Scott Horton, longtime radio host and podcaster, director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of Antiwar.com, and author of several best selling books, joins us this week to talk about the desperation in the air as neoconservatives and Washington war party denizens try to prove victory in Iran is just a few bombs and a regime change away. 

We also discuss Laura Loomer's new "moral clarity" on Ukraine, and Zelensky's attempt to merge both the Iran and Ukraine wars to keep Trump boxed in for support. But in reality, can the U.S military keep going?

Listen, and please don't forget to subscribe!

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And Why This Feels Familiar
• 2:35 The New Push For Iran Regime Change
• 6:55 The Unspoken Price Of Escalation
• 14:10 The Nuclear Slope And Impossible Invasion
• 20:55 Interceptor Shortages And Pentagon Spin
• 28:35 An Illegal War And Congress Ignored
• 31:50 Loomer Zelensky And Linking Two Wars
• 38:55 Stockpiles Attrition And The Hormuz Trap
• 43:35 Final Takeaways And Scott’s Book Plug

The death of Senator Lindsey Graham has drawn diametrically opposed eulogies and no shortage of grave dancing. We talk about that, and how Graham straddled two eras of the Republican Party — that of the old Cold War-neoconservative period and that of Trumpian MAGA. We discuss how the latter is about to face a reckoning at the midterms as the war in Iran continues without a seeming end. 

Guests:

Jim Antle, executive editor of the Washington Examiner

Jack Hunter, political writer for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And Why It Matters
• 1:16 Lindsey Graham’s Record And Reputation
• 7:26 Political Skill Versus Policy Damage
• 17:21 Midterm Map And Wave Reality
• 21:33 Iran War Fallout And Gas Prices
• 24:41 Tucker’s Third Party Temptation
• 28:43 Vance Rubio And The 2028 Fight
• 36:13 MAGA Erosion And Rogan Democrats
• 39:51 Final Plugs And Wrap

A handful of primary wins can look like noise until you notice the common thread: Gaza. We sit down with Annelle Sheline, a Quincy Institute research fellow and former State Department Foreign Service officer who resigned in protest, and Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, to sort out what these races are really telling us about Democratic voters, donor influence, and the future of US policy toward Israel and Gaza.

We talk through the data showing Democrats increasingly see the US as too supportive of Israel, then stress-test the big question: is this a district-by-district phenomenon or the start of a wider political realignment? From New York City to Colorado, we unpack why candidates are running on rejecting AIPAC money, opposing more military aid for Israel, and linking war spending to everyday pressures at home, like affordability and public trust.

Then we get concrete about power in Washington. We dig into AIPAC’s evolving tactics, the broader Israel lobby ecosystem, and the fight inside the NDAA over deeper US Israel military integration that could shift oversight into the Pentagon and out of clearer congressional control. Finally, we look at the renewed Red Scare rhetoric, the fragile bipartisan overlap on anti-intervention, and why reforms like ranked choice voting keep coming up when people imagine a politics that actually reflects majority views.

If you want a clearer map of where Gaza fits into Democratic Party politics and what to watch heading into the midterms, listen now, subscribe, and share this with a friend. After you listen, what do you think will move votes more in 2026: Gaza, corruption, or cost of living?

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And Guest Introductions
• 1:50 Progressive Primary Wins And Gaza
• 7:30 Public Opinion Shifts Inside Both Parties
• 10:00 AIPAC Influence And The Massey Fight
• 15:30 NDAA Military Integration And Oversight
• 19:15 Democrats’ 2024 Autopsy And Gaza Silence
• 24:10 Consultants Versus Voters On Foreign Policy
• 27:50 Red Scare Politics As A Wedge
• 32:40 Right Left Coalitions And Third Party Talk
• 38:30 Wrap Up And How To Support

The U.S. is nearing its 250th birthday, and we still can’t escape the argument at the heart of American foreign policy: are we supposed to be a restrained republic or a globe-spanning empire? I’m joined by Brandon Buck of the Cato Institute and Andrew Day of The American Conservative to dig into the founding-era warnings that shaped the country’s early posture, from Washington’s caution about permanent alliances to John Quincy Adams’ refusal to go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” We also square that tradition with the uncomfortable parts of the early national story, including violent continental expansion and the limits of the “isolationist founders” narrative.

