I am once again quite excited to be back in the pages of The Dispatch, this time delving into an issue that I have become something of an expert on: Greenland. In the piece, I argue that the new deal struck between Copenhagen, Washington, and Nuuk is a good one that repairs a lot of the issues inherent in the prior 1951 agreement, including removing it from the NATO orbit, centering American homeland and hemispheric defense concerns, granting the US broader basing, transit, and military rights, and giving us a permanent and total veto on any non-NATO presence on Greenland. That last item is the real victory here, as it allows us to ensure that no Chinese project gets approved on the island without our say-so; given China’s history of weaponizing dual-use projects for gray zone warfare, this is a major win. I also aver that the deal itself could have been struck in a friendlier manner far sooner, but that the counterproductive bluster of the president did not derail it, nor permanently damage trilateral relations.

Below is an excerpt, but you can read the whole thing here.

Unfortunately, our Danish and Greenlandic friends are ill-equipped to deal with these new geopolitical challenges and opportunities. But the United States is. Neither Denmark nor Greenland has a direct interest in maximizing the hemispheric defense potential of this Arctic landmass. But America does. The Danes and Greenlanders may wish to better secure the territory, but only the U.S. has the ability to do so. America has a population 57 times larger than that of Denmark, lies much closer to Greenland geographically (about 1,200 miles versus approximately 1,800 miles), and spends more on defense in a week than Denmark does in a year. Greenland’s population would make it only the sixth-largest city in Idaho, but it is tasked with controlling a territory three times the size of Texas—the mismatch is obvious. Washington, however, is well-equipped to handle the defense of Greenland, particularly against the gray-zone warfare commonly used by our adversaries, as well as maximize its utility as a bulwark for hemispheric and homeland security.

The problem we face is that the long-term structure of the trilateral U.S.-Denmark-Greenland security relationship was ill-suited to the challenges posed by our modern adversaries. The 1951 agreement that governed our current security relationship was built for an entirely different world. That deal foreground Danish sovereignty and granted America rights only at the sufferance of Denmark. It said nothing about American homeland defense, nothing about economic rights or sensitive dual-use sectors, and nothing about what would happen to the agreement if the NATO status of any signatories fundamentally changed. Given the rapidly changing threat picture, the salience of Greenland to U.S. homeland defense, and the importance of maintaining a Greenland free of malign foreign influence in accordance with U.S. interests, the existing arrangement needed updating. And that is exactly what this new deal achieves.

Denmark did not sell us Greenland. It did not give up its sovereignty over the land. America did not invade the island militarily, nor did we make it the 51^st state. All of that was unfortunate bluster, mostly from the president himself. But what we did achieve was perhaps more meaningful and certainly less costly than a purchase and annexation would be. This new deal, the text of which was released last week by the White House, gains us significant new advantages and rights. It certainly is not a mere repeat of the 1951 agreement and includes many necessary updates to help secure Greenland and U.S. interests well into the 21^st century.

One of the most important changes in this new agreement was to make it permanent and separate it from the related NATO treaties that were initially incorporated into the 1951 agreement. The prior agreement lasted “for the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty,” tying America’s ability to pursue its own security needs in Greenland to the existence of NATO. The new deal remains operative even in the case of Greenlandic independence, a party leaving NATO, or the end of the Atlantic alliance altogether. Ideally, NATO will remain intact in perpetuity, but planning for contingencies is highly useful, particularly when it comes to such a vital security interest.

Similarly, removing the idea that this agreement was part and parcel of the parties’ NATO responsibilities allows for a greater focus on specific American security interests that may not fall directly under the aegis of the Atlantic alliance. The security of the American homeland is not directly mentioned in the 1951 treaty, only obliquely referenced. The focus is instead on collective security for NATO members and the implementation of “NATO plans” as agreed by the whole of the alliance. The new deal explicitly foregrounds the security needs of “the American continent,” putting it on equal footing with the direct security of Greenland as well as the aforementioned North Atlantic Treaty area. This is a meaningful alteration that preserves for Washington the right to act in our own domestic and hemispheric security interests, without any reference to joint NATO decision-making or planning. Increasing our sovereign ability to act unilaterally in our own interests to protect the homeland is a major step forward that helps solve many of the potential issues inherent in the older agreement.

On top of that, America’s freedom of action has been improved in other ways. The U.S. can, by right, establish and control two renewed defense areas without additional consultation with local or Danish authorities. We are able to establish future defense areas ourselves, only interfacing with the Danes and Greenlanders on implementation. We have slightly greater freedom of movement for personnel, weapons systems, military vehicles, and materiel than we did under the prior deal, and we’ve also gained undersea transit rights—a must for Arctic security going forward. In multiple instances in the new deal, the word “shall” replaces the word “may,” which might seem like a minor change, but does in fact grant us the ability to do things by right that may have required advance consultations in the past. Other useful changes include the incorporation of unmanned systems in the treaty, the direct inclusion of the planned “Golden Dome” domestic missile shield project, and language dealing with counterespionage cooperation. These are all meant to bring our defense situation in Greenland up to date and modernize the controlling language in the agreements so as to embrace technological change and account for the basic shifts in the threat picture both toward Greenland and the American homeland.

Finally, and certainly most important, the new deal plainly excludes America’s biggest rivals, notably Russia and China, from establishing any sort of meaningful Greenlandic presence, whether military or economic. This is the biggest win in the agreement for the U.S. and was, according to the adminstration, the primary reason for seeking to alter the status quo. Still, some may suggest that directly prohibiting non-NATO bases or investment in strategic economic sectors—a term this agreement defines fairly broadly—is unnecessary given that it has not happened yet and, in the minds of these critics, would not happen in the future. It seems quite obvious that Russian involvement in Greenland would be a non-starter in Copenhagen, but Beijing is a different animal entirely, especially when it comes to economic power. China has successfully pressured nations far stronger and more populous than Denmark and Greenland, it has used investment in strategic sectors to gain inordinate influence and forward CCP ends, and it often camouflages nefarious intent behind ostensibly neutral activity. This deal presumes to exclude outside influence, requiring active agreement between all parties that the proposal in question does not “constitute a threat to national security or public order.” This is tantamount to a total exclusion of nations like China from any meaningful role in Greenland in perpetuity. Ensuring that Washington has this permanent veto over any Chinese involvement in Greenland is an enormous win for American homeland defense.

Subscribe now

Share

The Rational Policy Podcast is back with Episode 53! In this installment of the show, your hosts and spend the duration talking about the United Nations General Assembly and all of the foreign policy happenings that are taking place alongside it. We discuss the overall utility of the UN – spoiler alert: it has none – and how it would be better off if they just relocated to a villainous underwater lair. That would certainly be more in character for that dastardly organization than is its current home in midtown Manhattan. We talk about some of the logistical and security challenges of hosting such a huge international event, as well as the absurdity of the idea that America lets our enemies come here unmolested to rail against us from a podium we largely paid for.

After those pleasantries – we love ragging on the UN here at Rational Policy! – we dive into the meat of the matter and talk about all the big developments and meetings occurring on the sidelines of UNGA. We talk about the Trump-Xi meeting and how the best-case scenario is an unfruitful, ideally angry, discussion, as any concessions to China are bad for the country. Then we break down the latest news out of Greenland, exploring the new security deal agreed to by all parties and explaining how this is not only a significant change from the previous 1951 agreement, but an absolute boon to American domestic and hemispheric security. We shift after that to the Middle East, where we go into an Iran update and talk about how Iranian leaders should never have been allowed into the US for UNGA. Finally, we travel to Europe, where we talk about the progress of the Ukraine War, explore the Russian way of combat, and discuss how Putin may escalate to save his own bacon.

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 with another great episode. Until then, go watch the classic James Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me. I promise you won’t regret it (and you’ll get all of our references). See you next time!

Subscribe now

** This is the eighth in a recurring series, in which I offer some modest proposals – in the venerable tradition of Jonathan Swift – for American and international politics. **

If there has been one dominating story over the past few weeks, especially online, it has been the mainstreaming of AI doomerism, a movement that argues for varying degrees of restriction on the development of artificial intelligence so as to preserve the future of humanity. The story has been driven by recent “whistleblowers” who left companies like OpenAI and Anthropic due to their supposed concerns for safety protocols in the industry. These former employees, now often either working directly with or receiving funding from progressive NGOs, have been on a media blitz, talking about how they believe that this technology has a greater than 10% chance to “kill all humans” “within the next decade.” Their rhetoric around this issue has been positively apocalyptic, presaging absolute doom for mankind and the total annihilation of all human civilization. They prophesy Armageddon, with rogue superintelligences roaming a world fully depopulated of people, ending tens of thousands of years of human progress in one fell swoop. It will really be the end of the world as we know it.

These predictions of utter and complete devastation are made with extreme, almost performative sincerity, yet come with few details as to how we get to there from here. How does an AI go from hallucinating fake court decisions to killing 8,000,000,000 human beings? How does it go from making halfway decent photoshops – if prompted correctly1 – to eliminating the human race? How does it jump from being a better version of Google to destroying civilization? Nobody has ever really laid out the pathway via which the current version of artificial intelligence – primarily large language models (LLMs) – gets access to anything that would have the chance to actually end the world. Would they get control of nuclear weapons, biological agents, or drone swarms? Would they set off EMPs, weaponize connected devices, or ruin crop yields, causing famine? How would this work?

Subscribe now

And if this is actually what these people believe – including the founders, programmers, and safety teams of the companies on the forefront of AI development – why aren’t they acting like it? Why are they seeking greater funding, whether from capital markets or private and institutional investors? Why are they pushing IPOs and new debt issuances? Why are they seeking to incorporate their products into every business and sector under the sun, including government? Why are they trying to make their products mainstream and bring them into most aspects of daily life? Why are they constantly pushing their models forward and innovating new capabilities? Why are they seeking regulation from the federal government and international authorities instead of simply shutting down their companies? Why are they still doing this?

Well, it could be because they’re incredibly stupid, but I find that highly unlikely. What is more likely is that they don’t actually believe what they’re selling the public and are choosing to push this narrative forward for other reasons. Those could range from incumbents seeking regulation to entrench their advantages over newcomers to agents of foreign influence trying to give their own countries (cough, China, cough) a leg up over America in the AI race. But whatever the motivation, the core here is that, by and large, the AI doomers are not living as though they believe the hype.

