Episode 37 of the Rational Policy Podcast is live! In this installment, hosts and dive into the news of the week, touching on global, domestic, and media affairs. We start with an update on the progress (or lack thereof) of the Iran War, exploring how things have changed and what might come next for the conflict. Most of the show, however, is dedicated to a different topic entirely: the Trump-Xi summit in China. We explain what is happening, why it shouldn’t be happening, and our concerns for the outcome of this trip. We discuss what it means for US-China relations and whether this approach is a useful one. Along the way, we touch on various semi-related issues, ranging from the future of the Cuban regime to the economics and geopolitics of tariffs and decoupling from Beijing. Finally, we shift to the media, lambasting a disgraceful antisemitic blood libel published by the New York Times, claiming that Israel uses sexual violence as a tool of state power. These claims not only fly in the face of reality, the timing of their publication - immediately prior to the release of a full report from the Israeli commission investigating the mass Hamas sexual violence of October 7 - speaks to the nefarious intent behind the piece.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, let’s hope that Trump’s Chinese vacation ends with very few souvenirs. Cheers!

Subscribe now

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In Episode 36, hosts and explore the week in news, delivering our hot takes on the key events of the past seven days. We spend much of the show diving into the seemingly-stable situation in Iran and detailing the developments (or lack thereof) emanating from Washington and Tehran. We explain what it all means, how to think about the ‘ceasefire’, and whether the economic battle may be more impactful than the military one. And in what may be something of a first for the show, we actually disagree and debate the merits of continued action. After the Iran segment, we preview the upcoming midterm elections - they’re only 6 months away, folks! - and discuss whether the potential blue wave will materialize for Democrats. Finally, we talk about the lives of two legendary media figures who passed this week, former Yankees radio announcer John Sterling and cable TV innovator Ted Turner.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, go listen to some classic John Sterling calls; you won’t regret it. Cheers!

Subscribe now

For decades, prominent hawkish figures have been warning of the serious threat posed by the Iranian regime to America, Israel, the broader Middle East, and the world writ large. For much of the 2000s, these conservative hawks cautioned American policymakers against the dangers stemming from the increasingly powerful and destabilizing mullahcracy. They wrote about Tehran’s budding nuclear program, its state sponsorship of regional and global terrorism, its ballistic missile program, the danger it posed to Israel and the Gulf states, and its belligerence toward shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. They spoke of its attempts to colonize other nations via proxy forces, as well as its intent to use those colonized nations as a means of gaining regional hegemony. And they described Iran’s inability to be stopped from these malign objectives by negotiation alone.

These arguments have appeared in the pages of important hawkish periodicals for decades. In Commentary, historian Arthur Herman explicitly laid out the Iranian threat to the Strait of Hormuz, pointing to Iranian military documents and war games over the waterway a full two decades ago. Legendary neoconservative stalwart Norman Podhoretz referenced Iran’s aspirations for regional hegemony, backed by nuclear weapons, in 2007. In the Weekly Standard in 2010, former Bush officials Michael Makovsky and Lawrence Goldstein discussed the need for alternative export pathways to the Strait to reduce Iranian influence – still a topic of discussion today. Academic articles, like one by Efraim Inbar in the journal Middle East Review of International Affairs in March 2006, detailed the Iranian ballistic missile menace against various US allies in the region, including the Gulf states. These messages were echoed at the highest levels of power in Washington during the Bush administration. UN Representative John Bolton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and even President Bush himself all decried Tehran’s attempts to go nuclear, presenting it as a broad peril to the US, Israel, and the Middle East as a whole, particularly when paired with Iran’s status as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.

Subscribe now

These warnings went largely unheeded at the time and were positively ignored once the Obama administration entered office and dramatically shifted our approach toward the region. Instead of a forward posture and the potential for military confrontation with the Iranian regime, we had “leading from behind” and conciliatory nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Hawks were strongly against these talks and their eventual outcome, the JCPOA. They argued that the deal was “catastrophic” for American interests and that the Obama team was taken advantage of by Iranian negotiators who crafted a deal in which they reaped all the benefits without verifiable costs.

These arguments were the crux of the hawk’s case against Iran, and they were lampooned for it. Over the past two months of war, however, that case has been vindicated by Iran’s own actions.

Since the joint US-Israeli strikes that started this round of conflict with Iran on February 28, Iran’s retaliatory actions have proven the threat that the hawks were warning about for decades, sometimes in eerily prescient fashion. Only Washington and Jerusalem have attacked Tehran, yet the bulk of the retaliation has been against regional non-belligerents. Iran has launched drones and missiles at the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus, with the total targeting these nations dwarfing those launched at Israel. The Iranians are not only targeting military bases. They have attacked oil refineries, ports, airports, city centers, skyscrapers, and pipelines. Even nations that have historically been either friendly or neutral toward Tehran have been targeted. This is the epitome of a regional threat, one that does not discriminate in its reckless belligerence.

The other major retaliatory action taken by the Islamic Republic has been to threaten commercial shipping in world’s most important energy chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. Nearly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade and almost as much of the global LNG trade passes through this waterway. It has always been an international waterway free to transit and controlled by no single country. Now, Tehran has shuttered the strait and tried to force ships to enter its territorial waters to pay a toll. This is not merely an assault on the Gulf states that rely on oceangoing shipment for export, but an attack on the entire international system. Iran chose to take this action almost immediately – something that would be unsurprising had one read the early-2000s hawks. In fact, they laid this exact scenario out in detail. “The Islamic Republic has its hand on the throttle of the world’s economic engine: the stretch of ocean at the mouth of the Persian Gulf known as the Straits of Hormuz,” Arthur Herman wrote in 2006, before specifying a scenario that reads now like a daily news report. He also quoted from a leaked Iranian military document which called for “closing the Hormuz Straits through a combination of anti-ship missiles, coastal artillery, and submarine attacks,” demonstrating conclusively that Iranian tactics were always predictable.

Share

Iran has clearly shown the world that it has been seeking a nuclear weapon, admitting in negotiations that it possesses enriched uranium and several sites at which to weaponize said material. It has likewise proven that it has longer-range ballistic missile capability than previously disclosed by trying to strike the US base on Diego Garcia, around 2,500 miles from Iranian soil. Both of these programs had been officially denied, yet they have shown themselves all too real. Iran’s government has also proven the hawks right when it comes to its attempt to control Lebanon via its proxy Hezbollah. Israel has been beating back Hezbollah for quite some time; now the group is seemingly weak enough for the previously-cowed Lebanese state to actively oppose it. Beirut has ejected Iran’s diplomats, sought to disarm Hezbollah, and has engaged in direct high-level negotiations with the Israelis for the first time in three decades – a process which the Iranians, despite their protestations, have been left out of entirely. Tehran has even gone so far as to threaten the temporary ceasefire if Lebanon was excluded, terms that neither America nor Israel agreed to. Iran’s behavior in negotiations has also proven the hawks prescient, as it has constantly shifted its demands, sought to include terms not agreed by the other parties, and repeatedly violated the agreements it chose to make. Iran is clearly not a good-faith negotiating partner, something its opponents have been correct about from the start.

Much has happened since the start of this war just over two months ago. But one thing has become clear above all else: the Iranian regime is a unique danger to America, Israel, the region, and the world. Its own actions have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it is engaging in unprovoked attacks against its neighbors, illegally closing a critical international waterway, trying to control Lebanon via Hezbollah, or reneging on its own deals, the Islamic Republic has shown that it is a bad actor that must be constrained, if not destroyed. On that front, the hawks were absolutely right.