From there, we track the real inflection points that made intervention feel normal: the Spanish-American War and overseas annexations, the progressive-era push toward moral mission language, and the way modern finance changes politics by hiding the true costs of war. We talk about Congress’ constitutional role in declaring war, why militarism corrodes republican institutions, and how American universalism can become a justification for crusades abroad, especially after the Cold War when “defending democracy” turns into habit.

We also tackle one of the most toxic pressure points in modern debate: the stigma around anti-war conservatives and the way Charles Lindbergh gets invoked to shut down America First arguments. Finally, we bring it to the present moment, asking what the Iran war, cheap drones, vulnerable bases, and depleted munitions reveal about the hard limits of U.S. military power and whether restraint could return by necessity rather than choice. Subscribe, share this with a friend who argues about foreign policy, and leave a review with the biggest question you’re still wrestling with.

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And The 250th Countdown
• 1:53 The Anti-Imperialist Tradition Recovered
• 7:59 Founders’ Guardrails Against Militarism
• 11:45 When Expansion Became Overseas Empire
• 14:07 Progressives, Money, And Hidden War Costs
• 16:35 Universalist Crusades From 1898 To NATO
• 21:29 World War I Splits Progressives
• 24:20 Lindbergh, Smears, And America First
• 35:36 Iran War Aftermath And Forced Retrenchment
• 40:42 Closing Thanks And Where To Subscribe

A ceasefire memo, a reopened Strait of Hormuz, and a 60-day sprint toward Iran nuclear negotiations sounds like progress until the backlash hits. We dig into why powerful voices in Washington call the deal “surrender,” and why that label can miss the real strategic question: are we achieving our objectives, or are we just chasing the appearance of military victory? From the first reactions to the 14-point plan to the warning that future escalation could turn into forced control of Hormuz, we trace how domestic politics, alliance pressures, and prestige can hijack US foreign policy decision-making.

We also test a provocative idea that makes people uncomfortable: sometimes defeat is good for a nation. Drawing on military history and statecraft, we talk through how Japan’s devastation in 1945 also broke a crushing security dilemma and opened a pathway to long-term stability. Then we revisit Nixon’s opening to China as a reminder that diplomatic reversals often look like weakness in real time even when they become historic wins later. Along the way we confront a deeper critique of punitive strategy, moral absolutism, and the habit of framing diplomacy as appeasement rather than as a tool for achieving national interests.

Finally, we ask why a wealthy, technologically dominant military can still struggle to “win” against mid-level powers and irregular strategies. We unpack the long-running faith in sea power and air power, the temptation to treat precision weapons and AI-driven systems as a decisive fix, and how the military-industrial complex can steer lessons toward bigger budgets instead of better strategy. If you care about US national security, Middle East stability, the Strait of Hormuz, and what “winning” should mean in foreign policy, listen through to the end, then subscribe, share the show, and leave a review so more people can find it.

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And Guest Introduction
• 1:30 The 14 Point Iran Memorandum
• 3:56 Why Defeat Can Be Useful
• 7:34 Japan’s Loss That Became Security
• 11:39 Nixon’s China Flip As Template
• 16:06 The Punitive Mindset In Washington
• 21:19 McMaster Clip And Moral Projection
• 28:26 Twilight Of Empire And Diplomatic Risk
• 34:14 Sea Power Air Power And Tech Faith
• 40:41 Expensive Weapons And Closing Requests

A Pentagon “executive agent” for one foreign country? We break down Section 219 of the NDAA and why critics say it’s unprecedented, hard to oversee, and built to outlast voters. Listen now and tell us: smart alliance move or blank check?

“They’re weeks away” has become the most durable talking point in modern Middle East politics, and it keeps steering the United States toward confrontation with Iran. We sit down with legendary journalist, historian, and policy analyst Gareth Porter to unpack how the Iran nuclear program was turned into a decades long crisis narrative and why that story still drives today’s war politics.

We walk through Porter’s reporting behind Manufactured Crisis and the claim that key “evidence” used to cement the nuclear weapons accusation, including the infamous set of documents that arrived via European channels, was treated as definitive even as German officials questioned its credibility. That opens up a bigger discussion about the relationship between intelligence, the national security state, and mainstream media: how thin assertions become “known facts,” why corrections rarely catch up to first impressions, and why challenging the consensus can be professionally risky even when the sourcing is solid.