My modest proposal is to change that. We should make them live as though what they are saying is true.

Share

The AI doomers should exchange their lavish lifestyles in America’s largest and most vibrant cities for spartan living off-grid in the remote tundra of the Alaskan Arctic. They should shut down their companies and exile themselves to a place where they cannot create further world-ending technologies. They should work the land, husbanding their resources for the inevitable apocalypse they claim will come in the near-future. They should create entirely self-sufficient communities that cannot be destroyed by rogue AI, operating outside of the high-tech world we live in today and foregoing the advances of the future. That means not using anything AI-related whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly. No using medications that were developed with AI. No using delivery services that use AI for routing assistance. No eating food that was harvested or planted with the aid of AI. No banking, no investing, no using payment systems that utilize AI. Nothing at all.

Let them live as though they actually think we will all die in a decade. Don’t let them push this cataclysmic narrative without putting their money where their mouth is. If they really think AI – a technology they are still developing as we speak – is an existential risk to mankind and human civilization writ large, make them act like it. No more development. No more profit. No more investment. No more fame. No more technology. No more easy living. Embrace your doomsaying and live like you are preserving yourself from the end times.

And if you would prefer not to do that, you should probably just shut the hell up about it.

Share

Subscribe now

I was back on the always-interesting Break It Down Show today with my friends Pete Turner and Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale, this time to discuss everything Greenland. We talked about the new trilateral agreement struck between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk that grants America far greater rights in and control over the future of Greenlandic - and thus American - security. We detailed the differences between the current deal and the pre-existing 1951 agreement, the importance of Arctic security for American homeland security, the need to economically exclude China from the region, and the blatant falsehoods that have been promulgated in media about this agreement. We also spoke about the Treasury Department’s focus on economic warfare under Secretary Scott Bessent and how that approach can help transform America’s unique control of global finance into serious leverage against our adversaries. Tune in for plenty of geopolitics talk, lots of serious factual analysis, and some fascinating digressions on munitions, leadership styles, American innovation, and more.

Subscribe now

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

Share

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In this installment, our 52nd (!) to date, your stalwart hosts and dive into a grab bag of the week in news and politics. We skip over some of the repeat topics that we usually address - Iran, Israel, Ukraine, China - and touch on some other subjects that caught our eye instead. First, we take a listener request from my friend Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale to discuss the potentially looming breakup of the United Kingdom. We talk about the history of British unionism (and secessionism), the challenges to the current version of the UK, and the very real problems its constituent parts - and the US - would face if our top Atlantic ally fell apart internally. Next, we touch on last week’s Republican midterm convention, noting it as a good idea in an age of nationalized politics, but one that was executed poorly. (Good ideas badly executed may be the overarching theme of the entire second Trump administration.) After that, we spend some time on a broader and more serious topic: whether artificial intelligence will kill us all. We talk about the big money and progressive politics behind the AI doomer clique, the role of China in pushing anti-AI fervor in the US, how we should regulate this industry (if at all), and why this technology is just a tool for humans, neither inherently good nor bad. Finally, we jump head-first into the online right-wing fever swamps, detailing the latest dust-up over who counts as an American. We go hard at the faulty idea of Heritage Americans, explore the dangerous and anti-American ideology of the New Right, describe the malign networks promoting racism and Christian nationalism, explain the funding mechanisms behind this attempt to alter the civic compact, and provide a better, actually conservative, way forward.

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 with another great episode. Until then, enjoy the early beginnings of the best season of the year: autumn. See you next time!

Subscribe now

It was a bright, clear, sunny, almost unseasonably warm Tuesday morning. It was a week or so after Labor Day and the summer season was finally over. Kids were back in school, people were back at work, and everyone was seemingly trying to get back into the rhythm of normalcy. It was primary day for the mayoralty of New York City, with various candidates jockeying to succeed the term-limited Rudy Giuliani. Baseball was deep in its playoff push, with the Seattle Mariners chasing the best record in baseball history and the New York Yankees pursuing a fourth consecutive World Series title. The NFL and college football were just kicking off their seasons, with great expectations for the St. Louis Rams’ “Greatest Show on Turf” and the loaded Miami Hurricanes, respectively. People were gearing up for the big last quarter push before the holiday season. And then, in an instant, none of that mattered.

At 8:46am Eastern time, al Qaeda hijackers deliberately piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan. Just over 15 minutes later, at 9:03am, a second group of Islamist terrorists flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower. About half an hour later, at 9:37am, a third set of hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. At 9:59am, the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed into a cloud of smoke, dust, rubble, and humanity. At 10:03am, the heroic passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 overpowered the terrorists who hijacked their aircraft and crashed the plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, averting what may have been a planned attack on the White House or Capitol building. At 10:15am, the section of the Pentagon that was hit by Flight 77 collapsed. Less than 15 minutes later, at 10:28am, the North Tower in lower Manhattan came down, burying thousands of Americans, living and dead, under the rubble. On that morning, 2,977 Americans were murdered. They were burned alive, crushed under the weight of concrete and steel, suffocated from smoke inhalation, blown apart by the explosion of airliners, and forced to hurl themselves out of windows 80 stories up simply to avoid those other, more painful fates.

In just under two hours, the world had irrevocably and permanently changed. So had my life. At 8:46am, I was sitting in 7^th grade English class in Ramsey, NJ, just about 30 minutes as the crow flies outside of New York City, talking to my friends about what we did over the summer, how excited we were for the Yankees going into the playoffs, and what we were going to be doing in class that day. All of a sudden, our teacher stepped out into the hallway and returned a moment later, completely ashen-faced. We were told that a small plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers, but nothing more. As time went on that morning, I realized something much worse than what had been told to us had happened. Whether it was the terrified visages of the adults around me, the whispered rumors of other ‘crashes’, or the way that everyone seemed to be scrambling to figure out what to do, I knew something was badly wrong. By 10am or so, the truth could no longer be hidden, especially as teachers just stopped teaching and parents began to rush to the school to take their kids home to safety. But not everyone’s parents could show up. Many worked in the city, some downtown, some in the sprawling WTC complex.

I distinctly recall the feeling of dread when I got in the enormous line to wait for the lone payphone in our school, hoping to talk to my mom or dad, the former of whom worked a few dozen blocks north of the Trade Center in midtown Manhattan. Thankfully, both were safe, but I was one of the lucky ones. Several of my classmates were sadly not. Landlines were down across the region, cell phones were rare, and chaos reigned. Most kids could not reach their parents, sparking fears of the worst. And even though many of those parents were safe, the interminable wait for contact was visibly emotionally wrecking these children. Tears flowed from middle schoolers as though they were teething babies, completely inconsolable. On the seemingly perpetual drive home, we went down Route 17 in northern NJ, as usual. What was not usual was the view. Instead of the picturesque skyline of the greatest city on the planet, the city I grew up admiring and visiting, I saw clouds of smoke and fire, looking like God had slashed a line of utter blackness through the clear late-summer sky. I knew then that things were never going to be the same.

When I went home that day, I was glued to the news, watching the images and videos of the planes hitting the towers, the people leaping to their deaths to avoid being burnt alive at their desks, and the genuinely terrifying clips of the towers coming down onto the busy streets below. I am not a particularly visual person when it comes to memory, but those images are seared permanently into my mind’s eye. I could not forget them, even if I tried. But I do not want to try. Because the memory of the reality of that day, September 11, 2001, must live on. We must understand the truth of what happened – not a sanitized version. We need to understand who did this to us and who supported it. We need to confront the demonic ideology that murdered nearly 3,000 of our countrymen on one Tuesday morning. We need to remember the heroic actions of ordinary Americans, the lives evilly stolen from us, and the lives that continue to be lost due to that heinous terrorist attack. Most of all, we need to learn the lessons of that awful day and apply them today – because they are as relevant as ever.

Perhaps the most immediately pertinent such lesson revolves around Islamic terrorism, Islamism more broadly, and the threat of global jihad against Western civilization.

Contrary to popular belief, the United States did not lose the Global War on Terror that we launched in response the monstrous assault on our nation that bright September day. We have not fully won it either – yet. That is because the war against Islamic terrorism is an ongoing project, one that has waxed and waned over the past quarter century, but remains active today. In one way or another, we have fought al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen; ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and Africa; Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen; al Shabaab in Somalia; and myriad other smaller affiliated groups across nearly every continent. We have degraded them all, but the threat has not been totally eliminated – nor can it ever be. The vitriolic hatred of the West, represented most clearly by the United States of America, that these Islamic terrorists maintain cannot be scoured from their brains. We cannot change their minds, nor their hearts. What we can do, however, is make it far more difficult for them to act on those malignant impulses. And that we have done well and can continue to do – if we have the willpower and fortitude to do so.

Many may not remember the regnant feelings in the nation during the immediate aftermath of the attacks 25 years ago, but I do. At that point, the idea that this enormous attack would be a one-off and that no Islamic terrorist would succeed in doing anything remotely similar in terms of destruction or death toll in America felt like a pipedream. Everyone expected these sorts of catastrophic attacks to be the new normal, that everyday Americans would become targets across the country, wherever they were. People anticipated mass attacks on shopping malls, religious facilities, sporting events, concerts, and more. And, of course, everyone expected more hijackings and bombings of airplanes and airports. But, thanks to our vigilance, our law enforcement, our intelligence agencies, and our military, we were spared those horrendous outcomes – and not for lack of trying. Since 9/11, thousands of plots have been foiled or disrupted, saving countless lives in the process. There has been a great deal made of our ‘security theater’ and the infringements on civil liberties that came with things like the Patriot Act, but these interventions and others like them have been incredibly successful at preventing large-scale mass casualty attacks. In other countries, whether Indonesia, Spain, India, France, Belgium, or the United Kingdom, they have been less successful. Still, it is impossible in a free society to stop every lone terrorist while still maintaining our liberty – and we sadly have not stopped them all. But our success rate is astonishingly high, especially when viewed in light of the predictions at the time.

