in '08 but written several years before that).

Opening paragraph of Caitlin Talmadge's article "Closing Time": Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares.1 Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes.2 Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world’s oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC.
Even if the strait were not closed in the sense of being physically barricaded, military confict in the area could cause prices to skyrocket in anticipation of a supply disruption—and to remain high until markets could be assured that the flow of commerce had been restored.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· May 7

What the president of the United States says matters. Both of these communications are sickening.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· May 7

Wait, you mean Trump and Rubio’s dismantling of US diplomacy is making the Iran War harder? Who could possibly have foreseen… goodauthority.org/news/trump-a... via @shipwreck75.bsky.social

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· May 5

Deleted this because I hadn't clarified this was from November 2024, right after the election. Part of a slide from last year's lecture in my American foreign policy class.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Apr 29

So @cnn.com says Trump passport only avail in person in DC. Some could choose to get one. Apart from everything else wrong with this, doesn’t seem great for democracy to have people display political loyalties on a document used for entry and proof of citizenship. www.cnn.com/2026/04/28/p...

From CNN.com:

The US will soon begin issuing passports featuring an image of President Donald Trump inside, a State Department official said Tuesday.

The official said that the passport “will be the default passport out of the Washington Passport Agency when available” for those who renew their passports in person at that location.

“Online options or other locations will maintain existing passport design,” the official said.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Apr 22

Thanks @unlawfulentries.bsky.social for sharing your book at @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social today. Immigration is a load-bearing issue for current events, and we don't integrate it enough into the study of war and peace. Learned so much from this book. See below for access to intro and discount code.

Anna O. Law delivers a talk on her new book, "Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship," at the Saltzman Institute at Columbia

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Apr 20

Excited to host @unlawfulentries.bsky.social at @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social this week to talk about her new book!

Cover of Anna O. Law’s book “Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship”

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Apr 9

This graph using @gallup.com data, which I discuss in my book "The Insiders' Game," shows what I mean. Dems only top R's once, at nadir of Iraq war, and never crack 50%. A lot of variation in events over that period! Note also decline in "no opinion/no difference," likely reflecting 📈polarization.

Graph of Gallup data on a single question over time from 2002-2020, broken down by answer (Republicans, Democrats, or No Opinion/No Difference). Question reads, "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?"

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Apr 6

And luckily for us, the Iranians were very clear in calibrating their escalatory moves over the years, as in the above 2019 case, and in the response to the 2020 Soleimani killing. Trump seemed to get the message then and declared "all is well!" when the Iranians struck a US base. 3/

Trump twitter post from January 7, 2020 after Iran struck US bases in Iraq, in retaliation for the US strike that killed Iranian General Qasim Soleimani: "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Mar 26

This this this. Serious high -level talks come at the end, not at the beginning or whenever Trump wants.

“The Iranians would not engage in high-level meetings with the U.S. until and unless they know that he’s going to make concessions to them.”

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Mar 23

"Israel would have few constraints on its ability to conduct such strikes if Iran was no longer able to target ships in Hormuz or rain missiles on its Gulf neighbors, officials said.

“But if Iran can block Hormuz, they have a deterrence tool” that the regime could wield in retaliation and mobilize global opposition, said Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate."

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Mar 23

"rgy and economic security, given that one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies flow through the channel.

The outcome in Hormuz, however, has additional strategic implications for Israel, where security officials increasingly expect that the need to conduct follow-on strikes against Iran will persist beyond any declared end to the current conflict.

Israeli officials said they could regard such measures as necessary if the U.S. or Israel detected efforts by Iran to reconstitute its ballistic missile program, degraded by hundreds of strikes in recent weeks, or to recover its buried uranium in a rush to develop a nuclear weapon."

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Mar 10

🎧NEW episode of @chalkboardpolitics.bsky.social just dropped, on international organizations and [gestures at all this]. Feat. @allisoncarnegie.bsky.social @rickyclark.bsky.social & @anjalikdayal.bsky.social. @goodauth.bsky.social @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social goodauthority.podbean.com/e/cp3/

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Feb 24

For wonks: this paper (drawn from my book) shows w/ an experiment how a hawkish adviser publicly opposed to war can raise the stakes for a Republican president. Graph shows "fighting premium/penalty," by the adviser's type and if s/he supports/opposes force. 1/ journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Figure taken from Saunders, "Leaders, Advisers, and the Political Origins of Elite Support for War," showing the fighting premium/penalty (in terms of public support) for using force if a hawkish/dovish advisers supports/opposes force.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 25

If he doesn't, not only will history remember, but his words from the 50th anniversary of Selma will ring hollow.

We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 25

And if you choose not to go to Minneapolis, this photo better not appear in your presidential library.

Obama commemorating the 50th anniversary of Selma

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 24

Hegseth's signature in the National Defense Strategy looks like "PB&J" and I can't unsee it. Also, if it's Dept. of War, isn't this the National War Strategy? Also also, the rules-based order is a "cloud-castle abstraction"? Pretty sure first rule is "don't take territory by force," very concrete!

Image of the signature page of the National Defense Strategy, with Hegseth's signature looking like "PB&J"

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 24

The great @dandrezner.bsky.social, scholar of diplomacy and national security at a university from which the U.S. government snatched a student off the street for an op-ed, on Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the nation’s top diplomat and National Security Advisor: open.substack.com/pub/danieldr...