From there, we trace the policy arc across administrations: Clinton era choices that deepen alignment with Israel against Iran, the George W. Bush period when the nuclear scare blends with regime change thinking, Obama’s long path to the JCPOA nuclear deal and the political battles that surround verification, and Trump’s decision to rip up the agreement and reimpose sanctions. We also talk about escalation dynamics today, including the predictable economic and security stakes around the Strait of Hormuz, and what happens when pressure campaigns collide with regional realities Washington often misunderstands.

Subscribe to Trip the Beltway Fantastic, share this conversation with someone who follows Iran policy, and leave a review with the toughest question you want us to tackle next.

Chapter Markers

• 0:00 Welcome And Why This Matters
• 2:55 Trump’s Nuclear Fear Pitch
• 3:46 33 Years With No Proof
• 7:24 The Briefcase Documents Allegation
• 10:50 Germany’s Warning And Media Silence
• 12:53 Clinton Era Alignment Against Iran
• 15:16 Netanyahu’s Repeating Bomb Warnings
• 19:33 Scare Stories As War Cover
• 21:26 Regime Change Thinking Under Bush
• 25:42 Obama, Sabotage, And The JCPOA
• 29:48 Trump Exits The Deal And Squeezes
• 36:16 Strait Of Hormuz And Blowback
• 40:05 Final Takeaways And Thanks

A brand-new acting Director of National Intelligence with no intelligence background sounds like a scandal until you hear the darker possibility: maybe the job isn’t meant to restrain anyone. We sit down with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern to unpack what the DNI role has become, why real power can bypass “oversight,” and how information gets filtered before it ever reaches the president.

Then we turn to what might be the most under-covered national security story on the Hill: a measure embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act that could push U.S. Israel military integration into a new phase, from co-producing weapons and cyber technology to building shared industrial capacity. We talk about what happens when foreign military aid shifts into quieter, harder-to-track arrangements and why that matters for transparency, congressional accountability, and the risk of escalation.

From there, we examine the machinery that keeps war options on the table, especially with Iran: alleged cooked intelligence, the intimidation factor inside high-level meetings, and how dissenting analysis can get sidelined. We also discuss AIPAC’s influence operations and revolving door, the role of media narratives and paid messaging, and why public opinion is shifting anyway. Ray closes with a stark reminder from Eisenhower: the only antidote is a well-informed citizenry.

Chapter Markers

0:00. Welcome And Guest Introduction

1:15. A New DNI With No Intel

6:10. Why DNI Oversight Rarely Works

10:45. NDAA Plan For Deeper Israel Ties

17:05. History Of U.S. Cover-Ups And Israel

26:10. Cooked Intelligence And Hitting Iran

32:20. AIPAC Influence And The Revolving Door

38:10. Media Messaging And The Pompeo Problem

41:20. Protest Footage And The Cost Of Dissent

44:15. Winter Soldiers Warning And Closing

Peace talks with Iran don’t just face obstacles overseas, they run straight into a buzz saw at home. Kelly Vlejos is joined by Quincy Institute colleagues Alex Jerdon and Courtney Rawlings, co-hosts of Always at War, to unpack a Memorial Day weekend news cycle that swung from talk of a US-Iran breakthrough to renewed strikes and a full-blown meltdown from the usual hawks.

We dig into the messaging coming from prominent pro-war voices, including the claim that America must “negotiate while fighting,” and why that framing turns diplomacy into a stepping stone for escalation rather than a way out. We also question the contradiction at the heart of so much cable news commentary: if Iran was supposedly “decimated,” why is the answer always more bombing and more open-ended objectives? Along the way, we connect the debate to intelligence realities, including repeated assertions that the Iranian nuclear weapons narrative does not match the available assessments.

The conversation widens to the bipartisan politics that make peace harder, with Democrats sometimes attacking negotiation from the right, and to the deeper culture of the Washington foreign policy blob on display in the Monk debate featuring Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer versus Victoria Nuland and Mike Pompeo. We close by tying it to the core question behind Always at War: what incentives, myths, and moneyed interests keep the United States locked into permanent war logic.

If this helped you think differently about US foreign policy toward Iran, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review. What’s the most dangerous myth you keep hearing about Iran?