Share

A great deal of that is due to our focus on fighting terrorism abroad, stopping it from being able to grow its power and strike in our own country in a large-scale, coordinated fashion. And right now, on the 25^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Islamic terrorists and their global backers are weaker than they have been in decades, although the threat remains.

Iran – the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and the force behind much of the terroristic chaos of the past 20 years – is on the run, with a decimated military, a kneecapped nuclear program, a dead Ayatollah, and the inability to prevent us from exercising our will on them. The war against the mullahcracy, seeking to prevent it from gaining nuclear weapons and using them to destroy their enemies (that’s us!), is part and parcel of the War on Terror. In fact, it is about as close as we have come to directly, kinetically going after the actual sources of the problem, the funding networks that allow these cancerous jihadist movements to grow and expand. Tehran’s proxy network is similarly degraded, largely due to Israeli action after the atrocities of October 7 – the high-water mark of the Iranian axis. Since then, Hamas is being systematically destroyed in Gaza, Hezbollah is in shambles in Lebanon, and the Houthis are distracted by an internal Yemeni civil war, limiting their ability to project power against the US. All of these groups have been starved of Iranian funding through joint US-Israeli action, making it harder to execute their ignoble plans. Still, they remain in existence and continue to seek to harm us.

ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, is a shell of its former self, being dispersed throughout the world – primarily finding a foothold in the ungoverned spaces of Africa – and having its physical ‘caliphate’ in the Levant destroyed and reconquered. Its ability to execute and inspire terror attacks in Western cities, once a major threat that was very hard to predict and interdict, has been seriously limited. It has instead focused on carrying out its terror locally, often in the form of killing Christians or Muslims they deem heretical. Their ability to inflict such terror on local populations has not completely abated, but it is significantly reduced from its heyday a decade or so ago. The US continues working with local partners to stem this terroristic tide, but there are challenges in terms of their enforcement ability that allow these groups to persist.

Perhaps the most serious ‘defeat’ we took in the War on Terror, and one that is particularly relevant to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, is the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban and its return to enmity and terrorist sympathizing. When the Biden administration picked up and left Kabul in ignominy in August 2021, it handed the country – one that had been moderately stabilized and was requiring relatively little in terms of American investment – back to the same regime that aided and abetted the al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the murderous September 11 attacks. They left behind massive amounts of materiel, myriad Afghanis who had made the dangerous choice to support us, and 13 American soldiers who died during the evacuation. This was a deliberate policy choice, one that was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. It was also bipartisan. Both candidates in 2020 were dedicated to leaving Afghanistan to its fate and both parties had meaningful levels of support for the idea among their voting base. The loss of Afghanistan was, therefore, not inflicted from without, but from within.

And that is the biggest failure that we have seen in the aftermath of September 11: the manifestation of anti-American, anti-Western, Islamist sentiment here at home. This – not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not Iran – has been the most profound and destabilizing threat to our freedoms emanating from the jihadist movement. It has not resulted in dozens of large-scale mass casualty terrorist attacks, but it has led to the undermining of American culture, of American politics, and of American society. This problem, one that is rapidly metastasizing across the West – much more so in Europe than America thus far – has two key components: suicidal migration and integration policies that have imported millions of radicalized Islamists into our countries and failed to assimilate them, and the progressive left’s choice to align itself with this movement and use it as a cudgel against everything they despise about their own nations.

Over the past 25 years, due to a plethora of factors ranging from conflict in the Middle East and ungoverned spaces in borderland regions to transnational human smuggling enterprises and the allure of economic prosperity in the West, migration flows from Islamic countries rose dramatically. But that is only one side of the ledger. Had governments across the West, including here in America, chosen to oppose those flows and enforce stricter immigration controls and a more thorough vetting of asylum claims, the problem we face today would be minimal. Instead, though, they incentivized those flows by embracing these new migrants and ushering them into our societies with nary a concern for how they would be integrated into those societies. The choice to support these large flows of people from Muslim-majority states – cultures often deeply opposed to everything the West stands for – was a poor one. The choice to support those flows while simultaneously discarding the idea that new migrants should assimilate into the dominant culture extant in the nation was a cataclysmic one.

Subscribe now

These new arrivals have largely maintained their own separate and distinct identity, keeping hold of the backwards and anti-civilizational values systems they lived under in their home countries. They are a society apart in many ways, living under socio-cultural rules that would normally be anathema to the developed liberal nations of the West – values systems that are often diametrically opposed to the liberalism that has made our nations uniquely successful. These self-segregated communities, built around ideologies of radical Islamism that are fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization, are easily exploited by the promise of jihad against the supposed infidel decadence that surrounds them. Many of the perpetrators of the successful attacks against Western nations in the past quarter-century have emerged from these insular communities, serving as something of a fifth column against our societies. But the real danger here is, paradoxically, not the threat of terrorist violence. It is the political activation of these communities and the cynical embrace of their noxious ideologies by the progressive left for partisan gain.

This Red-Green Alliance, so named for the colors commonly representing socialism and Islamism, respectively, is a grave risk to modern liberal democracy across the West. And unlike the degraded state of the organized jihadist threat abroad, it is on the march. The left has ridden this alliance of convenience to electoral success in various countries and seeks to do so in even more. In that quest, they have allowed these unassimilated voting blocs to have an outsized role in coalition politics, kowtowing to their demands on issues like antisemitism, opposition to jihadism, and regulation of speech. They have outwardly celebrated or joined in Islamist marches to support terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, have downplayed or ignored evidence of rank antisemitism devolving into assault and intimidation, and have even made excuses for acts of Islamist terror carried out against their own fellow countrymen.

When it comes to the United States, this alliance has become quite powerful over the past few years, with the rise of political figures like Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City, congressional candidate Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and current congressmembers Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from Minnesota and Michigan, respectively. Every last one of these figures embodies the Red-Green Alliance, pushing progressive socialist economics alongside Islamist hatred for American ideals, Western civilization, and the Jewish people. Their own words and associations – including support for the murderous ideology behind the September 11 attacks, direct relations to al Qaeda front groups, and close ties to convicted terrorists and terror fundraisers – should be enough to indict them as unfit for office, yet they have gained prominence among Democrats and look poised to enact a veritable takeover of one of America’s two major political parties, warping it to support their malignant creed.

This unholy alliance of leftists and Islamists follows the progressive playbook to a T, using many classic rhetorical tropes to push their heinous brand of political activism. They embrace a false victimhood narrative, reverse causation to excuse murderous terrorism, and cry bigotry whenever they are pushed on these spurious claims. This is most commonly seen in the cowardly invocation of ‘Islamophobia’ at every turn when faced with criticism of this nakedly violent anti-Western ideology. This approach is nothing new, having been perfectly parodied by the late great comedian Norm Macdonald on Twitter in December 2016, but it has been ramped up meaningfully since the atrocities of October 7 and the outpouring of support for them among the Red-Green cohort in the West.

This idea that opposition to a despicable, evil, murderous ideology is somehow bigoted or beyond-the-pale is absurd. It is only deployed as a cudgel against opponents of the Red-Green partnership, used instrumentally to automatically label legitimate criticism as racist and shut down dissent. When it comes to the horrific events of 9/11, this has been a constant meme. For decades now, the left has claimed that the real victims of the September 11 attacks are the Muslim communities who faced backlash for the actions of people completely unrelated to them. This is quite obviously (excuse my French) bullshit. Not only was the backlash essentially non-existent – there have been vanishingly few instances of anti-Muslim violence in the West, especially as compared to population figures – many of the communities that have purportedly been unfairly tarred with association to this violent dogma actually embrace it. This is a serious and growing problem, particularly as these sentiments are even stronger among younger Muslims and recent arrivals.

Are all Muslims responsible for the attacks of 9/11? Absolutely not. But they are certainly not its primary victim group – that would be, contra the claims of the Red-Green cohort, Americans. And the widespread and increasing support for Islamist politics and jihadist violence, specifically against Jews, is not helping their case. The only reasons that this false victimhood narrative have been promulgated so widely on the left are that it degrades our historical memory of the atrocities that took place that day and allows for the reversal of blame and victimhood, privileging the aligned minority over the antagonistic majority. Let me be perfectly clear: the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam against ordinary Americans for the mere sin of being who they were, and they were cheered on at the time by broad swathes of the global Islamic community. That is a big problem and one that cannot be swept under the rug with cynical invocations of ‘Islamophobia’.

Share

And that brings us to the other false narrative pushed by the Red-Green cohort around the events of 9/11: that America somehow deserved it. This has been part and parcel of the leftist and Islamist narrative since the day of the attacks, that American policy choices in the Middle East brought this completely foreseeable consequence down upon our heads. This trope has been pushed by prominent professors of Middle Eastern Studies, popular online influencers with huge megaphones and close ties to Democratic political superstars, and even the former pastor of the church attended by Barack Obama before his presidential run. And it is utter nonsense.

First off, nothing America could do in terms of national policy toward Arab nations could ever justify the senseless murder of 3,000 American civilians. Our policies toward the region were not unduly destructive, nor did they deliberately impoverish or brutalize its people. They were normal decisions that would be taken by any major power seeking to make geopolitical strides in a far-off land. The biggest grievances espoused by people like Osama bin Laden and those who buy his rhetoric were our support for the world’s lone Jewish state against repeat genocidal onslaughts from its Arab neighbors, our choice to work with Arab monarchies to stabilize the region against violent, radical Islamist politics and Soviet influence, and our investment in the region’s energy sector. None of these come close to justifying the terrorism carried out on that Tuesday morning in September 2001.

Even if they did, attacking our policies means attacking our government, not our people. And 9/11 was a deliberate attack on our people, ordinary Americans who were doing nothing more than going about their day. This was an assault on them directly as well as on our society as a whole. But when we abstract the real victims from the events that caused their deaths, we lose perspective and fail to understand the ground truth of what happened – which is precisely what the Red-Green cohort seeks. When we re-center those victims, the narrative completely collapses.

Did the janitors, maintenance workers, and security guards who were killed deserve it? Did the commuters, subway drivers, and cabbies deserve it? Did the secretaries, paralegals, and bodega workers deserve it? Did the flight attendants, passengers, and pilots deserve it? Did the fathers, sons, and brothers deserve it? Did the mothers, sisters, and daughters deserve it? Did John W. Farrell, a loyal husband, dedicated father of four and my neighbor down the Jersey Shore, deserve it? Did his kids deserve to grow up without their dad? To go to college, get married, and have children entirely in his absence? What did he do to deserve his murder? What did they do to deserve this fate?