For reasons I cannot entirely articulate, however, Rubio’s bald-faced lie will stick with the rest of my days. I don’t care what foreign policy horrors he might have averted behind the scenes. I really don’t. What I do know is that this man approved a rendition based on no real evidence, trampled on the first amendment, and then lied about what he had done.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 21

Updating lecture slides, I came across this photo from Trump 1.0 that I used to discuss alliances. From G20 in Hamburg, 2017. Looking at it now is...a journey. Look who's in the back right (in his capacity as the head of the Financial Stability Board). Via European Commission (link in alt-text)

Family photo from G20 in Hamburg, 2017, via European Commission. Names listed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_G20_Family_picture_(03).jpg

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 21

And the nuclear-ish options: 5/

The president could take even more significant actions as commander in chief. For example, the president could withdraw U.S. military assets and military personnel, defanging the U.S. commitment even if it remained on the books. The president could decide not to appoint the supreme allied commander of NATO, who is based in Europe but historically has always been an American. And the president could determine (and declare) that if a NATO member state were attacked, the United States would not necessarily invoke or abide by its commitment to Article 5 to come to that country’s aid. Indeed, Trump has already said as much on several occasions. Most recently, he said at a 2024 campaign rally that he would encourage the Russians to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that do not meet their spending commitments.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 21

Some of Trump's less-dramatic options: 4/

A president disposed to undermine NATO could take many diplomatic and military actions unilaterally that would harm—perhaps even paralyze—the alliance. At the diplomatic level, for example, the president could decide not to appoint an ambassador to NATO. Additionally, the president could decide not to send his secretaries of state and defense and other officials to meetings of NATO defense ministers and foreign ministers or working-level meetings where much of NATO’s business gets done. Congress could haul administration officials in for questioning, but it has lost much of its inclination and capacity to conduct oversight of foreign policy in recent decades.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 20

📣📣📣Announcing...Chalkboard Politics @chalkboardpolitics.bsky.social, a podcast by students, for students (and their teachers). Written, edited, and mixed by the students at @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social and distributed by @goodauth.bsky.social. 1/ www.podbean.com/media/share/...

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 19

📣📣📣Teaser!📣📣📣 Everything is terrible, but the kids are alright. Something new is coming this week from @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social via @goodauth.bsky.social. Stay tuned!

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 5

There is also a huge body of excellent work on the dual internal and external threats dictators face (links below). But my favorite source on this is a letter to President Kennedy from John Kenneth Galbraith, then Amb. to India, on South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem, in Nov 1961. 4/

From Galbraith to JFK, Nov. 21, 1961 : "In my completely considered view, as stated yesterday, Diem will not reform either administratively or politically in any effective way. That is because he cannot. It is politically naive to expect it. He senses that he cannot let power go because he would be thrown out. He may disguise this even from himself with the statement that he lacks effective subordinates but the circumstance remains
unchanged. He probably senses that his greatest danger is from the
army. Hence the reform that will bring effective use of his manpower,
though the most urgent, may be the most improbable."

From https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674528376

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Jan 5

🧵Day 3 and we have a new meaning for "running Venezuela," courtesy of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the nation's top diplomat, who is in charge of Venezuela as well as the National Archives. We're going to insist they do what's in the US national interest. Time for some principal-agent theory. 1/

From State Dept transcript of Rubio appearance on This Week w/ George Stephanopolous:

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we’re not going to judge moving forward based simply on what’s said in press conferences. We want to see action here at the end of the day. Rhetoric is one thing. You see rhetoric for a lot of different reasons. There’s a lot of different reasons why people go on TV and say certain things in these countries, especially 15 hours or 12 hours after the person who used to be in charge of the regime is now in handcuffs and on his way to New York.

So what I will say is, moving forward, it’s very simple. We’re not going to be reactive here to statements at press conferences or what people say in a certain interview or what some media post – some media post somewhere. What we are going to react to is very simple: What do you do? Not what you’re saying in public – what happens? What happens next? Do the drugs stop coming? Are the changes made? Is Iran expelled? Is Hizballah no longer able and Iran no longer able to operate against our interests from Venezuela? Does the migration pattern stop? Do the drug trafficking boats end? Do you deal with the ELN and the FARC, two narcoterrorist organizations who control territory and operate with impunity from the territory of Venezuela against the interests of Colombia and the United States?

These are the things we want addressed. If they are addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it. If they’re not addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it.

QUESTION: And what happens if they’re not addressed?

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Dec 23

The Party of National Security in 2 headlines

Two headlines in the New York Times, one on the recall of 30 ambassadors, the other on the new “Trump-class” warships

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Dec 22

The Party of National Security

“We do not need ships that are not optimized to provide lethality against the Chinese threat,” Montgomery said, adding that the new frigate has “zero tactical use” because it will not be equipped with a vertical launch system or the Aegis ballistic defense system.

“That is not what these are focused on—they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship,” he said.

Elizabeth N. Saunders@profsaunders· Dec 15

In fairness, the article is more nuanced than this headline, especially the end, which acknowledges that hollow peace deals won't last and few are left at Rubio's State Dept to implement them. 2/