Chapter Markers

• 0:31 Welcome And Subscribe
• 1:53 Tulsi Gabbard And Iran Whiplash
• 4:39 Hawks Push “Negotiate While Fighting”
• 8:46 Ted Cruz And War Narrative Spin
• 15:11 Can Trump Ignore The Pressure
• 21:38 Democrats Undercut Diplomacy
• 25:09 Monk Debate And The DC Priesthood
• 34:01 Always At War And Profit Incentives
• 38:18 Final Thoughts And Thanks

A president doesn’t have to be irrational to use the madman theory, they just have to look irrational enough to be believed. We dig into how this controversial tactic works in real life: a calculated performance meant to plant a sliver of doubt in an adversary’s mind that you might escalate beyond the “normal” rules of foreign policy and deterrence.

With author and scholar James Boyse, we trace the madman theory’s roots in Cold War strategy and negotiation thinking, from Harvard and RAND to the Oval Office. We talk about Thomas Schelling, Daniel Ellsberg, and Henry Kissinger, then follow the thread into Richard Nixon’s approach to Vietnam, where credibility, secrecy, and brinkmanship collide. The history is messy, and that’s the point: you can often see the threats, but the outcomes are harder to measure, especially when your opponent refuses to believe you’ll actually do what you imply.

From there, we bring the framework into today’s headlines. We unpack Trump foreign policy claims around Ukraine and Russia, the administration’s “purposeful strategic ambiguity,” and how NATO pressure can succeed or sour depending on trust and follow-through. We also confront the limits of madman tactics with Iran, where unclear goals, legal concerns, and ally hesitation can drain credibility fast, and we end with Cuba as a live case where pressure and escalation signals could matter in the months ahead.

If you like sharp history that connects directly to current US grand strategy debates, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

Chapter Markers

• 0:20. Welcome And Why It Matters
• 2:47 What Madman Theory Really Means
• 4:48 Nixon And The Need For Credibility
• 8:58. Vietnam Escalation And Secret Signaling
• 11:25 Did Nixon Actually Succeed
• 12:58 Ellsberg Schelling Kissinger At Harvard
• 16:49 James K Polk And Expansion By Intimidation
• 19:24 Trump Ukraine And Strategic Ambiguity
• 25:50 Iran Limits And Ally Blowback
• 31:15 Cuba As A Live Test Case
• 34:02 Final Takeaways And Listener Requests

• Midterms, subpoenas, and a 2028 knife fight. If Iran drags on, does J.D. Vance get tagged as the face of it while Rubio glides past? Listen, then reply: who survives a long war politically?

The fastest way a foreign war shows up at home is a number on a gas pump, and that’s where our conversation with Emily Jeshinski begins to get uncomfortably real. Emily joins us to unpack why Trump’s polling can slide even while his base still looks “with him” and what that gap between approve and strongly approve signals. We talk about the political fuel Trump is running on right now: a reserve of trust, a belief that he’s still the best option, and a growing worry that the Iran war is lasting longer than promised.

From there, we follow the pressure points inside conservative foreign policy. Emily explains how the democratization of media changes everything compared to 2003, when a single narrative could dominate for months. Now, counterarguments spread instantly, and high-profile conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene can challenge interventionism in public, giving skeptical voters room to question the party line without feeling like they’re switching teams. We also get into how donor power and intensely pro-Israel advocacy can shape which voices gain influence around a president.

Then we zoom out to the midterms and the post-Trump future. If the electorate punishes war costs, Republicans could face a brutal oversight era, and the 2028 picture shifts fast. We dig into whether J.D. Vance gets wounded by being tied to negotiations and war messaging, how Marco Rubio’s positioning could benefit him, and why the generational split among Republicans on Israel and institutional trust may matter but not on the timeline people hope. Subscribe, share, and leave a review if this helped you see the coalition dynamics more clearly, and tell us: what actually breaks a political movement, ideology or prices?

Chapter Markers

• 0:00. Welcome And Guest Introduction
• 0:56 Trump Polls And Base Patience
• 4:48 Gas Prices And Economic Blowback
• 7:14 Tucker And MTG Break The Spell
• 11:20 Media Chaos And Antiwar Arguments
• 17:26 Midterms Look Rough For Republicans
• 20:45 Vance Versus Rubio For 2028
• 27:52 Younger Conservatives And The Israel Divide
• 31:49 Gaetz On Dissent And Unity
• 33:48 Why Democrats Still Hold The Coalition
• 36:11 Final Thoughts And Goodbye

Here's the podcast description with timestamps, ready for RedCircle distribution:

🎙️ Trip the Beltway Fantastic Podcast

LIVE w/ COL. Douglas Macgregor: Iran Called Trump's Bluff. What Now?