These are the questions that must be asked of those who spout this abject nonsense. Do not let them claim ignorance. Make them state outright which of the 2,977 victims who were murdered that day deserved to be killed and why they deserved to die. And make them deal with the reality of what they are arguing – that American citizens should be killed by foreign terrorists for the crime of simply existing as Americans – instead of hiding behind vagaries and abstractions.

This is the challenge of our time: whether we choose complacency in the face of this continued evil or whether we choose to confront it head-on and excise this cancerous coalition from the body politic. We cannot afford the former if we wish to survive as the America that we know and love. We cannot allow the Red-Green Alliance to overtake American politics and inculcate future generations with their sick ideology and warped narrative of the atrocities of September 11. Although jihadist terrorists may be on the run abroad, Islamism is on the march at home. The War on Terror is not over. When we think of it as being in the past – as the folks who seek to build a War on Terror memorial in Washington, DC do – we threaten our future. We may no longer care about Islamist terrorism, but Islamist terrorism sure does still care about us. Recognizing that reality and acting accordingly is the most important lesson we can take away from the devastation we saw 25 years ago today.

Subscribe now

But it is not the only lesson. A far more profound revelation was handed down that day, one that, if we remember it, will lead us through any challenges we may face as a nation, including the rise of the progressive-Islamist faction here at home. And that is that no matter the circumstances, no matter the odds, no matter the danger facing us, Americans are courageous, selfless, generous, sacrificial, resilient, and valiant when times are tough. Because we were not only victims that horrendous day. We were heroes, too.

I think of the brave men and women who found themselves on United Airlines Flight 93, a plane that had been hijacked and was on its way to being used as a missile to attack other Americans, likely in our nation’s capital. I think about the choices they had to make in the face of immense peril and certain death. I think about what it must have taken them to get up and rush the cockpit, overpowering the hijackers and crashing the plane into a field in rural Pennsylvania, saving hundreds, if not thousands of lives – at the cost of their own. Their courage in the worst situation imaginable is a testament to the American spirit. The words of one passenger, Todd Beamer, echo through history as a paean to action, even against all odds: “Let’s roll.”

I think of Stephen Siller, the off-duty FDNY firefighter who donned his gear anyway, ran several miles through the shuttered Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, and emerged to try and save his fellow countrymen from the murderous assault that had been unleashed upon them. He never made it back alive, dying in the collapse of the towers while trying to rescue victims.

I think of Rick Rescorla, the Vietnam veteran chief of security for Morgan Stanley in the South Tower, who ignored directives to shelter in place and directed nearly 3,000 of his charges to evacuate, saving their lives. He was last seen going back into the South Tower, looking for more people to help. His remains were never recovered.

I think of Welles Crowther, the young equities trader and Boston College alumnus, who donned a red bandanna to protect his face from smoke and fire and brought over a dozen people to safety, including carrying an injured woman on his back down 17 flights of stairs. He died after going back into the flames to find more survivors.

I think of the men and women who worked for months at Ground Zero to put out the fires, dig out survivors, clear rubble, and identify the deceased; many of whom died premature deaths due to the toxic chemicals and smoke they inhaled while doing these dangerous jobs. I think of the people who saw the towers being hit and immediately decided to sign up for the US military to avenge the murders of their fellow Americans. I think of the leaders who helped unite the country and bring us through one of the darkest nights our nation has ever faced. I think of the impromptu speech given by President George W. Bush while he was standing on the still-burning rubble just 3 days after the attack, in which he delivered perhaps the most impactful and stirring words ever spoken by an American politician this century: “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

These are the truly representative stories from that day, the selfless and courageous acts of ordinary Americans to save the lives of their fellow citizens, often at the cost of their own. This is what America is. This is who we are. And just like the beautiful, gleaming, 1,776-foot-tall tower that was erected at the World Trade Center site – a building I watched go up when I lived in Manhattan – we can overcome any challenge and come back even stronger and better. That is what we do. Because we’re Americans, goddamnit, and we are the stewards of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Never forget the victims of 9/11. Never forget the perpetrators. Never forget the continuing dangers posed by Islamist terrorism. And never forget that the American spirit is indomitable and unbreakable. Twenty-five years later, that is a lesson we can all take to heart.

God bless the United States of America.

Subscribe now

Share

The Rational Policy Podcast is back from our late summer break! After a few weeks off, we were champing at the bit to get back in the saddle and record; thankfully, the world of news seemed to slow down a bit while we were off, so we didn’t miss all that much. But now that Labor Day has passed and September has kicked off in earnest, we’re ready to bring you plenty of shows to round out the year, especially as the midterm elections rapidly approach. But we aren’t talking rank politics in Episode 51, instead focusing on foreign affairs and a solemn commemoration of a profoundly important anniversary.

We lead off discussing the recent developments in the Iran War, detailing the progress of the economic warfare campaign, the continuation of the blockade, and the Iranian response. We debate whether this approach will bring success - and if our political class has the patience to allow it to - as well as whether Iran still maintains a meaningful ability to hamper our regional interests. Next, we delve into a foreign policy issue closer to home, that of Venezuela. We talk about the newly-announced oil deal between Washington and Caracas, somewhat disagreeing as to what it means and how beneficial it will be to both parties. We also discuss the long-term approach to democratic transition in Venezuela and the Trump administration’s habit of undermining good ideas with poor execution. Finally, we reminisce about the 25th anniversary of the heinous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, talking about our personal recollections, the importance of continued vigilance against Islamic terrorism, and the failure of younger generations to treat this event with the solemnity and seriousness it deserves. We mention the powerfully moving 9/11 Memorial and Museum, the criticality of grasping the magnitude of the actual horrors of that atrocity, and how the War on Terror was not lost, but is still ongoing.

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 with our regularly scheduled programming. Until then, take a moment to remember those men and women who were stolen from us by terrorism a quarter of a century ago, as well as who took their lives and why we must continue the fight. Never Forget.

Subscribe now

After a summer break, I was back on the great Break It Down Show today for another livestream with my friends Pete Turner and Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale. We ran the gamut on topics, covering everything from recent developments in Iran to the state of the overall economy and the growth of novel industries like AI and space. We discussed the success of the economic campaign against the Iranian regime, the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the media’s false portrayal of this war as a lost cause, and the broader geopolitical impacts of these events. We also talked about the Ukraine War, the usefulness (or lack thereof) of diplomacy, and the inability to fully separate each theater of global conflict from one another. On top of all that, we touched on the long-term economic prospects of the US, the promise of the AI and space industries, the astroturfed opposition to data centers, and the need for a change in our short-term cultural mindset. Finally, we talked a bit about the upcoming 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the profundity of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in Lower Manhattan, and the need to put words into practice and Never Forget the lessons of that terrible day.

Subscribe now

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

Share

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! Somehow, we’ve been doing this for a whole 50 episodes (!), so we wanted to thank you for listening in and supporting the show; it means a lot. So, in honor of our milestone 50th episode we……did nothing different. As always, your steady hosts and break down the (light) week in news, this time hitting a grab bag of topics ranging from British academia to Korean military exercises.

We start off with the former, detailing the most incredible academic scandal in recent memory: the downfall of former Cambridge sociologist Jason Arday. We discuss the scandal’s most ridiculous aspects, the left-wing blame-game firestorm after Arday’s tragic suicide, and how this controversy indicts the whole of progressive academia. Next, we shift to a nigh-inscrutable decision by President Trump to cancel joint military exercises with South Korea, largely in a fit of pique. We explain the nuances around how to deal with the dovish leadership in Seoul, the usefulness of these exercises, and how Trump’s personalist foreign policy is less disconcerting than the ideological isolationism of some in his movement, led by his vice president. Then, we switch gears entirely and go big picture, talking about the significant similarities between the 2020s and the 1970s and what that may portend for our politics over the coming years. Finally, we answer one of your questions from Twitter!

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 on vacation until just after Labor Day. Enjoy the dog days of summer, take a break from the doomscrolling, and head on outside - it would do us all good. Catch you on the flip side!

Subscribe now

Hello listener, and welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In this installment, Episode 49, hosts and step into the debate Thunderdome and duke it out over a topic that has been back in the news after a (thankfully) long hiatus: Anthony Fauci and, more broadly, the question of accountability for decisions made during the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. The subject was resurfaced in congressional hearings in which Fauci was subpoenaed by Republicans to testify on his actions during that time, an effort spearheaded by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions, despite a blanket pardon from former president Joe Biden. Listen in to hear your usually-simpatico hosts butt heads on the usefulness of the hearings, the trust crisis in public health, and the question of Fauci himself - hero or villain?

Then, we shift gears to discuss a couple of secondary stories related to the war in Iran: the new Pakistan-Turkey-Saudi Arabia “alliance” and President Trump’s clandestine escape from a Turkish sojourn in the face of serious Iranian threats. We discuss whether that ‘Islamic NATO’ is worth anything (it isn’t) and whether the surreptitious switcheroo to safeguard the president was an affront to journalists or the result of falsified Israeli intelligence (it wasn’t).

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 with an earlier episode, then will be on vacation until September. See you next time!

Subscribe now

I had the pleasure of joining Kerby Anderson on Point of View Radio today for a brief 30-minute segment on Iran. In the interview, which was livestreamed and played nationally on syndicated radio stations, we discussed the potential strategies for winning the Iran War, expanding on the themes in my recent article for The Dispatch. We talked about the importance of maintaining economic pressure on the regime, the significant military victories the US achieved over Iran in the war’s first stage, and how America can step back from large-scale combat yet still achieve our aims. We mentioned the possibility for an internal uprising, how our Israeli and Gulf allies can support our mission, the problems with diplomacy, and the degraded state of Iran’s regional proxies.

Share

For more, check out the show page here. Thanks for listening!