Share

Subscribe now

On Episode 35 of the Rational Policy Podcast, hosts and return to our regularly scheduled show format, where we discuss a number of topics in the news this week. Naturally, we spend much of the podcast discussing the latest assassination attempt against President Trump – the fourth such attempt in less than two years. We explore the attempted assassin’s rationale, what it says about the apocalyptic rhetoric of the far-left vis a vis Trump, and how this particular attempt is especially worrisome. We also detail the security situation around the president – what worked and what needs to be changed – and how we may be able to move away from this growing cultural push to justify political violence. After that, we do a lightning round, hitting on a wide variety of topics in rapid succession. We talk about the war in Iran, focusing on the blockade and the news of the UAE leaving OPEC. We discuss the ideologically-suspect Spirit Airlines bailout. We touch on the bogus criminal case against James Comey. And we hit the Virginia gerrymander and the recently-decided Supreme Court voting rights case.

Depending on the developments over the next week of the Iran War, we may keep this normal podcast format or go back to our one-topic Iran focus. Only time will tell.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, go enjoy some more playoff hockey. Cheers!

Subscribe now

Since 2015, the Trump phenomenon has upended quite a great deal about the previously run-of-the-mill politics of the American right. In capturing the Republican Party and dominating it thoroughly over the course of a decade, the politics of the MAGA movement have become ascendant. Sometimes, those politics overlap with the previous instantiations of the American right. But oftentimes they do not. Nowhere is that more obvious than on economics.

Despite some continuity on tax cuts and deregulation, MAGA economic policy looks very little like that of the old guard conservative right.1 The ascendant New Right is populist, statist, pro-tariff, pro-union, anti-free trade, interventionist, hostile to Wall Street, and seemingly uninterested in the national debt. These positions either diverge from or are antithetical to the modern American conservative movement. They fly in the face of the iteration of the party that was considered the ‘establishment’ as recently as 10 years ago, the one that won thousands of elected offices over the course of and in opposition to the Obama administration. But the populist MAGA movement has almost entirely usurped that version of the Republican Party, replacing it with a more traditionally left-coded economic vision.

One of the (few) saving graces of Donald Trump is that he does not always buy into the ideology that his adherents try to craft around him. We have seen this most powerfully in his second term when it comes to foreign policy; many of his most fervent and vocal supporters – often heavily in the Vance camp – were part of the restrainer faction that wished to push American retrenchment, if not isolationism. Happily, Trump has bucked those folks decisively, notably with the ongoing Iran War. Unfortunately, when it comes to economic policy, the president is more aligned with the populist faction. And his administration has been putting those policy prescriptions into practice over the first year and change of his second term.

Subscribe now

The most recent example of this MAGA leftism comes with the administration’s plan to bail out the failing Spirit Airlines. In the possible $500 million rescue package for the low-cost carrier, the federal government would have the potential to own upwards of 90% of the airline as it emerges from bankruptcy. Proponents of this bailout point to the aftereffects of the pandemic, the pointed refusal of the Biden administration to approve a proposed merger with JetBlue during a prior bankruptcy in 2024, and the recent increase in fuel costs due to the Iran War as good reasons to save Spirit. They also see a precedent to this plan in the auto industry bailouts during the 2008 Financial Crisis and the airline industry rescue during Covid. Besides the fact that many conservatives opposed those bailout schemes, this situation is nothing like the others. And the rationalizations that have been proffered for this intervention fall flat.

There is no systemic risk to the airline industry today. Spirit is going bankrupt yet again because of poor management and operations, not because of some broader issue that will drive other airlines into the same dire straits. If Spirit closes shop, the airline industry and consumers will not be much worse off. This is rescuing a company – one often considered the worst airline in the country – that has failed due to its own choices. That isn’t intervening on a sectoral scale, but an individual one. It is the epitome of picking winners and losers, and it comes with immense moral hazard. Why won’t other airlines or companies run themselves into the ground and expect a taxpayer bailout on the other end? If this is about saving jobs, plenty of American companies have more than Spirit’s 14,000 employees; what’s to stop them from following the Spirit playbook? Another bad argument is that this bailout must happen because the Biden administration failed to approve a merger that would have saved Spirit in 2024. But that does not make any logical sense from a conservative perspective. Just because a Democrat president did something bad, that does not mean that a Republican president should do something worse in response. And let me be perfectly clear: rescuing Spirit through a buyout plan is far worse than stupidly shelving a merger out of wrongheaded ideological predilections against corporate consolidation – predilections that many MAGA leftists share.

This sort of intervention into the market is nothing new for the second Trump administration. They have acquired shares for the federal government in a wide variety of companies covering vastly different sectors of the economy. They have acquired an equity stake in the semiconductor company Intel that amounts to nearly 10% of its ownership, worth almost $9 billion, ostensibly to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing. They have partnered with the private nuclear company Westinghouse to build $80 billion worth of nuclear plants across the country, with the potential for 8% US ownership of the company if and when it goes public – something made far more likely with this massive infusion of capital from the federal coffers. Another major equity deal was made with the rare earths mining and processing company MP Materials, giving the Department of Defense 15% of the company in order to supercharge the creation of a purely domestic rare earths and magnet supply chain. Several other deals, often at least tangentially related to national security sectors, have been inked, totaling nearly $21 billion before the Spirit deal. This is undoubtedly the biggest spending spree on strategic corporate equities from the federal government since the Second World War.

Share

But most of these legitimate objectives – increasing nuclear power construction, building a durable semiconductor supply chain, onshoring rare earths mining and magnet manufacturing, ensuring a steady supply of critical materials for the defense sector – could be accomplished without making the American government into a direct investor, with all the new interests that status creates. By investing in these companies directly, the federal government becomes interested in their profitability, their status vis a vis their rivals, the regulation of these companies in particular, their specific tax treatment, their position in lawsuits, and more. That only incentivizes favoritism and creates an enormous conflict of interest. Instead, the government could work to achieve those useful ends via different means. Those could include guaranteed purchase agreements, direct no- or low-interest federal loans, long-term contracts for construction of factories or processing capacity, favorable tax treatment, setting price floors for critical materials bought by the government itself, or public-private partnerships in specific projects. The Trump administration has used some of those tools, but the direct investment status undermines the broader independence that the federal government could maintain had it not pursued that path.

These direct investments in companies are not the only way that the Trump administration has aggressively inserted itself into the private sector in a manner that most resembles the traditional ideas of the left. The administration has mooted a cap on credit card interest rates, long a left-wing priority, as they claim that the rates are too high and are causing too much consumer debt. Besides the fact that this abrogates the classical conservative promotion of personal responsibility, it is also a terrible idea. Not only does it reduce consumer choice by disallowing credit card company innovation, it will likely lead to a massive reduction in the credit available to low-income households – these borrowers simply pose too much of a repayment risk to offer credit at such artificially low rates. Interest rates are not arbitrary constructs, but market prices of borrower risk. If we constrain that pricing mechanism, we will reduce the supply of credit to high-risk borrowers. That starts a vicious cycle that ends up harming the poorest among us and removing from them the opportunity to build credit and advance economically.