Where politics, culture, and power collide beyond the spin — hosted by Kelley Vlahos, Editor-in-Chief of Responsible Statecraft

Iran didn't blink. The Islamabad talks collapsed. The blockade is bleeding us dry. And the real picture may never be reaching the Oval Office. Kelley Vlahos sits down with Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor for a no-holds-barred assessment of where the U.S.-Iran conflict stands — and where it's headed.

From the mystery of the White House Correspondents' Dinner assassination attempt, to the geopolitical trap the U.S. has walked into, to the billionaires pulling the strings behind the curtain — this is the conversation Washington doesn't want you to hear.

⏱️ TIMESTAMPS

00:00 — Intro & Sponsor

00:31 — Introducing Col. Douglas Macgregor

02:52 — The White House Correspondents' Dinner Shooting

06:54 — Iran Talks Collapse & the Strait of Hormuz

09:04 — Why U.S. Strategy Against Iran Has Been Incoherent

10:19 — McGregor's Off-Ramp for Trump

12:16 — The Israel Factor

14:35 — Trump's Roy Cohn Playbook & Sailor Morale

16:55 — Depleted U.S. Arsenal & No Surge Capacity

19:09 — Iran's Remaining Military Strength

20:04 — Is Trump Getting the Real Picture?

22:18 — Admiral Cooper & CENTCOM's Obligation to Speak Up

28:35 — The Bradley-LBJ Lesson on Mission Clarity

30:33 — Why McGregor Isn't in the Administration

33:27 — Vance vs. Hegseth: The Internal Rift

34:14 — What the Next Two Years Look Like

37:13 — Kid Rock at the Pentagon & Hegseth's Record

41:02 — Closing

🔗 Find Us Everywhere

YouTube | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Amazon Music | Substack

The Bay of Pigs is usually remembered as a botched landing and a political embarrassment, but the deeper story is about how covert operations get sold as “clean,” how propaganda gets built in real time, and how blowback reshapes the world. We sit down with Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive to trace the invasion from the opening air strikes and staged cover story to the moment the United States found itself defending a narrative at the United Nations that simply wasn’t true.

From there, we zoom out to the machinery behind regime change: why the CIA and the White House believed they couldn’t coexist with Fidel Castro, how John F. Kennedy inherited an Eisenhower-approved plan, and what assumptions were used to convince a skeptical president it would work. Peter walks us through the CIA Inspector General’s internal “autopsy” report and why its findings still matter for anyone trying to understand intelligence failures, secrecy, and accountability.

We also dig into the post-Bay of Pigs world: Operation Mongoose, newly released JFK files, and one jaw-dropping covert action involving Cuban sugar headed to the Soviet Union. Along the way we connect the dots to U.S.-Cuba relations, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the hard limits Cuba draws around sovereignty and governance even when it signals openness on economics. If you care about declassified documents, Cold War history, CIA covert action, and the lasting risks of intervention, this conversation will stick with you.

Subscribe, share this with a history-obsessed friend, and leave a review if you want more deep dives like this. What lesson from Bay of Pigs feels most urgent right now?

Chapter Markers

• 0:00. Propaganda Newsreel Opens The Story
• 1:59 Meet The Historian Behind The Files
• 3:57 CIA Cover Story At The UN
• 6:26 Why Kennedy Thought It Would Work
• 10:33 Inside The CIA Inspector General Report
• 14:55 Firing Dulles Then Operation Mongoose
• 17:56. Sugar Sabotage And JFK File Revelations
• 23:10 Kennedy's Brief Plan To Reform
• 26:40 Oswald And The Mexico City Secret
• 28:59 Bay Of Pigs Leads To Missiles
• 33:17 Back Channel With Che Guevara
• 34:53 Submission Diplomacy And Modern Threats
• 37:33 Can Cuba Avoid A New War
• 39:13 Wrap Up And What To Read

The Strait of Hormuz reopens, oil drops, and the headlines move on. We slow the tape and ask the uncomfortable question: if things can snap back this fast, why did we get pushed into the crisis in the first place?