Subscribe now

As I’ve discussed several times before, including on the Rational Policy Podcast, the US has locked itself in a seemingly perpetual cycle of negotiation and escalation with Iran, despite Tehran’s behavior remaining entirely unchanging. Right now – at least for the time being – we’re in the diplomacy phase, with another agreement with the Iranians apparently just over the horizon. Naturally, this agreement will fully open the Strait of Hormuz and settle many of the issues between the warring parties. Just like the last one did. And the one before that. And the one before that.

Of course, I could go on and on about the profound foolishness of negotiating with the Iranian regime and wax poetic about the myriad ways in which they’ve conclusively shown that they couldn’t care less about the agreements they sign, but you can read that essay over at National Review. I could discuss why diplomacy in this particular case is a fruitless endeavor and suggest alternative approaches to cutting the Gordian knot of Iran, but you can read that one at The Dispatch. I could discuss the Strait of Hormuz itself and the oft-misleading narratives that have been promulgated around it, but you can give that one a perusal here at Rational Policy. Instead, I’ll take a broader view and tread some slightly newer and more expansive ground by talking about why words and terms matter so much in diplomacy.

Subscribe now

Proponents of diplomacy with Tehran argue that there simply is no harm in the approach, as any agreement is contingent on Iranian cooperation. They claim that no concessions are really being made as long as Iran chooses recalcitrance and fails to comply with the terms we set. In fact, luring in the counterparty with giveaways that you already know won’t materialize might even be a selling point for the pro-negotiation faction. But this is a terribly ignorant way to view diplomacy and will lead to disastrous outcomes in the future. Why? Because words matter in diplomacy, far more than they do in nearly every other area of politics.

I have long believed that actions and policies matter more than political rhetoric; a politician can say that he is a moderate, but if he supports radical policies, those words are meaningless. This is basically how I felt about the entire Biden presidency, wherein he spoke like a center-left Democrat but governed like a Liz Warren progressive. Don’t get me wrong, rhetoric does matter in domestic politics. When Donald Trump talks like a mobster or hurls gratuitous insults at his rivals, he coarsens the discourse and lowers the reputation of the office. When he claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, he creates very real and serious problems, sometimes even indirectly fomenting violence. This sort of thing can have real world consequences. But overall, political rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. And voters often understand it as such, otherwise we wouldn’t have had Donald Trump as our president twice.

In diplomacy, however, things are different. Every last word, phrase, or sentence is parsed for meaning several times. Entire nations hang on what terms are used. Even synonyms can hold wildly divergent connotations depending on the context and the audience. One party may find the inclusion of a term necessary, while the counterparty may not care at all. Terms can be used to signal internally, externally, or a combination of both, with each involved party having competing motivations and aims. Languages and translations matter immensely and can alter the meaning of the whole deal if drafters are not careful to ensure exactitude across drafts. History also plays a huge role here, and nations have long memories. Terms used in previous treaties or agreements could ease current negotiations or cause a spat that ends them prematurely. Centuries-old embarrassments or triumphs can come back with a vengeance when referenced, even obliquely, via specific phrases. The terms of treaties are regularly used as casus belli for future wars, with the ‘wronged’ party seeking martial recompense or one party using specific wording to seek greater advantage.

Share

All of that is to say that words matter quite a bit when it comes to the drafting of international agreements. And every last word that is given the imprimatur of the United States of America is critically important. When Washington agrees to something, it creates a new reality on the ground. Because of this, the fulfillment of diplomatic agreements matters a whole lot less than the terms agreed by both parties. People, governments, and militaries all alter their behavior based on these terms, seeking to test their durability or take advantage of their implications. Future negotiations will incorporate the terms agreed in the past, even if those agreements were never executed in full. They still serve as a new starting point and change the calculus for all parties involved in talks. They also reveal what each party’s limits are, can hint at pressure points or weaknesses, and speak to goals, base motivations, and interests. Once made, concessions cannot be reversed or taken back. They will impact relations between countries for decades, if not longer. Every future discussion between these nations will incorporate these terms. They simply cannot be escaped, which is why one must be extraordinarily cautious about what one agrees to, even if final agreement is unlikely to materialize.

Additionally, diplomatic agreements don’t only impact the countries making them. Other nations involved in the conflict, present in the region, or even further afield and largely uninterested in the specifics of the matter at hand can be influenced heavily by diplomatic agreements. If a party looks weak in one theater, enemies in other theaters will take advantage of this and seek to replicate the feat. Concessions made to one nation will be sought by others, with good reason. Wording used in one agreement will be pursued in others; those same terms may hold different meanings in each instance, yet their inclusion once will ensure they are sought again. Alterations to the status quo do not remain siloed to one area of the map, but change the facts on the ground everywhere. As a true global superpower, America must be wary of this and act accordingly. We cannot afford to kneecap ourselves worldwide for temporary or illusory diplomatic gains in one region.

When it comes to the specifics of any potential agreement with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz – even if the concessions America makes are never actually carried out – this is especially salient. Maritime chokepoints that flow through international waters are incredibly commonplace on the world map. Many are far more critical to global trade than Hormuz, notably the series of straits that run down the eastern coast of mainland Asia, through the South China Sea and into the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Granting concessions to Iran that allow it to exert legal control over Hormuz would immediately and permanently destroy the international system of free navigation that America has defended and promoted for nearly a quarter of a millennium. It would grant license to every bad actor who just happens to find himself located alongside a key waterway. It would basically legalize rank piracy, as long as the maritime highwayman in question has at least a fig leaf of geography to cover him. This is, to put it mildly, a very bad outcome that we should wish to avoid. And the way we do that is by ensuring that our words are chosen very carefully and are firmly and totally backed by our actions.

Words matter to an incredible extent in international relations, especially during negotiations between nations. In this respect, diplomacy is far more like legal work than it is politics. Treating it with the appropriate level of seriousness depends on understanding this distinction. If one pretends that diplomacy is an analog for domestic partisan politics, failure is guaranteed, whether now or later, whether in-theater or further afield. But if one understands the need for clarity, precision, and caution, then success is far more likely. Unfortunately, it seems like our current crop of leaders cannot help but treat everything as an extension of the domestic political Thunderdome; when facing the canny negotiators of Tehran – or, for that matter, their Russian or Chinese counterparts – this does not bode well. We can still turn this around and cut our diplomatic losses, but we need to start treating these negotiations and the agreements that result with the same deadly seriousness with which we treat outright war. Because if one is not careful in diplomacy, war will be the inevitable result.

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome back to Episode 48 of the Rational Policy Podcast! Join your stalwart hosts and for another whirlwind tour around the world of news and politics, this time without a stop in the Middle East - we could all use a break at this point. Instead, we talk about three issues where the biggest problems are entirely internal.

First, we dive into some rank punditry on the 2026 midterm elections, centered around the far-left antisemitic and anti-American socialist candidates who have seemingly grabbed the reins of the Democratic Party. We discuss the primary victory of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, as well as some other recent DSA-aligned triumphs, and debate what it means for the future of the Democrats; will they embrace the radicals or defenestrate them? And what will the voters think? Next, we shift to the political right, focusing on the nascent postliberal movement, a major debate over the “common good,” and what conservativism really means in the American context. We detail how this fringe movement could go mainstream and why that would be a terrible outcome for both the political right and America writ large. Finally, we sail across the Atlantic to talk about the evocative and powerful images coming out of Spain, where Moroccan migrants invaded the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa, causing mass chaos and sparking an internal debate in the European Union over migration policy. We explore why this event occurred, why it matters, and how it exposed the deep rot in the very foundation of the EU.

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, barring another bout of the plague. Until then, get outside and enjoy the summer!

Subscribe now

As has been the case for months now, the war in Iran is in a state of flux. The future is uncertain, but not because the Iranians are hiding the ball – the malign conduct of the regime in Tehran is perhaps the lone constant here. The approach of the Trump administration, however, has been the antithesis of constancy, led by the principal himself. We have repeatedly vacillated between combat and conciliation, and this week is no different. (Still, there is another way.) But there are broader issues in play here besides the day-to-day rigamarole of the news cycle, ones that are far more interesting. As I wrote last week, the Strait of Hormuz is one such issue. Not only does it have global implications, it has often been misleadingly portrayed by critics of the conflict, used as a trope to shut down any sort of hawkish argument. Rebutting those inaccurate claims is incredibly important if we are to actually understand what is happening in this conflict.

And that brings us to what you are reading right now. Because another faulty trope meant to shut down hawkish perspectives has fully arrived on the scene: the “war crime” accusation. This one has been floating around in the online ether for quite some time, but the past few days have seen a resurgence in its use, centered around the idea that the US may choose to strike infrastructure targets, including power plants, in future rounds of combat with Iran. These were not targeted in the first major round of fighting in March, but have remained an option for escalation ever since, one that the president has not been shy about invoking. Opponents of these strikes and of the fight against the Iranian regime overall have preemptively labeled them war crimes, stating that any attack on infrastructure that can plausibly have a civilian purpose is illegal under international and US law. They say this with an overwhelming confidence and declare anyone who contests this characterization as supporting the most egregious violations of morality and decency.

For a case in point, see Curt Mills, the executive director of the extraordinarily inaptly-named American Conservative magazine. In the embedded tweet below, he directly states that Rebeccah Heinrichs (an excellent defense commentator and follow on Twitter/X) is advocating for the commission of “war crimes” because she suggested that strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure could be effective.

When confronted with the idea that his post was completely inaccurate, he doubled down, gaining the support of fellow travelers on the left like the antisemitic, anti-American Islamist propagandist Mehdi Hasan:

So, is it “literally a war crime” to target enemy energy infrastructure? The answer is extremely simple: no.

Subscribe now

Attacking energy infrastructure, including power plants and oil facilities, is not a presumptive war crime. Neither, for that matter, is attacking communications systems or transportation infrastructure like ports, bridges, railways, or airports. Although these enemy assets often have civilian purposes, that does not preclude them from serving military aims as well. These dual-use targets are fair game in war, as they can harm the enemy militarily and serve a genuine martial purpose, even if they are primarily or normally civilian in nature.

Don’t believe me? You don’t have to. This is all spelled out in both international and American military law, and is backed by longstanding historical precedent.