Similar price interference has come at the expense of pharmaceutical corporations, with the White House launching an executive order that essentially creates enforceable price targets on certain drugs, and one not limited to those medications the government itself pays for. If companies do not show “significant progress” toward achieving these targets, the order directs the Department of Health and Human Services to enact hard price controls, potentially revoke FDA approval for drugs, and use the Department of Justice to investigate pharma companies for antitrust violations or other anticompetitive practices. This is an extremely coercive use of federal power against private American businesses – some of the most innovative in the world, mind you – to force them to comply with a federally-set pricing scheme. It would reduce research and development of new drugs, incentivize investment elsewhere, give foreign copycats a leg up, and undermine an industry that has been one of the key drivers of modern American prosperity. This policy could have just as easily been promoted in a Kamala Harris administration, to the same ill effect.

Subscribe now

Another left-wing policy embraced by the Trump administration and the broader MAGA movement it leads is an attempt to ban institutional investors from owning single-family homes as investment or rental properties in a larger real estate portfolio. The White House explains this policy as a means of creating more affordability for regular American homebuyers and paving the way for their realization of the American Dream of homeownership. But this will do nothing of the sort. Large institutional investors like Blackstone – a favored bogeyman of the left since the 2008 financial crisis – own a minuscule portion of the US single-family housing stock and a similarly-small portion of the single-family rental stock. They have reduced their inventory of housing meaningfully over the past few years, seeking to diversify out of the sector. They are really no competition for ordinary folks. And when they do invest in housing, they often promote rent-to-own schemes or new developments, both things that help deliver more housing to more people, usually the less well-off.

One of Trump’s earliest anti-conservative economic policies was his promise not to touch entitlement spending – the largest line items in the federal budget and the primary drivers of our national debt. He has been consistent about this since 2015 and the MAGA movement has followed him. His support for this spending, which has only grown over the past decade, was, in the classic leftist mold, a pure giveaway. Instead of promising gifts to poor voters, however, this giveaway was to older voters, many of whom traditionally lean Republican. Trump has shown no interest at all in tackling the looming entitlement crisis or even the ballooning national debt, incurring massive debt-driven expenditures over his two terms in office. For a party that spoke often about the debt and entitlement problem, the speed at which its voters – and many of its leaders – changed course entirely was both surprising and disappointing. The left was wrong about entitlements and the mortgaging of our shared future as a nation. The right shouldn’t have followed their lead, but Donald Trump brought them straight along that primrose path. We’re all going to be worse off for it.

Policies aren’t the only outlet for the president’s economic MAGA leftism; personnel surely matter, too. Historically, Trump has hired more traditionally conservative figures for his key economic advising positions – with the exception of his insane picks for trade positions, ones that fit his peculiar obsession with tariffs.2 But in this second term, he has added some true believers in MAGA leftism to the Cabinet.

The most notable appointment in this vein was former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, previously a GOP representative in the House who partnered frequently with progressive politicians on economic issues. She was a favorite of organized labor, an institutional constituency that opposes the vast majority of conservative labor policies like Right to Work laws, the ending of public sector unions, and the broader push for pro-business and pro-growth policies. She was one of the few Republican co-sponsors of the PRO Act, a bill that attempted to make illegal various forms of freelance or independent work, stifling the freedom of Americans to contract as they please and eliminating a wide variety of new jobs like rideshare driving, independent delivery, and temporary online work – all in order to favor union labor. She has thankfully left the administration, but not due to her progressive policies; she was scandal-ridden, to boot. Her departure has not altered policy, nor was she the lone MAGA leftist in the Cabinet. Far more important in that regard is the man trying to become heir apparent to the Trump movement: Vice President JD Vance.

Vance has been the leader of the economic populist front in the second Trump administration, building on his brief Senate career, during which he championed these ideas and often made common cause with progressives in the process. Vance promoted various anti-free-market interventions while in the Senate and has been a leading supporter of the aforementioned MAGA leftist policies. He has repeatedly praised former Biden FTC chair Lina Khan, one of that administration’s worst economy-related picks. Khan wielded antitrust law as a cudgel to slow growth, hurt American businesses, limit the freedom of corporate decision-making, stifle American innovation, and harm consumers in the process. Of course, she did not think she did any of these things, but the results don’t lie – the Spirit failure, the iRobot bankruptcy, and several other corporate failures are due to her overbroad interventionism. Now, unsurprisingly, she is working for the hardcore leftist mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani. Vance has also worked in the Senate alongside progressive stalwart Elizabeth Warren, co-sponsoring economic populist legislation and joining to attack business and increase the regulatory burden in a misguided effort to help ordinary Americans. If Vance does indeed earn the mantle of Trump heir, he will firmly install MAGA leftism in the Republican Party, throwing out classically conservative economic ideas.

Donald Trump is no leftist. In fact, he may be the most outwardly and rhetorically anti-leftist president of my lifetime. But that does not mean that all of his administration’s policies – or even his personal instincts – always follow suit. On the economic front, this is especially pronounced. The MAGA movement is far more like the progressive left than it is the conservative right when it comes to those critical issues. They are big government statists who seek federal intervention in the free market, are skeptical to hostile of large corporations, support big labor unions, promote price controls, and abhor Wall Street, the tech sector, and the pharmaceutical industry. If you laid these policies out in front of someone from 2010, 2000, 1990, or 1980, they would label them as left-wing; that the ostensibly right-wing MAGA movement has embraced them does not change their partisan valence.

MAGA leftism is very real and it is an utter repudiation of the conservative view of economics. One can only hope the fever breaks after Trump himself leaves office, but that may very well be a pipedream, especially if Vance is his successor. If both sides of the partisan divide embrace failed progressive economics, America will be much worse off.

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In this episode, hosts and once again plumb the depths of the events in the Middle East. We discuss the latest developments in the Iran War, including the escalating naval conflict and the potential for future negotiations with the regime in Tehran. Is this a lull in the war, or the start of a new phase? We explore the near-global American blockade, the continued Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz, and the impact on markets. We also talk about the increased prominence of American economic warfare in this conflict and the potential for success in this approach, continuing to drastically weaken the mullahcracy. We discuss the changes in Iranian leadership, the impact that has on negotiations, and how this conflict may end. The change in posture in the Gulf states, the American domestic political dimensions of the war, and the broader geopolitical implications of it all are detailed as well.

As always, we will continue to monitor the situation and give you our thoughts each week.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, go enjoy some playoff hockey. Cheers!

Subscribe now

Episode 33 of the Rational Policy Podcast sees your hosts and deliver a sixth consecutive update on the Iran War. On this installment, we discuss the newly-implemented American blockade of Iranian ports, how it could impact the next steps of the conflict, and how it helps solve the biggest concern of critics thus far: the navigability of the Strait of Hormuz. We also talk about the possible endgame of the war, whether negotiations with the Iranians are ever worthwhile, and what may happen to the remaining nuclear material inside Iran. Other topics include the Lebanese front and the bilateral discussions between Beirut and Israel, the enormous economic pressure being put on Tehran, and even some talk about AI.

A bit of a shorter episode this time, but rest assured, we’ll be right back at it next week.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, let’s enjoy this return to classic naval strategy and tactics. Cheers!

Subscribe now

One of the most popular arguments that has been proffered against the Iran War is that it has caused a spike in gas prices for American consumers. This has been a top attack line for Democrat politicians, commentators and pundits, and social media talkers. They contend that the war against the Iranian regime is already a failure because we now need to pay more at the pump to fill our vehicles and may need to continue paying higher prices for several months, largely due to the oil supply disruption caused by the fighting. This impact on the American consumer is presented as reason enough to have avoided entering into a war against Iran and certainly a strong rationale for stopping it as soon as possible, even if that means settling on Tehran’s terms.

Reader, this argument is absolute blatherskite. It is nonsense. It is so detached from the reality of how statecraft works that it should be utterly disqualifying for the person spouting it. And yet it is treated as a real ‘gotcha’ for those of us who support the conflict. It is nothing of the sort.