We’re joined by Dr. Ron Paul, constitutionalist, former congressman, and founder of the Ron Paul Institute and host of The Liberty Report. He argues that the Iran war is a textbook example of intervention gone wrong: an empire mindset that manufactures emergencies, spends lives and money, and then demands applause for a partial reset. We dig into why foreign policy failures keep repeating, why “blowback” is not a conspiracy word but a basic description of cause and effect, and why propaganda makes bad strategy look inevitable.

Ron Paul also connects the dots many politicians keep separate: war and economics. We talk about debt-financed conflict, the legacy of Bretton Woods, the Federal Reserve, and how the military-industrial complex thrives when costs are hidden and accountability is blurry. From universities to Washington, we explore how education and incentives shape what the public is told to fear and what it’s taught to ignore.

We close with the next generation: draft anxiety, selective service changes, skepticism toward a “warrior ethos,” and the coalition of people across party lines who want a non-interventionist foreign policy rooted in the Constitution and natural law. If this conversation challenges your assumptions, subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find it.

Chapter Markers

0:00 Welcome And Why Ron Paul Matters

0:59 Hormuz And The Cost Of Empire

4:19 A Life Of Wars And Lessons

7:27 How Money Fuels Intervention

9:26 Anti-War Right And Liberty Coalition

19:17 Blowback, Schools, And Natural Law

27:40 Draft Fears, Service, And Passing Torch

A deadline over the Strait of Hormuz, a presidential post warning a “civilization” could be erased, and growing chatter about “other tools” in the toolbox. That combination isn’t just headline noise. It’s a live test of escalation control, deterrence credibility, and how quickly a war can shift from an air campaign into something far harder to stop.

We’re joined by Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh, a military analyst at Defense Priorities, to pressure-test the claims coming out of Washington and to separate battlefield spin from strategic reality. We dig into what the F-15 shootdown and the daring extraction mission actually indicate about Iran’s remaining air defenses, the limits of US freedom of action, and why any longer ground operation around Hormuz could turn into a disaster. We also talk frankly about the “exclamation point” temptation, why leaders sometimes feel trapped by their own threats, and what it would mean if the US even considered a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon, including the global consequences of breaking a nuclear norm that has held since World War II.

Then we pivot to the mechanics of modern air and missile defense. Jennifer walks us through her reporting on damaged US radars and sensors in the region and why the real issue may be detection, not just interceptor stockpiles. That has immediate implications for protecting US bases and partners in the Gulf, and it also raises a bigger strategic question: if US air defenses struggle against Iran, what does that suggest about survivability in a future Indo-Pacific conflict. We close by connecting the Iran war to Ukraine, from paused negotiations to depleted air defense support, and we lay out a more durable peace framework built around credible, conditional security guarantees on all sides.

Subscribe for more clear-eyed analysis, share the episode with a friend who follows foreign policy, and leave a review. What do you think is the most likely next step after the Hormuz deadline?

“Boots on the ground” gets tossed around like a flex. We wanted to slow that down and ask the unglamorous questions that decide whether wars spiral: What’s the strategic objective? What force actually shows up? How do you resupply, evacuate wounded, and hold terrain while drones and ballistic missiles hunt everything that emits a signal?

Marine veteran and military analyst Jim Webb joins us to break down why the Strait of Hormuz is not just a map feature but a lever Iran has built strategy around for decades. We talk about the reality behind troop counts, why even highly defended radar and air defense sites can be vulnerable, and what that means for any plan that puts Americans in fixed positions near Iran’s shoreline or islands. Jim also explains how Marine Corps Force Design 2030 reshaped amphibious capability, and why a mission that looks “old school” can be dangerously mismatched with today’s equipment and doctrine.

We also get into the politics driving escalation: Israel’s role, how off-ramps get disrupted, and why Congress’s silence matters when an unpopular war expands without clear authorization. We close with a hard look at religious language from senior leaders and why just war theory draws bright lines around wars of choice. If you care about Iran, US foreign policy, military readiness, and the future of the Middle East, this conversation is for you.

Subscribe for more, share this with a friend who follows national security, and leave a review with the question you want us to tackle next.