Let’s start with the most common appeal to authority that these critics make: that of international law. The governing legal framework on this issue are the Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the first Additional Protocol, agreed in 1977. Paragraph 2 in Article 52 of that international treaty reads as follows:

“2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”

As one can see, this section does not prohibit targeting of infrastructure used by both civilian and military customers, as long as the attack “offers a definite military advantage” and the target makes “an effective contribution to military action.” Power plants, oil export facilities, bridges, railways, and ports all fall into the realm of legitimate targets under this rubric. There is no blanket immunity here for ostensibly or partially civilian targets; as long as they are meaningful for the enemy militarily, they can be destroyed.

Share

American legal documentation is even clearer on this front. The Department of Defense/War’s Law of War Manual is the controlling framework for American military personnel on the legality of targeting decisions and it could not be more in line with the idea that targeting dual-use infrastructure is not a war crime.1 In fact, the manual specifically fleshes out each and every aspect of the Geneva Conventions framework, adding context and providing clarity on what sorts of actions would be allowed under the law. For instance, in subsection 5.6.6.2, the criteria for what makes “an effective contribution to military action” are defined in detail:

“The object must make or be intended to make an effective contribution to military action; however, this contribution need not be ‘direct’ or ‘proximate.’ For example, an object might make an effective, but remote, contribution to the enemy’s military action and nonetheless meet this aspect of the definition. Similarly, an object might be geographically distant from most of the fighting and nonetheless satisfy this element. Military action has a broad meaning and is understood to mean the general prosecution of the war. It is not necessary that the object provide immediate tactical or operational gains or that the object make an effective contribution to a specific military operation. Rather, the object’s effective contribution to the war-fighting or war-sustaining capability of an opposing force is sufficient.”

This detail provides a very clear window into the exceptionally careful thought process behind military decisions, including why objects that might seem uninvolved with warfighting can still be legitimate targets. Anything that can be used by the enemy to sustain its ability to prosecute the war or bolster the warfighting ability of the enemy can plausibly be targeted while still falling within the framework established by the Geneva Conventions and delineated by the US military. The manual goes even further, expanding on the idea of “definite military advantage” and explaining how that advantage may not be immediately and publicly visible:

“The advantage need not be immediate. For example, the military advantage in the attack of an individual bridge may not be seen immediately (particularly if, at the time of the attack, there is no military traffic in the area), but can be established by the overall effort to isolate enemy military forces on the battlefield through the destruction of bridges. ‘Military advantage’ refers to the advantage anticipated from an attack when considered as a whole, and not only from its isolated or particular parts. Similarly, ‘military advantage’ is not restricted to immediate tactical gains, but may be assessed in the full context of the war strategy. The definite military advantage offered by damaging, destroying, or neutralizing the object may result from denying the enemy the ability to use this object in its military operations (i.e., to benefit from the object’s effective contribution to the military action). For example, the attack or seizure of objects with a common military purpose, such as bridges used, or potentially available to be used, in lines of communication would offer a definite military advantage. The military advantage from an attack is not limited to denying the enemy the benefit of that object’s contribution to its military action. For example, in a diversionary attack, the military advantage to be gained from attacking an object would result from diverting enemy forces’ resources and attention. The military advantage from an attack may involve a variety of other considerations, including improving the security of the attacking force. The military advantage from an attack may result from harm to the morale of enemy forces. Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage. However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale. The military advantage expected to be gained from an attack might not be readily apparent to the enemy or to outside observers because, for example, the expected military advantage might depend on the commander’s strategy or assessments of classified information.”

This is a capacious definition of “military advantage,” but one entirely in line with history and international law. Contra the claims of the critics, kinetic action need not be focused exclusively on enemy bases, military assets, or munitions depots to be lawful. This fairly exhaustive level of detail proves that much quite easily.

Subscribe now

But if that isn’t enough, we can go just a bit further down into the manual to subsection 5.6.8, which directly lays out some key examples of potential dual-use objects that would be properly characterized as military targets in war. These include leadership facilities, communications systems, transportation infrastructure, militarily significant geographical features, and, most importantly for our purposes, “economic objects associated with military operations.” This passage is worth quoting directly, with no additional comment required:

“Economic objects associated with military operations or with war-supporting or war-sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives. Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts. Oil refining and distribution facilities and objects associated with petroleum, oil, and lubricant products (including production, transportation, storage, and distribution facilities) have also been regarded as military objectives.”

The evidence is crystal clear that targeting dual-use infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, does not a “war crime” make. In fact, the benefit of the doubt largely rests with the attacking military, as the definitions involved are relatively comprehensive and far-reaching. But what about the history? Has the US targeted these sorts of facilities in the post-WWII era, particularly after the ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions in the late 1970s? The answer is a resounding yes.

American forces have repeatedly and devastatingly targeted power stations, electric grids, and oil facilities in the past, most notably twice during the otherwise-calm 1990s. During the Gulf War in 1991, American aircraft largely destroyed Iraq’s power generation and supply capabilities, flying hundreds of sorties and degrading nearly 90% of the country’s energy grid and generation capacity in the process. This was justified under the idea that said capacity was crucial in helping the Iraqi military fight back against American forces, whether by powering their command-and-control networks, operating their military communications system, or supplying bases used to muster forces. The US, alongside NATO, went back to this well in 1999 in the Kosovo conflict, striking Serbian energy infrastructure under the dual-use framework. Strikes were targeted at power plants, transmissions systems, oil facilities, and bridges, many of which were totally destroyed. Again, the framework detailed above was used to justify these actions. In both cases, civilians were impacted; power outages and other hardships were commonplace in Iraq and Serbia during the combat, affecting ordinary citizens as well as military readiness. Yet this, as we have learned, does not transform an otherwise lawful strike into a war crime.

Not only is striking enemy dual-use infrastructure allowed under both American and international legal frameworks, it is a fairly common occurrence when fighting against an enemy with a significant level of state capacity (i.e. not a non-state actor or terrorist group). When it comes to Iran, the case is just as solid, if not even more so. The potential targets very clearly serve a military purpose, but many are also wholly owned and controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) itself, making their targeting essentially non-controversial in terms of the law.

Share

So why are so many critics so gung-ho about labeling legal strikes as “war crimes?” The answer to that question lies a few years in the past. So, if you will indulge me, let’s take a trip to October 2023. Obviously, we all remember that time for the Hamas attack on October 7 – the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust – but these people likely remember it for something else: the hard launch of the “genocide” allegation against Israel. The “genocide” claimers did not even wait until the bodies of October 7 were cold before accusing the world’s lone Jewish state – once again, the victim of the barbaric violence in question – of this most egregious crime against humanity. This claim is incredibly spurious, as I explained in the pages of National Review all the way back in October of 2023, as it ignores the clear, widely-agreed definition of the term “genocide” as laid out in international law in favor of a novel invented meaning that can be stretched to include basic Israeli warfighting. They have a predetermined conclusion – that Israel committed genocide – and are willing to do anything to warp reality and pretend that conclusion is true.

Still, the smear has stuck. So much so that progressive politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani have called the “genocide” “ongoing,” even after the cessation of major hostilities over a year ago. Israelis and their supporters are still labeled “genocidaires,” threats to arrest Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu remain live, and the ridiculous and insulting idea that Israel indiscriminately or deliberately murdered women and children will not die. In short, they’re operating entirely on vibes, not facts – and it’s working.

And that is exactly why the “war crime” smear is being trotted out in force today, often by the same exact people. They saw the viral success of the “genocide” libel against Israel and are attempting to use an identical playbook against the US in Iran. There is no remotely plausible case for “genocide” in Iran, so they’re defaulting to the next worst thing: “war crimes.” But the approach is the same. They ignore reality, warp definitions, disregard the clear text and meaning of international and American law, and do so with the immense self-confidence of a champion prizefighter who describes himself in the third person. But in reality, they’re not Mike Tyson; they’re Glass Joe. Their slander here is so patently absurd that it barely merits laughter, much less several thousand words in rebuttal. Unfortunately, the same was true for the “genocide” smear and look where we are now.

So yes, the allegation of “war crimes” in Iran is the new version of the anti-Israel “genocide” blood libel. It is a phony claim, backed with no evidence, based on evident lies about the relevant legal framework and relying for its success on the gullibility of the audience and the forcefulness with which the lie is delivered. At root, the whole purpose of both allegations is to undermine the West’s moral legitimacy against the patent evils perpetrated by our enemies, forging a false equivalence and flipping reality on its head. We must not allow that to happen. The “genocide” blatherskite has sadly been successful; let’s make sure that the equally-absurd “war crime” nonsense meets a very different end.

Share

Subscribe now

I am absolutely stoked to be making my debut in the online pages of a publication I’ve admired since its founding, The Dispatch. In this essay, I explore a new path for victory against the mullahcracy. I lay out the current situation with Iran, in which Washington has veered repeatedly between the extreme poles of all-out belligerence and capitulatory diplomacy - sometimes in the same day, sometimes even in the same Trump social media rant - and explore the issues with each. But these are not the only two options when it comes to the war. The third path, focused on maximum economic pressure, a full blockade, and military operations to retaliate against Iran and escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, is the best bet to achieve a durable, long-term victory for American interests. I explain how this could be implemented, the challenges it may face, and why it should be the focus of our policy going forward.

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

So, if a deal with Iran is doomed and the president does not have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve complete military victory, how does the United States extricate itself from this conflict? The answer is simple, if uncomfortable: Embrace ambiguity and step back.

This approach avoids many of the traps that could present themselves—and very much already have—in the dealmaking and enforcement process, as well as a potential return to all-out war. Instead of trying to come to an understanding with a counterparty that is uninterested in implementing or following any agreement, America should bank its tangible military victories, continue to apply maximum economic pressure, and maintain its freedom of action to strike kinetically once again if the opportunity arises.

This approach would allow the U.S. to avoid granting unnecessary and counterproductive concessions to an enemy regime that has not, contrary to the Trump administration’s talking points, become more moderate and rational since February. America would not gain any of the supposed concessions granted by Tehran, but as detailed earlier, those are highly unlikely to ever materialize anyway.