Subscribe now

To be sure, higher gas prices are impactful to the average American. They are one of the key expenses that most US households incur on a weekly basis and play a huge part in how we perceive the economy writ large. Higher prices at the pump are noticeable and meaningful to many Americans, especially those who have long commutes, live in rural areas, or enjoy traveling by car. In short, people don’t like paying more for gas, something which they basically cannot avoid buying. In a representative democracy like ours, public opinion matters. Citizens being upset about higher prices should be something that politicians take into account when making decisions. But it cannot be the decisive factor in those choices, particularly when it comes to long-term geopolitical or strategic calculations.

Prices are fickle and highly manipulable. They are the sum total of all information about a product or service: what sort of work goes into it, the raw materials required, the incidental costs like shipping and overhead, the demand for it, the alternatives to it, the broader interests of the entity selling it, and myriad other factors. That means that any nation or non-state actor with the ability to alter any of those factors in a significant way has the ability to make a meaningful impact on the price of a good or service. Prices are highly variable for widely-traded commodities, especially those with markets as liquid as that of oil. Actions like serious threats to a trade chokepoint, direct attacks on trade, destruction of production or transfer capacity, and other supply disruptions all could be leveraged to control prices for geostrategic purposes. As we are seeing in Iran right now, even a largely imaginary threat – in that there are not frequent attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz – can be extremely potent. But America simply cannot allow these sorts of malign actors to use their disproportionate leverage to force us into backing down.

First, the price gambit cuts two ways; the market is highly responsive to actions going in either direction. America has the most powerful economic levers in the world available to us and we can use them to counter these moves or reset these markets over time. When the price is for something that is traded in the volumes that oil is, the responsiveness factor increases dramatically. In short, Iran will not be able to manipulate gas prices forever, nor would other similarly-situated actors be able to sustain their gambits in high-volume markets like oil. If we were to cower at every temporary price increase for important goods, we would make ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable to foreign enemies manipulating our society and defeating us without even having to fight. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by bad actors out of mere temporary inconvenience. That is untenable for a superpower and would be tantamount to embracing national decline.

Unfortunately, this is not something that the average American dealing with higher gas prices will be thinking about when he is sidling up to the pump. He does not spend his time looking out for the needs of the country in the long term, but his own needs in the here and now – as he should. He is very easily influenced by temporary, yet noticeable, changes. And that is exactly why we have elected representatives who are meant to turn that normal American view on its head, prioritizing the long-term interests of the country over the short-term interests of the self.1 If we are to be successful, the best interests of our nation, particularly when it comes to the complexities of foreign affairs – something of which the citizenry is largely ignorant2 – need to be stewarded by people who are able to abstract themselves from the vagaries of the moment. That includes price pressures, upcoming elections, or media headlines.

Share

Steering the ship of state requires a helmsman that is not going to be driven inexorably by the waves and currents of geopolitics, but one that can navigate those changing currents to arrive at the best possible destination. Statesmanship is not about bowing to the supposed political exigencies of the now or succumbing to pressure from the easily-swayed populace below; it is about persevering through them to pursue what you believe is the best path forward for the future of the nation. It is not about following the masses, but leading them. It is about using your judgment, in trust for those whom you represent, to make wise choices, even when they cause temporary discomfort. Unpopular or hard decisions are often the right ones. And long-term strategy can require short-term sacrifice. As such, statesmen can earn enormous credit over the long term, but risk suffering immense blame in the short – sometimes even for the very same actions.3

But statesmanship is not politics. Politicians succeed by getting elected and remaining in power, or getting their friends and parties elected and into power. That means being far more responsive to the temporary whims of the electorate, which are, once again, very easily influenced by malign foreign actors. It means caring more about tomorrow’s gas prices than about degrading an inveterate foe of the United States and a close partner of our greatest adversaries over the long run. That means that good politicians can make very bad statesmen.

America does not need any more of these good politicians. We need some statesmen. Only time will tell if there are any more in Washington.

Subscribe now

Share

I’m once again back in the pages of National Review, this time with an essay covering an important medium- and long-term plan to reduce Iranian leverage over the Strait of Hormuz: the expansion of the regional energy pipeline network. Pipelines aren’t the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Gulf energy exports, but the region currently boasts one of the world’s largest pipeline networks. Many of these pipelines are intended by bypass the maritime chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and they can already handle sizable volumes of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) - just not enough to make the Strait secondary. But that could - and should - change given the Iranian regime’s actions in closing the waterway. In this piece, I explore the promise and pitfalls of this approach, detail the potential expansions to the pipeline network, and lay out why this is a good idea for Gulf states going forward. It may not be a silver bullet, but it sure is beneficial.

Below is an excerpt, but the whole essay can be read here.

In the short term, the only real way to solve this problem is to reopen the strait, either by deal or by force. But there is one potential solution, built for the medium and long term, that is far more intriguing: expanding the regional pipeline network to shift energy exports elsewhere, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and mitigating the Iranian threat.

The Middle East already boasts one of the world’s largest networks of energy pipelines, moving critical commodities across large distances for internal consumption and export. The biggest and most important is the East–West Crude Oil Pipeline in Saudi Arabia, which has been expanded to handle about 7 million barrels per day (bpd) since the start of the war in Iran. That pipeline cuts over 700 miles across the Arabian Peninsula, moving crude from the oil fields in the country’s east to export terminals along the Red Sea in the country’s west, bypassing the chokepoint at Hormuz. The Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline is much smaller, handling about 1.5 million bpd, and travels a shorter distance, moving crude from areas abutting the Persian Gulf to ports on the Gulf of Oman, allowing tankers to avoid transiting the strait. There are other pipelines, both for oil and natural gas, running from Iraq to Turkey, Qatar to the UAE and Oman, and Egypt to Jordan and Syria. These pipelines are not currently able to handle the massive volume transiting the Strait of Hormuz by sea, but they are already significant bypasses to that waterway. And they have room to grow.

Constructing new pipelines is certainly a good idea for the Gulf states, as it would reduce Iranian leverage over the medium and long term. There are several factors that make this a strong investment for nations seeking to avoid an Iranian stranglehold over their economies. The Gulf states are extremely dependent on revenues from energy exports and have seen Tehran attack them directly; they have every incentive to reduce Iran’s power over their countries. These nations are non-democratic regimes with little in the way of procedural roadblocks to building new infrastructure. They do not need to deal with the eminent domain claims, environmental review processes, property rights, or lawsuits that slow major infrastructure projects in America to a crawl. These nations are also flush with cash and usually control these projects at the national level, removing many typical roadblocks to speedy development and construction. New projects could expand on existing infrastructure, connecting current pipelines to one another or growing the network to new export nodes. We could see more pipelines heading to Red Sea ports, as well as potentially northward and directly to the Mediterranean via nations like Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and, if the Abraham Accords are expanded, perhaps even Israel.

While there is immense long-term promise in this approach, pitfalls abound. Huge infrastructure projects like this take time to build, despite the fact that Gulf nations have few of the regulatory hurdles that we do in the West. They are large-scale construction projects that require planning, purchasing, logistics, and financing. If they are crossing the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula, they are extremely long and will be passing through some of the most remote and difficult terrain on the planet. The center of the Arabian landmass is primarily inhospitable desert, alongside mountains and ridges that are challenging to traverse. Companion infrastructure — roads, railways, power transmission, water provision — is lacking as well, making the construction more time-consuming and demanding. Transnational pipelines bring additional hurdles, including diplomatic issues in a region that is infamous for its constantly shifting multilateral relations.