War doesn’t just start with missiles. Sometimes it starts with who gets picked to “do the talks” and what they tell the president afterward. We sit down with Branko Marcetic , staff writer at Jacobin and a contributor to Responsible Statecraft, to unpack his reporting on Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and their outsized role in the diplomatic track that collapsed into the Iran war. We get specific about why nuclear negotiations demand technical fluency, why gaps in expertise can be fatal, and how public messaging can harden a pro-war storyline before anyone can challenge it.

We also pull the camera back to the bigger US foreign policy machine. If the same small circle is juggling Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza, what happens to preparation, credibility, and outcomes? We talk about the stalled “Board of Peace,” the pressure campaigns that reward escalation, and the eerie disconnect between Trump’s claims of “strong talks” and Iran’s denial that talks even happened. Along the way, we ask why major media scrutiny has been so limited when the stakes include a regional fire and a shattered negotiating channel.

Then we follow the consequences: the Strait of Hormuz disruption, oil prices, supply chain shock, and the political timeline that turns foreign policy into domestic risk. Public opinion is already souring on this war, including among Trump voters, raising a simple question: can bottom-up pressure force a real off ramp, or do allies and hawks still hold the veto? If you care about the Iran war, nuclear diplomacy, Israel’s role, and how decisions get made in Washington, this conversation connects the dots.

Subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a comment with your take on what a credible exit should look like.

CHAPTERS:

• 0:26 Launching The New Live Show
• 1:16 Who Led The Iran Talks
• 4:19 Trust Networks And Israel Ties
• 7:03 Media Scrutiny And Competing Narratives
• 12:43 Ukraine Talks And No Expert Bench
• 16:09 Gaza Ceasefire And Board Of Peace
• 18:03 Trump Claims Secret Off Ramp Talks
• 24:05 War Hawks Push Regime Change
• 26:41 Strait Closure And Global Price Shock
• 29:23 Public Opinion Turns Against The War
• 33:38 Final Questions And Where To Follow

After months of what seemed to be a stalled if not utterly failing Trump effort to end the Ukraine War, developments on this front have been hurtling at a breakneck speed this week. As of Tuesday there was still an expectation that the President might be able to announce something big as America’s turkeys and pumpkin pies were landing on groaning holiday tables this Thursday.

To say there is a lot to do before such an event could take place is an understatement. First, the backlash against Trump’s 28-point peace plan has been swift and vitriolic. Remember, the forces lined up to reject any plan that offers Russia concessions are at the levers of legacy mainstream media and in concert with Congressional megaphones and both are already promoting a narrative of appeasement and capitulation. For many Americans, this is the only message they are receiving from the media on ongoing negotiations this week.

Nevertheless, the 28-point plan has already shrunk to a 19-point plan after the Trump team met with Ukrainians in Geneva Monday. Trump officials, including fresh envoy, Secretary of Army Dan Discroll, have been meeting with Russians, too, trying to gauge what measures in either plan they will ultimately agree. It is fluid and fraught, and social media is covering it minute-to-minute so gossip, scoops, fake news and spin are all on the menu. 

Here to discuss all of this are two of the best analysts on the war and the potential end to it, Mark Episkopos and Mike Vlahos. Mark is a colleague of mine at Quincy where he is a research associate in our Eurasia program. Mike is a retired professor of military strategy and history and author of “Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change.”

This week marked one month since Donald Trump got both Hamas and Israel to agree to a 20-point peace plan for Gaza. Phase one was supposed to cease the fighting, see the exchange of hostages, flood the Strip with aid, and begin the process of Israel withdrawing its troops from Gaza.

By all accounts it’s not going so well. While the exchanges of live and dead hostages continue, the aid is not getting into the war- and famine-plagued population, which is now suffering from conditions not heard of since the turn of the last century, like scabies and scurvy (and much worse), as tons of uncollected refuge piles up and all drinking water is contaminated. 

Meanwhile, according to Al-Jazeera, the Israel government has violated the ceasefire 282 times as of Nov 11. 

Israel has shot at civilians 88 times, raided residential areas beyond the “yellow line” 12 times, bombed Gaza 124 times, and demolished people’s properties on 52 occasions, according to Al Jazeera.

Israel still occupies 58% percent of the Strip and is hardening its presence behind the “yellow line” with what looks like permanent structures. Israeli-backed militias continue to skirmish with Hamas. News of talks about the second phase have dwindled,and Hamas seems no closer to disarmament or giving up governance, yet. This puts the progress of the agreement at a virtual standstill, since Israel has insisted that Hamas disarm before it leaves the territory.