Stepping back does not mean leaving the region entirely, nor does it mean allowing Iran to consolidate its forces and continue its regional aggression. It means sustained cessation of the fast-paced shock-and-awe approach of the first month of the war but also a continuation of the maritime blockade, an effort to avoid total Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the maintenance of the maximum pressure strategy the administration calls Operation Economic Fury. There are many good reasons to slow or halt the bombing campaign, from munitions issues to a relative paucity of targets due to our immense original success. We could use a break in the bombardment to reestablish our reserves of weaponry, set up improved defensive networks, and increase our readiness for crises elsewhere in the world.

The regime remains in a very bad position: Iran’s economy is wrecked, its proxies are on the run, its leadership cadre has been decimated, and its defense industrial base has been largely obliterated. It has no real navy and no operational air force, lacks control over its own airspace, and is rapidly burning through its cash reserves. Continuing the non-kinetic pressure campaign through enhanced sanctions, partnerships with Gulf states, targeted actions against Iranian banks and individuals, and a full-scale maritime blockade of Iranian export facilities would keep the Islamic Republic on the back foot and avoid giving them the breathing room that constant negotiations and temporary agreements would.

Such a strategy would require less of an active military presence, as it could rely on our regional partners for assistance, whether Israel or the Gulf states. It would preserve our freedom of action and that of our allies, allowing us to resume heavier strikes on Iran if necessary to prevent the reconstitution of the nuclear or ballistic missile programs, or as retaliation for Iranian attacks. The option to resume active combat would help us lock in our existing military successes, whereas a deal with Iran only constrains our ability to prevent Iranian recovery. It would also allow Israel to keep up the successful assault against Hezbollah in Lebanon, further degrading that Iranian proxy and opening up a brighter future for the Lebanese people. The option for increased military use is present through potential escort missions for ships seeking to transit the strait or freedom-of-navigation maneuvers to protect sea lanes, both of which would achieve one of the administration’s tacit goals: calming international energy markets.

This plan would constitute a relative climb down from the intense bombardment of March, but it would still execute the same broader strategy of weakening, destabilizing, and containing the Islamic Republic. Continuing the broader push against Iran would also quell the nerves of our regional partners and help solidify a more durable anti-Iran coalition. And the potential impact of full-scale American economic warfare is significant. According to estimates, Iran was losing upward of $435 million a day from the U.S. blockade, adding to hundreds of billions in damage from the kinetic operations that predated it. This constitutes a sizable proportion of Iran’s prewar GDP, and maintaining the blockade would starve the regime of the revenue it could use to recover.

Maintaining American economic pressure and allowing the blockade and enhanced sanctions to bite would make it incredibly challenging for the regime to survive. This does not require a deal with Tehran. On the contrary, a deal lessens our leverage over the Islamic Republic.

Subscribe now

Share

The Iran War is currently in such flux that it is not worth writing about the day-to-day flip-flopping of the Trump administration; the only certainty is that they will repeatedly cycle between escalation and negotiation, aggression and docility, and praise and insults. The strategy is confused and confusing, the messaging even more so. Of course, this is all eminently avoidable. We don’t even need to choose between all-out warfare and capitulatory diplomacy; there is a third option. But this piece isn’t about that – you can read my essay in full over at The Dispatch if you’re curious. What this is about is the one issue that gets brought up by Iran War critics more than anything else: the Strait of Hormuz.

For these skeptics on both sides of the aisle, the question of the strait is akin to a checkmate against any view supportive of the conflict. It comes up incessantly, used as a trump card in most discussions of the war. But many of the claims related to the strait that are levied against hawkish voices are either misleading, poorly-reasoned, exaggerated, ignorant, or downright false. Here are five of those tendentious claims, along with the (far better) counterarguments.

Share

Claim #1: The Strait of Hormuz has been totally closed by Iran.

The common understanding of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz goes something like this: “Iran has forcibly shuttered the whole of the waterway, ensuring that commercial traffic cannot transit the route unless specifically allowed to do so by the Iranians. The passage is impassable and has been made so by military means.” But although this top-line understanding is not unreasonable given the media coverage of the issue, it fails to capture the reality of the situation. In actuality, the strait is not fully closed, the purported closure has less to do with the power of the Iranian military than it does the weakness and risk aversion of insurers, and there are indeed safer passages available. Commercial traffic passing the strait has massively declined since the start of the war, but it has not ceased entirely, whether during active hostilities or periods of relative calm. The decline is not necessarily permanent, especially because the closure has not been caused by overwhelming Iranian firepower or physical closure of the waterway. Iran has threatened shipping in the strait, firing occasionally at vessels but without sinking them; they have laid a few mines in the area, meant to scare ships away from passage; they have cajoled ships into Iranian waters, but have not interdicted traffic in the international section of the passage. This is not a military closure of the strait. And it should not be treated as though it is. The reason ships are not passing through the area is that insurers and shipowners have seen this risk as not worth the cost – but that calculus is far easier to alter than is the decision pattern of the Iranian regime. The nuance here matters a great deal, despite what critics may have you believe. As we shall see, it opens different options for a restoration of free navigation that would be unavailable if the passage was, as is commonly claimed, fully physically closed by Tehran.

Subscribe now

Claim #2: Iran has won the war because of this disruption to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

This claim often goes in tandem with the first, acting as a corollary to the misstatement of reality in the strait. Critics suggest that since navigation has been challenged and insurers have buckled at the test (the actual reality of the situation), Iran has unlocked an indefatigable weapon that we have no answer for; ergo, they have won the war on the back of this strategy. This is simply wrong. Economic disruption is painful, but it does not automatically lead to victory unless we let it. It does not kill Americans, destroy American military hardware, force a tactical retreat in the face of superior firepower, collapse our government, or even impoverish us to the point of capitulation. It does not stop us from pursuing our own objectives, including turning the closure around on Tehran by blockading their own traffic through the waterway. This would be far more destabilizing and dangerous to Iran than whatever pain they could inflict by disrupting neutral traffic. Another point against this claim is that it has diminishing returns. Not only does a reverse closure massively harm Tehran, the global market will adjust to the threat and pursue alternative options, whether that be sourcing energy elsewhere or rerouting Gulf energy to other export outlets. This does not spell victory for Iran under any circumstances other than our choosing to allow it to do so.

Claim #3: America is dramatically weakened and Americans significantly impoverished by this closure.

The biggest impact of the disruption to maritime trade in Hormuz for Americans has been an increase in fuel prices at the pump, but even this has been far less severe than many critics predicted. We have not seen $200/barrel oil, nor have we seen $6 gasoline. There was no major energy shock. There are no lines at the pump. There isn’t rationing. We do not have shortages, nor is anyone really living their life differently. Don’t get me wrong, paying more for gas is a meaningful change; but had you told someone before the conflict that we would be engaged in a massive shooting war with Iran, leading to almost no traffic heading through one of the world’s key energy chokepoints, and that prices for gas would only rise by a couple dollars per gallon, they’d think you were kidding. That energy markets have remained relatively stable despite this serious global trade interruption is a major accomplishment. Other regions that are far more dependent on Gulf energy transshipped via Hormuz – East Asia, India, and Europe come to mind – are much worse off than we are, yet even they have not had to deal with catastrophic outcomes. In fact, some of the new realities created by the Iranian threat to the strait are going to be hugely beneficial for America in the medium and long term. Not only are Gulf states shifting their export routes to bypass Hormuz, thus reducing Iranian leverage, American producers and refiners are likely going to score big by taking up demand and reaping the rewards of a new normal in the Gulf. American producers, alongside Venezuelan producers which have been coopted by Washington since the Maduro raid in January, have little of the downside risk that Gulf producers now have to deal with; this will likely enhance America’s status as an energy superpower and give us another arrow in our geopolitical and economic quiver.

Share

Claim #4: America cannot open the Strait of Hormuz.

This claim confuses the (poor) choices made by the Trump administration for the objective reality of the situation. That we have not really tried to force the strait or alter the risk calculus for shippers does not mean that we are unable to do so. There is a plethora of options here, running the gamut from escort missions for commercial vessels in the Omani channel of the strait to backstopping maritime insurers at the US government level and working to place defensive weaponry or trained military auxiliaries on commercial vessels transiting the strait (we do this routinely for heavy piracy areas). We have run escort missions haphazardly, but can certainly extend this service and regularize it to ensure that there is at least some traffic flowing out of the area. Our navy is very well-equipped to handle such a mission – in fact, we carried out a very similar one just a few years back when the Houthis (unsurprisingly, also an Iranian-backed terror group) attacked shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that leads into the Red Sea and eventually to the Suez Canal. That was not an easy mission, but it was a relatively successful one. This would be more of the same. It is not riskless, but it is doable. Some critics claim that escort missions would be too dangerous for our sailors and ships, as we would be under fire from IRGC forces in Iran. But if this were indeed the case, that any threat of damage or attack is too much to bear, why do we even have a navy? This faulty line of thinking is very reminiscent of the German high command, notably Kaiser Wilhelm II and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in the First World War. In that conflict, their reticence to utilize the massive seagoing fleet they had created over the prior decades spelled doom. Instead of fighting it out and using the fleet to their advantage, their risk aversion led them to hold it in reserve until it was too late. American military planners and political leaders should not make the same unforced error.

Subscribe now

Claim #5: The Strait of Hormuz isn’t our problem, or it is exclusively our problem.

These two claims are complete opposites, but are also deeply interrelated. And they’re both wrong. First, let’s address the idea, most often promulgated by right-leaning anti-war skeptics, that the strait simply isn’t our problem. This piggybacks off the very real truth that we are not the nation most heavily impacted by the disruption, but takes it a step further by declaring that we should not even bother trying to reopen the passage for commercial shipping. This is where the argument goes off the rails. America has, for our entire history as a sovereign nation, been dedicated to protecting the freedom of the seas, both for our own vessels and all neutral commercial ships. Some of our first wars as a nation were intrinsically related to this issue; the Barbary Wars were fought to end maritime piracy in off the coast of North Africa, while the War of 1812 was largely sparked by the illegal impressment (seizure and conscription) of American sailors to serve in the British navy. A century later, one of the primary reasons we entered World War I was due to German attacks on American cargo liners. We have used our military might to open various sea lanes and nations to free trade, including the forcible opening of Japan in the mid-1800s. We routinely carry out freedom of navigation operations across the world and have for over a century. Our dedication to the freedom of the seas has been at the heart of American maritime ideology since the 1700s, and it has helped lead to our current status as the primary world power. This is absolutely our problem. And it is even more our problem when you realize that choosing to demur here would lead to major tests of free navigation in other theaters that would more directly harm us, including the Indo-Pacific.