These pipelines are also not entirely immune to malign Iranian influence. Depending on the route, Tehran can continue to threaten ships carrying oil or gas. If the export terminal is in the Gulf of Oman, beyond the Strait of Hormuz, ships still need to pass within missile or drone range of Iran’s coastline before exiting to the open ocean. If the pipelines end at Red Sea ports in order to transit the Suez Canal or the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the threat of Iran’s Yemeni proxy, the Houthis, becomes salient. The Houthis have already demonstrated their willingness to attack shipping in the Red Sea, launching multiple attacks at commercial vessels during the Gaza War. These threats will only be fully avoided if the pipeline terminus is directly on the Mediterranean, a longer and more diplomatically complex route. Pipelines are ripe for attack or sabotage, either directly by Iran or via its terrorist proxies. They are static targets that run for hundreds of miles, exposed against the open desert, and damaging even a small portion of the pipeline may be enough to shut it down entirely, at least temporarily. Defending infrastructure like this is a significant challenge, whether from aerial threats or traditional sabotage operations.

Subscribe now

Share

I was back on the excellent Break It Down Show with my pal Pete Turner this morning for a discussion of all things Iran. We talked about the ceasefire (or lack thereof), the upcoming US-Iran negotiations, the potential for further combat, the immense successes of the American military, the challenge of the Strait of Hormuz, the various political factors driving the leaders of the US and Israel, the future of Iran after the regime, and why I still believe that the Islamic Republic is fatally wounded. And this is just a taste, as we hit several other topics too, from the impact of social media on the information environment to the historical aberration that was the 1990s. There’s even a theological reference to Saint Augustine in there. Nobody can say that we skipped a subject on this one!

Subscribe now

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the BIDS YouTube page for more great content. Enjoy!

On Episode 32 of the Rational Policy Podcast, hosts and talk about something entirely different. Just kidding, we talk about the Iran War, obviously. We catch up on everything that has happened since we last convened, starting with the incredible combat search and rescue feat that our military pulled off over Easter weekend, safely evacuating a downed airman from Iranian territory. We explain how this amazing feat of arms proves how truly special our military is and what it means for future operations. Next, we discuss the risible social media posts from President Trump threatening mass devastation on Iranian infrastructure, teasing out whether he was ever serious about them and how the overly outraged reaction (“He’s threatening genocide!”) undermined a very solid argument. Finally, we spend most of the podcast detailing the apparent ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran. Detailing may not be the right word given the complete lack of specifics and the seeming inability for anyone involved to agree on what terms were actually approved, but we break it all down regardless. We discuss whether this pause is necessary (it isn’t), if it will end the war (it won’t), and whether it will make it the full two weeks (doubtful).

Despite the temporary truce, this war is not ending yet. And we will be on top of every development each week.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, let’s see how long this ceasefire lasts.1 Cheers!

Subscribe now

I am very excited to have made my debut on the Reagan Caucus Podcast this past week, talking all things Iran War. The podcast, a bastion of Reaganite conservatism in a MAGA world, is an excellent resource for those of us who are of the right, but not wholly dedicated to the Trump movement. On this episode, we discussed a wide variety of subjects surrounding the war against the Iranian regime, from America’s underappreciated success and the potential collapse of the mullahcracy to the challenge of the Strait of Hormuz and the media’s wishcasting of failure in this campaign.

Share

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the Reagan Caucus Podcast on YouTube for more great content. Enjoy!

Subscribe now

My latest piece for Providence Magazine lays out the case that the war against the Iranian regime is directly in American interests. First, I detail the false narratives that this war is imperialist, religiously-motivated, and on behalf of Israel before concretely debunking them. Then I explain exactly why the Iranian regime is a dangerous foe, how it has been attacking us since its genesis 47 years ago, and why defanging and ultimately defeating it is good for America. I’m biased, of course, but I don’t think there are many clearer articles describing why Iran is our foe, the threat it poses to Americans and our interests, and how our military operation is working successfully to address those threats. When this article is combined with my other writing on the topic, you get a broad picture of why we’re fighting this war and why it is necessary for the future of American security.

Below is an excerpt, but the whole essay can be read here.

The mullahocracy that currently runs Iran overthrew the Shah’s regime 47 years ago; they have been attacking America, our citizens, and our interests ever since. One of the first major acts of the then-new regime was taking dozens of Americans hostage at our embassy and holding them for 444 days. They have illegally interdicted neutral shipping in international sea lanes, going as far back as the 1980s, attacking oil tankers and shooting at U.S.-flagged vessels. The regime is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, dispatching its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) across the region and wreaking havoc around the world. They have funded and supplied Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, various Iraqi militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and Gaza. They have directed terrorist attacks on nearly every continent—including against American embassies. They were the architects of the 1982 Beirut barracks bombing that killed scores of U.S. troops. And they were the primary supplier of the IEDs that killed hundreds and maimed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic’s hands are drenched in the blood of Americans.

The mullahocracy has only accelerated its dangerous and destabilizing behavior in the past decade. The regime has been racing toward a nuclear weapon, only slowed by American sanctions, Israeli assassinations, and the joint U.S.-Israel attack on the program in June 2025. It ramped up its ballistic missile program, seeking to build an arsenal of short, medium, and long-range projectiles, essentially trying to replicate the North Korean playbook. Simultaneously, it has created a sizable suicide drone industry, using them against regional targets and proliferating them to its ally, Russia, for use against Ukraine. It used its proxy force in Yemen to forcibly shutter the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait via drone and missile attacks in late 2023, choking off global access to the Suez Canal via the Red Sea. It launched a multi-front war against Israel that began with the worst antisemitic pogrom since the Holocaust, one that resulted in dozens of American deaths and hostage-takings. It has planned assassinations on U.S. soil, ranging from the Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad to the current president of the United States. It is the world’s hub for sanctions evasion, aiding many of the world’s bad actors in lessening the sting of America’s powerful economic penalties.

Perhaps most importantly for America geopolitically, Tehran is a key player in the range of powers arrayed against America. Iran sells a great deal of oil to China at a discount, avoiding sanctions and cementing the bilateral relationship. China, in turn, sells Tehran weaponry that it uses to carry out its aggressive regional aims. One of Russia’s biggest supporters against Ukraine has been Iran. Until the defenestration of Nicolas Maduro, Tehran and Caracas were tightly aligned, especially on the sanctions evasion front. Iran cooperates militarily with North Korea, often buying Pyongyang’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technologies. And before the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, Iran was that dictator’s closest ally, helping kill hundreds of thousands of Syrians in the past decade alone. In short, Tehran is a key player in the alliance of authoritarian states seeking to overturn the U.S.-led world order.

Subscribe now

Share

Episode 31 of the Rational Policy Podcast sees your hosts and discuss the developments in the Iran War after a month of intense fighting. First, however, we spend some time praising the incredible Artemis II mission and America’s return to the Moon, a beacon of national unity in a time of political strife. In the war update, we break down Trump’s address to the nation, mentioning the rhetorical successes and what was left on the cutting room floor. We talk about the stated rationale for the conflict, the progress detailed by the president, and the potential endgame for the war. Issues like the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear material, and the future of its ballistic missile and drone program are mentioned. We also discuss how this war is reshaping regional and global alliances, the role of outside actors in reopening the Strait, and the recent firing of a top Army official by Secretary of War Hegseth.