Americans meanwhile have been standing up a multinational Civil-Military Coordination Center on the ground to help oversee the mandated flow of international humanitarian and security assistance into Gaza, and to monitor the ceasefire agreement. Details are scarce. Israeli and American media have reported that the Israelis are being sidelined a bit due to frustration with the fact that they have only let in a fraction of the aid that was agreed upon in Trump’s plan.

Meanwhile there are reports that Arab nations in the region will not participate in an international stabilization force planned for Gaza (even if it gets a UN blessing) because the conditions are too chaotic and violent in the strip today. There are also rumors of the U.S. building a base at the center, which is 20 miles outside of Gaza, and housing American troops there, a story that was quickly denied by the Pentagon.

If Washington was sidelining or pressuring Israel, it has yet to have an effect, and time is of the essence as more and more Palestinians are in mortal danger, if not by direct Israeli attacks but unsafe buildings at risk of collapse, disease, lack of food, medicine, and proper health care. More than 69,000 Palestinians have died in the war — that we know of — and this number is likely much, much higher and growing.

Here to talk about the deal, its failures and what might be next are my two Quincy Institute colleagues, Annelle Sheline and Khaled Elgindy. Annelle is a research fellow in the Middle East program, and Khaled Khaled Elgindy is a new senior fellow at Quincy and an adjunct instructor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies.

This week the U.S. military buildup off the coast of Venezuela continued, with two B-1 bombers flying as close to land as any have come in previous flights, according to Air & Space Force Magazine. This is a transparent  “show of force” as the B-1s did not turn off their transponders, wanting everyone, especially Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, to know exactly where they are. The bombers are capable of carrying cruise missiles and guided bombs that could be used in possible strikes on land and aren’t the first buzzing the area in recent weeks.

They certainly aren’t the only assets in the region either. The USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group is on its way down to the region from the CENTCOM area of operations in the Middle East. It brings a host of weapons systems, not the least of which are F-35 and F-18 fighters with a range of missile capabilities, and accompanying destroyers that can fire Tomahawks and a likely Virginia class submarine also with the ability to launch Tomahawks.

According to the Washington Post:

The carrier will join an armada that has been assembled in the Caribbean. Other vessels there include the destroyers USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, USS Stockdale, the guided-missile cruiser Lake Erie, and the littoral combat ship Wichita. The Navy and Marine Corps also have combined to deploy the Iwo Jima amphibious ready group, a three-ship task force that includes additional sailors and Marines, off the coast of Venezuela.

The Marines are with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, of Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It includes Harrier fighter jets, helicopters and a battalion with hundreds of infantry Marines.

The Pentagon in recent weeks also has deployed the MV Ocean Trader, a civilian ship converted into a floating Special Operations base that can dispatch troops on short notice.

The ship’s presence in the Caribbean coincided with the deployment of select aircraft from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, an elite helicopter unit that supports the most dangerous missions in the world.

Visuals analyzed by The Washington Post showed helicopters, including MH-6 Little Birds that commanders favor for Special Operations ground assaults, flying less than 90 miles from Venezuela’s coastline in early October.

When the USS Gerald Ford arrives there will be more than 10,000 U.S. military personnel in the region. Not enough for a proper invasion, but a growing footprint nonetheless, and no doubt troubling for Maduro and Venezuela’s neighbors who are now getting a sense of what Trump’s effort to revitalize the Monroe Doctrine is shaping up to look like. 

Is this war? Maximum pressure? Regime change (pushed by one of the most powerful people in his cabinet, today, Marco Rubio?). Here to talk to us this week are two informed critics of the U.S. moves in the region, which also include U.S. military strikes on 12 alleged narco boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, and at least 50 dead that we know of, as of Tuesday. 

Jen Kavanagh is a senior fellow & director of military analysis at Defense Priorities and Dan DePetris  syndicated foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a foreign affairs writer for Newsweek, and a fellow at Defense Priorities.

More from Jennifer:

After strong-arming a ceasefire in Gaza, Trump tries to do it again in Ukraine

Pushing regime change in Venezuela is a terrible idea

More from Dan:

Trump’s Foreign Policy of Short-Termism

Donald Trump brings the war on terrorism to the Caribbean