We will surely have more on this war as things develop, so stay tuned.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, let’s all root for the safe return of our brave astronauts. Cheers!

Subscribe now

On Episode 30 of the Rational Policy Podcast, hosts and recap another week of developments in the only story really worth discussing: the war against the Iranian mullahcracy. We talk about the current state of play, the possible challenges to come, and the vast successes thus far. We touch on the Strait of Hormuz and whether its temporary closure is as big a deal as it is being made out to be, the potential for the collapse of the regime, the global and regional realignments currently reshaping geopolitics, and the impact of this war on other theaters of future conflict, from Asia to Europe.

Things are moving fast, but rest assured, we will be here with our best takes on the developing situation.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, let American B-52s rain destruction upon the Islamic Republic. Cheers!

Subscribe now

I had the pleasure of once again appearing on my friend Pete Turner’s excellent Break It Down Show, alongside Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale, to discuss the recent developments with the Iran War. We talked media spin, the Strait of Hormuz, regional and global realignments, messaging ambiguity from the White House, and more. It was, as always, a wide-ranging and fascinating conversation that is well worth your time.

Check it out at the embed above and be sure to visit the BIDS YouTube page for more great content. Enjoy!

Subscribe now

I’m very happy to be making my debut in the pages of The Vital Center, an excellent magazine focused on reclaiming the classical liberal tradition and bringing different voices together to have the debates necessary for American flourishing. In this essay, I fire a broadside against a large group of Never Trump conservatives who have allowed their hatred of Donald Trump to overtake their love for our country, selling out their purported principles along the way. The most telling example of this has come with the Iran War, something many of these figures supported and promoted for decades before it was finally undertaken by the man they despise more than anything else. As such, they have entirely reversed themselves and are now rooting against American success. For a group that has long claimed to put ‘Country Over Party’ to vote for Democrats and “save” the Republic, they sure seem to have lost that ethos when the shoe is on the other foot.

I thoroughly enjoyed writing this one and calling out a segment of the political class that I find about as distasteful and cynical as anyone. I hope you enjoy reading it just as much. Below is an excerpt, but the whole essay can be read here.

This is the biggest problem: not that these Never Trump figures are opposing the war against Iran, but that they are doing so in complete repudiation of their supposed principles and prior public positions, simply because they detest the man in the Oval Office.

Many of these figures, best represented by Bill Kristol, have supported the idea of forcibly changing the regime in Tehran for nigh-on 20 years. They have argued against diplomatic negotiation and for military action to end the Iranian nuclear program. They clearly recognized and publicly expostulated the case for why the Islamic Republic posed a significant threat to American interests and security. They wrote policy papers, penned essays, led organizations, and promoted political candidates in favor of this message. And now that their decades-long quest is finally coming to fruition, they have done a complete about-face.

Instead of supporting a righteous war against a serious, longstanding threat to American security—one that was actively in the process of pursuing nuclear weapons and a conventional ballistic missile deterrent to protect that program—many Never Trumpers have turned wholesale against it. They no longer seem to recognize the danger posed by Tehran, even though it has palpably increased over the past decade, one in which they launched the October 7 war against Israel and tried to assassinate opponents on US soil, notably the current President of the United States. They no longer seem to see the utility of using America’s incredible military power to achieve national objectives. They no longer seem concerned that they are consciously parroting the talking points of the enemies of America. The worst part is that every last bit of this is due to the man who was duly reelected as president less than two years ago.

The Country over Party set is not making reasoned critiques of the specific tactics or stratagems of the administration but rooting wholesale against American victory, simply because it might hurt Donald Trump’s approval ratings. They uncritically repeat the press releases of the Iranian regime, taking their word as bond; at the same time, they strenuously question and distrust the facts proffered by our military and civilian leadership. American strategy is poorly reasoned, and our tactics are either inadequate or over-the-top, depending on which is more beneficial to the narrative at any point in time. For example, the US has been criticized for not having secured the Strait of Hormuz immediately, while also being attacked for sinking an Iranian warship on its way back to that combat zone—an action without which we would be unable to secure said waterway.

These statements are meant only to craft a narrative of failure, regardless of the actual results and even if their arguments are self-contradictory. As long as they work in the moment, that is all that matters. It is cynical posturing that has one guiding principle only: antipathy for Donald Trump. Anything can and will be used in service of that principle. And anyone can and will be aligned with—from the progressive Squad and Tucker Carlson to the Iranian regime itself—to do so. But there is simply no need to do this. If Donald Trump decided to say that puppies and babies are cute, it is not incumbent on an opponent of his to argue that they’re hideous. That is especially true if that same person had been praising that adorableness for decades prior. That is the position that the Never Trump opponents of this war find themselves in. It is a test of their actual principles, and they are failing miserably. In short, their hatred for our president has overwhelmed their love for our country.

Subscribe now

Share

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! On episode 29 of the show, hosts and discuss the new developments over the past week of the Iran war. We talk about the extraordinary military success of the US and Israel, how the Iranian regime is being battered, and what sort of tactics and strategy we may be seeing in the coming weeks. We touch on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz - the impact on global energy flows, the Iranian ability to maintain the closure, and what we can do about it - the rise in Islamic terrorism here at home, and the potential for regime change in Tehran. We also detail the absurd media and internet reactions to this war, including the plethora of pundits and politicians who are obsessed with preemptively labeling it a failure, in spite of clearly observable reality.

Tune in to hear these thoughts and a whole lot more, as we continue to assiduously monitor the situation.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, may the Islamic Republic of Iran rot in hell. Cheers!

Subscribe now

If you’ve been following the war against the Iranian regime over the past week and half, especially in legacy or social media, you will have been bombarded with a constant stream of negativity and criticism. We’ve heard that there is no strategy whatsoever, that American interests are not served by this war, that it is a waste of blood and treasure to combat the Iranian regime, and that there are several ways for this campaign to fail in the future. These are not all unfair critiques of a major geopolitical move by the Trump administration, but they are only one side of the ledger; there are just as many alternate views of the conflict that arguably have more merit. That they are, by and large, not receiving the airtime or promotion that the negative perspective has is telling.

The media opposition to this war comes in two primary flavors: the anti-Trump camp and the anti-Israel camp. The former is more liberal-coded, while the latter primarily resides on the far ends of the political horseshoe, linking the antisemitic online right and the progressive left. Normally at loggerheads, these disparate factions have tacitly joined hands in an attempt to incept a reality in which America is already failing. The coverage choices, the purported “experts” being relied on for analysis, the points of emphasis, the breathless doomsaying, the deliberate downplaying of American and Israeli military success, and the uncritical repetition of talking points coming straight from Tehran are all evidence of this deep-seated bias. They are not merely analyzing reality, but trying to warp the perception of it to support their preconceived narrative. The particulars of those narratives differ – some blame Trump personally, some blame “American imperialism,” others blame Israel and the perfidious ‘neocons’ for embroiling us in another Middle East regime change “forever war” – but all come down on the same side: Iran’s.

This has gone beyond expressing reasonable doubts about an American military campaign in which several servicemen have been tragically killed. It has moved firmly into rooting for our failure and trying to wishcast it into existence. They are no longer operating in our shared reality, but in one entirely of their own making, in which up is down and left is right. Their analysis of events is almost completely upside-down, painting obvious successes as devastating failures, all in service of a predetermined narrative that seeks to undermine the United States. Examples of this abound, but six are worth specifically countering given their prevalence and reach.

Share

Iran is Winning, Actually

This is, by far, the most egregious of the bogus talking points that has permeated the online discourse surrounding the war. It is completely detached from the objective reality of the situation, often fully reversing the outcomes. We have seen claims that the US navy has been unable to operate for fear of its Iranian counterpart; in the real world, the Iranian navy is largely sitting on the seabed and America has a dominant position in the region. We have seen people aver that Iran “just defeated the combined military power of Israel and the US in less than two weeks”; the truth is the polar opposite, as Iran’s military is in utter shambles across all domains and the US-Israeli operation holds total air superiority over the country. We have seen the favorite guests of the isolationist, antisemitic, “America First” right, Scott Ritter and Douglas Macgregor, suggest that Iran has “already accomplished its primary goal,” despite all the evidence to the contrary. And we have seen a 386,000-follower Twitter/X account post this absolute gem of creative writing:

“Iran is waging an almost perfect asymmetric war, absorbing the attacks, strategically rendering the surrounding bases unusable, destroying radars, and maintaining control of the Strait of Hormuz while still preserving its missile launch capability. And it’s doing all of this after losing very little of its navy, air force, or overall arsenal, something we can easily verify by checking the visual evidence of losses. The US and Israel are in an extremely difficult situation because they only know one kind of war: brute-force destruction. Now they’re facing a strategically well-positioned Iran that is fighting on its own terms and timeline.”

None of this is true at all. Iran’s missile launch capability has been degraded enormously, with launches of drones and ballistic missiles down over 70% from the first days of the war. This is due to the aerial destruction of stockpiles, launchers, and factories, the three legs of Iran’s retaliatory stool. Most Iranian attacks have been targeted not at American and Israeli bases, the vast majority of which have sustained little significant damage, but civilian areas of uninvolved countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Azerbaijan. This is not strategic, but haphazard and reckless. The Iranian navy, air force, and arsenal are largely unusable, either having been obliterated from the air or forced into inaction by the threat thereof. Tehran certainly isn’t fighting on its own terms given the immense damage it has already sustained – and we’re only two weeks in.

These are the worst offenders on social media, but their overall sentiment – that America and Israel are losing this war – has been repeated throughout the media. The chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times quipped that “Operation Epic Fury is in danger of turning into Operation Epic Failure.” Outlets from the BBC to CNN have uncritically repeated Iranian regime propaganda showing serious US losses and strong Iranian resilience, only to be corrected by direct visual evidence provided by the American military. Politicians, pundits, and partisans alike have exaggerated Iranian strength and invented American and Israeli weakness. This is wishcasting of the highest order. It seeks to create a false narrative by slicing, dicing, and rearranging reality, ignoring anything contrary to the preconceived notion meant to become common knowledge. Every other ridiculous claim addressed below springs from this one noxious fountain.

Subscribe now

Now the Real Hardliners Are in Charge

Another spurious narrative that has been promoted widely in the media is that the killing of the Ayatollah and much of the military and leadership hierarchy has empowered the real hardliners in the Iranian regime. According to these outlets, the newfound vigor and radicalism of this recently-elevated faction will spell doom for America and Israel, thus making this operation a total failure. A similar talking point, espoused by some on the isolationist right, is that all we have done is replace one Khamenei (the late Ayatollah) with another (his son, Mojtaba, who was declared Supreme Leader this week), once again proving our ineptitude. After all, what did we even accomplish if the new leaders are the same as or worse than the previous cadre?

To understand the innate wrongness of this argument, we must go back in time to the Obama administration, when this term – hardliner – became widely popularized and routinely used as a cudgel against those who opposed that president’s nuclear deal. Back then, these mythical hardliners were always lurking in the background, threatening to take over and make things worse for America if we didn’t kowtow to the purported moderates who were running the country at the time. Fast forward a decade or so and the term has returned with a vengeance, used primarily by the same people and media mouthpieces that pushed it then. And they’re using it for the same cynical purpose: to denigrate any and all action against the Iranian regime.

The problem is that the hardliners were always in charge. There were no moderates. Even the most milquetoast of Iranian political or military figures have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Israel. The same Ayatollah ruled over the country since 1989. The totalitarian nature of this millenarian theocratic regime has never changed. The moderates during the Obama administration were fresh off the killing of hundreds of US troops in Iraq. They were actively engaged in building a nuclear weapons program and a ballistic missile arsenal with which to deliver them. They were funding global terrorism and driving the devastation of the Syrian Civil War. The current crop of moderates (often the same people) launched a genocidal war of extermination against Israel in 2023, attempted to close the Red Sea and Suez Canal to international shipping, launched attacks on regional oil infrastructure, and provided the drones by which Russia has assaulted Ukraine. Oh, and they just murdered over 30,000 of their own citizens in a weekend. In short, there are no moderates. Everyone is a hardliner.

Given that core truth, what we have gained from these decapitation strikes is clear. We have killed the most experienced, well-known, influential, powerful, and meaningful figures in the entire Islamic Republic of Iran. The men who would run a war, order the mass repression of civilian unrest, work closely with allies (our enemies), stifle internal dissent, and present a strong face to the world were dispatched in one fell swoop. This was an absolute coup. Now, the military apparatus of the regime is dispersed, isolated, and disunified, making it much harder to consistently act in force against America, Israel, and the Gulf States.

As for Mojtaba, several factors make his choice less of a danger than the media is posing it to be. First, he very well might be dead. The strike that killed his father seems to have seriously injured him, as he has not made any public appearances since being elevated, nor has he spoken to the nation as promised. In a genuinely hilarious turn of events, he was represented by a literal cardboard cutout at a “major” pro-regime rally – no, I’m not making this up. Second, if he isn’t dead yet, he probably will be soon. The new leader is immediately a target for assassination, and I don’t doubt that Israel would be able to pull that off. Finally, the younger Khamenei’s elevation to Supreme Leader, reportedly at the behest of the IRGC, undercuts one of the regime’s main claims to legitimacy: the fact that it was not a hereditary monarchy. Replacing one Khamenei with another puts the lie to this claim, removing one of the few things that made the clerical regime ‘better’ than that of the Shah. Altogether, replacing one Khamenei with another is a pretty damn good outcome for the first 10 days of the war.

Share

China is the Real Winner

This talking point has rapidly proliferated across social media, largely by accounts that seek to focus entirely on the threat of China and ignore other regions. (I have long been a proponent of focusing on the Indo-Pacific as our primary theater of geopolitics, but that does not mean that we should ignore everywhere else.) They argue that since we are now ‘bogged down’ in the Middle East once again and using some of our weapon stocks to defeat the Iranian regime, the Chinese government will benefit and perhaps even invade Taiwan while we’re busy elsewhere. This argument fails in a number of ways. First, as I laid out in my essay on the subject for Junto (see below), the attack on Iran is a slap at China, too. It reduces, if not outright removes, a major source of cheap oil for Beijing, without which an invasion of Taiwan is less likely. If China does not have ample fuel to power its war machine, it cannot get said machine to work in an optimal manner – something it will have to do to successfully invade Taiwan. Iran is a major hub in the sanctions evasion network, allowing rogue regimes across the planet to avoid America’s powerful financial penalties. Cutting off that expertise and routing node will make it harder for Beijing to sidestep our economic weapons. Tehran is also a close ally of Beijing; weakening or removing that regime from the playing field hurts China immensely.

Junto Magazine

This Was The Plan

America is at war. This weekend, American and Israeli forces attacked the Iranian regime, hitting military installations, sinking the Iranian navy, and destroying much of the Islamic Republic’s offensive and defensive capabilities. The regime has been degraded, undermined, and, indeed, decapitated – the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, …

Read more

3 months ago · 13 likes · 10 comments · Mike Coté

When it comes to using stockpiles for this mission, thus reducing our capabilities in the Pacific, the narrative also fails. Weapons and ammunition are not just for show. They serve as a deterrent to action, but their primary purpose is to be used to defeat our enemies. And that is just what they are being used to do now. The temporary relocation of assets to the Middle East will not permanently undermine our deterrent capacity in Asia, no matter how many times analysts claim it will. Stockpiles are already being replenished under last year’s defense budget and in concert with America’s defense industry – the Trump administration is proposing an even larger military budget for 2027, which would include plenty of money to refill stockpiles. We are also able to use less advanced and expensive munitions due to our overwhelming success thus far, opening the skies over Iran for safer and cheaper bombing runs. At the same time, China cannot invade Taiwan on a whim or at a moment’s notice. It took us months to build up our forces in the region to handle the current war on Iran, a far less complex undertaking than a massive seaborne invasion across nearly 100 miles of open ocean. The threat in the Middle East was imminent compared to the medium and long-term threat in the Pacific. Taking out Iran now helps pave the way for a better defense against China going forward.

The Nuclear Lie

Opponents of this war have suggested that one of the stated rationales for this conflict – Iran’s continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons – is a red herring. They say that the Trump administration is either lying now about the continued Iranian program or was lying last year when they said it had been largely destroyed. But these are not mutually exclusive claims. The highly-advanced Iranian nuclear program was heavily damaged in Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, when American bombers struck several nuclear sites, demolishing key equipment and burying more under tons of rubble. Those strikes did indeed significantly degrade the program, setting it back years. The president, with his usual exaggeration, claimed it had been “obliterated,” but the less hyperbolic members of the administration explained the damage accurately. At the time, the president stated that, if the Iranian program were to restart, we would destroy it once again.

That sets the stage for the current day. In the past eight months, the regime has indeed tried to reconstitute its nuclear program, albeit in a different form than before. Instead of focusing exclusively on creating miniaturized nuclear warheads deliverable by ballistic missile to nearly anywhere on Earth, they have worked to simply achieve the most basic nuclear weapons possible, akin to dirty bombs. This gives them the ability to threaten nuclear destruction sooner, even if it is less credible in some ways. But combined with the regime’s global terrorist network, even these basic bombs could be devastating. The mullahcracy was rapidly moving in this direction, as well as building as large a short and medium-range missile arsenal as possible so as to deter strikes like those of Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury. Had they succeeded, they would be on a glide path to nukes. The regime having a dangerous nuclear program now does not mean that their previous dangerous nuclear program was not mostly destroyed last year. Those who claim otherwise have either been fooled themselves or are trying to fool you.

Subscribe now

The Venezuela Playbook Failed

Outlets as respected as the Financial Times have published stories suggesting that the Trump administration tried to use the same tactics as it did in the Maduro capture operation in Venezuela against the Iranian regime, but failed spectacularly. They suggest that the widening of the war and the replacement of one radical Khamenei with another radical Khamenei shows the truth of this botched operation. The problem with this assertion is that it is patent nonsense. The plan was never to do a snatch-and-grab of the Ayatollah and engineer his replacement with a pliable tool at the top of the regime; it was to defeat the Iranian threat and create the conditions under which the Iranian people could successfully overthrow their oppressors. This was clear from the get-go, with the military objectives outlined by several administration figures falling directly in line with this approach. And this was even predictable before Operation Epic Fury commenced, as the American military buildup in the region far outpaced that of the Venezuela theater. Any action taken against the Iranian regime was destined to be more extensive and longer lasting due to the assets being moved into the area and the nature of the regime itself, something the administration has been clear-eyed on. The Venezuela playbook didn’t fail in Iran because it wasn’t even on the table in the first place.

War Crime via Submarine

As with any American military expedition, the cries of “war criminal” have already begun to echo throughout the media ecosystem.1 The most spurious version of this allegation stems from the sinking of an Iranian frigate, the IRIS Dena, by an American submarine in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Sri Lanka. Several so-called ‘experts’, notably one Tom Nichols (a former professor at the Naval War College), claimed that the use of a submarine and the choice to sink the ship were both unnecessary and quite possibly unlawful, suggesting instead that the US Navy use a surface warship to capture the boat. Some went further, claiming that the Iranian ship was both unarmed and caught completely unaware without any warning whatsoever. They aver that these circumstances, plus the distance the frigate was from the main battle zone and the lack of a rescue attempt for survivors, made this sinking illegal.

Reader, I’m going to be blunt: this argument is complete garbage. The United States is under zero obligation to allow an Iranian frigate to return unmolested from a naval drill to threaten other American warships, no matter how far it was away from the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the area in which it was sunk was directly astride the critical sea lines of communication used by US forces to coordinate and deliver logistical support to the campaign in Iran, making the ship into a more direct threat. There have been reports that the submarine did indeed warn the ship – a warning that went unheeded – that the frigate was indeed armed, and that there was at least one other Iranian vessel in the general vicinity to engage in search and rescue, alongside the Sri Lankan ships not too far away.2 The fact that we used a submarine instead of a surface ship is immaterial besides the fact that it is both cool and uncommon. Indeed, this decision endangered fewer American lives than any attempted seizure would and gained the objective more easily and effectively.

It was not only not a war crime; it was exactly how we should carry out a naval war. You’d think that a lecturer at the Naval War College, of all places, would understand that.

There are myriad other ludicrous arguments against this war, all trying to preemptively paint it as a strategic and tactical failure. But the key thing to remember here is that it has been less than two weeks. Trying to present this war as a long-term strategic failure is laughable this early in the game, especially as we have not even seen the heaviest and most significant attacks against the regime yet. Ignoring the obvious tactical successes – or worse, imagining them as failures – presents a totally false notion of what is happening in reality. Let’s be perfectly honest about this: it is a deliberate choice meant to sow public distrust of this campaign and shape its outcome in a negative manner for the United States and a positive one for the Iranian regime.

For social media influencers who earn their keep by parroting the propaganda lies of our enemies, this is to be expected, if still countered vigorously. For American media outlets, politicians, and pundits, it is tantamount to rooting for your own countrymen to die. Whether they reached this sad state of affairs because they despise the president personally, hate Israel (and the Jewish people), or think America is a bad actor globally who deserves a comeuppance matters far less than the fact that they have reached it.

Beware those who are pushing this false narrative, regardless of why they are pushing it. They do not have America’s best interests at heart. Some are actively working against our interests and in tacit support of our enemies. Remember the people who are imagining American failure and rooting for it to happen. But don’t listen to them.

Share

Subscribe now

We’re back! After a brief hiatus, the Rational Policy Podcast has returned in its full glory - and not a moment too soon. Join your hosts and for a wide-ranging discussion on the one topic that matters right now: the war against the Iranian regime. In this episode, we break down what is happening, why it is happening now, how the war against the mullahcracy is in American interests, and how this may all shake out. We talk about the wild Iranian response and how it proves the danger the regime poses, our incredible military prowess, and whether the “day after” really matters as much as critics claim it should.

This war is just beginning, so think of this episode as our first reaction to the developments thus far; we will surely have plenty more to say in the coming weeks on the show. If we missed something you’re interested in hearing our opinions on, let us know in the comments and we’ll try to touch on it next week.

Share

Check it out, follow us on Twitter/X (Mike / Art), and share the podcast with anyone you think might appreciate it. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back next week. Until then, Go America! USA! USA!

Subscribe now