But this isn’t only our problem; it is absolutely a problem for European powers and other affected parties, too. The Iranian attack on free travel through Hormuz, alongside its illegal claims of sovereign control over the whole of the international waterway, are a shot across the bow of the world order. For European nations that have made a big stink about the sanctity of international law over the past decade, they are awfully quiet about the biggest threat to that system in ages. It is not only incumbent on America to protect these rights, but also other nations that see the value in the system as it exists. And perhaps no region has been more heavily benefited by the international order than Europe. Their involvement in ending Iranian threats in the strait would not be to help America, but to defend and protect their own national interests. If they choose to skip out on that, they cannot complain when America chooses not to heed their opinions or consult them before undertaking military action.

These are not the only claims made by critics about the Strait of Hormuz, but they are a representative sample of the most commonplace arguments you see in media and online. And they’re all completely wrong, often deliberately so. Reader, make of that what you will.

Share

Subscribe now

The Rational Policy Podcast is back with Episode 47! Join hosts and as we discuss the most important events in geopolitics over the past week. We start this episode off with a return to the biggest topic of discussion we’ve had for the first half of this year: the Iran War. We detail the recent return to outright hostilities, the recurring messaging problems of the Trump administration, the broader ramifications of escalation, and whether there is any strategic core at the base of the conflict. Will Trump have the patience and wherewithal to carry out his threats? Does America have the ability to stomach war anymore? And are there any politicians in this populist moment who would be brave enough to buck the electorate and do the right thing for the country’s long-term security? Next, we swing back to the Western Hemisphere, talking about one of the only near-unblemished aspects of this administration’s foreign policy record: the reassertion of American primacy in the Americas. We discuss how Marco Rubio is the perfect man for the job, why this strategic approach makes sense, the problems with the regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua (among others), and how far-left, anti-American agitation can be confronted and defeated in our own backyard. Finally, we go after New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani for a despicable antisemitic stunt that he pulled regarding arresting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

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 with another show.

Subscribe now

I once again had the pleasure of joining my friends Pete Turner and Dr. Amber Brittain-Hale on the always-great Break It Down Show to talk everything foreign policy. We started off with a wide-ranging discussion of recent developments in Latin America, including the dictatorial cancellation of elections by Nicaragua’s leftist autocrat Daniel Ortega, the strong US position against the ideological threat of the Cuban regime, and the future of anti-left or anti-communist politics in the region. We then extolled the many successes of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and how his presence in the second Trump administration has made him the most important American diplomat in ages. Finally, we shifted to the Iran War, discussing whether the return to combat is a good strategy and how we may move forward from here.

Subscribe now

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

Share

Welcome back to Episode 46 of the Rational Policy Podcast! In this installment, your intrepid hosts and break down the most recent week of current events, running the gamut from politics to war. We start with some truly sad news: the sudden passing of South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a stalwart conservative and a true titan of the institution. We lament his death as heralding the end of an era of serious statesmen and public servants in Congress, while also detailing how his lifelong support for liberty and America’s global role in defending it is unfortunately becoming less popular every day. We then shift gears to talk about the return of outright hostilities in the US-Iran conflict, debating whether it is a good or bad thing and what might come next. We discuss how the US can deal with the Strait of Hormuz, what sort of outcome we should be looking for here, and how weakening our various enemies around the globe will help us in our grander rivalry with the Chinese. Finally, we touch on the terrible ICE-involved shootings in Texas and Maine, explaining how the administration has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with its reckless and hamfisted approach to immigration enforcement, as well as how this faulty approach is entirely due to the extreme and myopic focus on base voters – a much broader problem in our politics today.

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 with another show. Until then, be sure to tune into the World Cup final this Sunday; it’ll be an absolute banger.

Subscribe now

Last weekend saw the commemoration of an incredibly auspicious occasion: the 250^th anniversary of the birth of America. A quarter of a millennium ago, the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, marking the beginning of the grandest experiment in individual liberty and human freedom that has ever been conceived. The celebrations across this great country were spectacular, fully in line with what the founders themselves would have wanted. How do I know that raucous fireworks, parties, sporting events, games, barbecues, gatherings, and other assorted forms of revelry were what our forefathers desired? Well, because they told us themselves; future president John Adams laid this out in a letter to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776, saying: “It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” The American people have taken this advice to heart ever since, and this special year was no exception, seeing some of the largest firework displays, military flyovers, tall ship parades, and patriotic public celebrations in our nation’s history. The mood was predominantly one of joy and love for this great nation, from sea to shining sea.

But not everyone was so gung-ho to honor America on her birthday. Several prominent figures on the political left, particularly those associated with the progressive movement and the entryist Democratic Socialists of America faction, focused their messaging on lamentations for the current state of America and the evils it has wrought throughout the world. A representative example comes from the newly-minted far-left Democratic nominee for Congress1 in New York’s seventh district, Claire Valdez. Her tweet to commemorate the 250^th anniversary of America’s birth read:

“Freedom is only possible when we have the conditions for the good life — healthcare, housing, education, and dignity on the job. But the system is rigged and our planet poisoned by billionaires, bosses, and war profiteers. This 4th of July we recommit ourselves to remaking it. To fight for liberation from Palestine to Puerto Rico, for a Green New Deal, for the world we deserve.”

There is a lot to work with in that short post, from the inclusion of the Palestinian omnicause in a post about America’s Independence Day to the classic conspiratorial leftist attacks on anyone with a modicum of wealth. But what stood out most to me was a sentiment that was far more widely echoed online, even by those who were indeed more pro-America than Valdez (a low bar, to be sure): that “freedom is only possible when we have the conditions for the good life.” This idea that liberty is impossible until a person is made materially comfortable is completely wrong and displays a root misunderstanding of what human freedom truly means.

Subscribe now

This misconception is not novel, going back at least to the same primordial intellectual stew that birthed the American and French revolutionary movements, and thus modern Western politics writ large. It is foundational to Marx’s communism and all of the various fruits of that poison tree. And it has been deeply ingrained in the American liberal tradition since the 1941 State of the Union address delivered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, popularly known as the ‘Four Freedoms’ speech. In that address, he said:

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.”

This is truly soaring rhetoric that speaks to how many people view freedom today. But the speech took place in a very particular historical context – the midst of the Second World War (albeit before US entry) – and can really only be understood in that context. As time went on, however, the speech was decontextualized and the top line phrases – freedom from want and freedom from fear – were recast as universal basic human rights, if not, as Claire Valdez wrote, the essential basis for all human liberty.

But this is entirely backwards. Freedom is not only accessible after comfort has been achieved or, in this case, provided by government. True, lasting comfort is only accessible via the exercise of freedom. Freedom, properly understood, is about unshackling the individual from the bonds erected by mankind through overbearing government and other agency-limiting institutions. It is about empowering the person to make choices for himself, think for himself, defend himself, and build a life for himself and his family, however he may choose to do so. It is about limiting the ability for agglomerations of power, especially governments, to impede on those liberties and reduce the independent agent to a servile or constrained status. What it is not about is providing a guaranteed, secure, minimum personal outcome for all. Freedom, as I have written, is messy. It is risky. It does not lead to good outcomes every single time. But it does ensure that each individual has the chance to make his own way on his own two feet, regardless of whether it ends in triumph or disaster.

Looking at America’s founding documents, the earliest and most lasting expostulations of the concept of individual liberty in our national context, shows this quite clearly. Take the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for instance. The freedoms they recognize and cement as an integral part of our legal and political order fall into two categories: ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’. The first category, ‘freedom to’, includes all of those innate, God-given individual rights that exist simply because we do. The freedom of conscience, the ability to worship the God of your choice (or none at all), the liberties of speech and action, the protection of the capacities for self-defense and the use of tools (arms) in that quest, and the ability to exercise control over tangible and intangible objects – property ownership – all fall under that rubric. The second set, ‘freedom from’, may sound just like the FDR approach, but it is very different. The Constitution does promote ‘freedom from’, but not freedom from the human condition (want, fear). It promotes freedom from excess government, enhancing the individual ‘freedom to’ that comprises the first category. The right to jury trials, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, and the reservation of key rights and powers to the people are some examples of these sorts of safeguards.

Share

In America, freedom is all about the individual being promoted as an independent agent – with all the positives and negatives inherent therein. It is not necessary for people to be materially comfortable to exercise those freedoms; they are equally present in us all, regardless of personal situation. That is where the left goes wrong. We do not need to be made economically equal to have equal rights and the ability to exercise liberty. Our intrinsic liberties and our status as individuals with agency are what make us equal, from the janitor cleaning bathrooms in a corporate high-rise to the CEO sitting in the corner office. Nothing can take away that basic equality – nothing, that is, except overzealous government that uses its own power to enforce outcomes.

The Declaration of Independence, the document that formed the basis for this past weekend’s America 250 celebrations, exemplifies this American attitude toward freedom and both presages and repudiates the modern left’s false definition. In its most famous passage, the Declaration reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This is the proper understanding of freedom in a nutshell. Governments are not created to grant rights, but to secure the rights that already exist by virtue of our Creation. Those rights are unalienable and irrevocable, arrogating to all human beings, no matter their station. That is what makes us equal, not our material conditions or our personal comfort level. But the most important part of this epochal paragraph, at least for our purposes, is one of the most recognizable turns of phrase to ever be committed to paper: “the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that the Declaration does not read merely “happiness,” but “the pursuit of happiness.” The operative word in that phrase is not “happiness.” It is “pursuit.” Pursuit is not a guarantee. It is not an end state. It is a process, one that continues, perhaps forever. American government was not being inaugurated to provide some universal definition of happiness or ensure equivalent material well-being; it was being created to allow individuals to determine what would cause their own happiness and removing the artificial roadblocks – not the natural ones – to chasing and, hopefully, reaching it.

Because it is not happiness that makes us free. It is the ability to pursue it. Contra the modern left, that is what freedom truly means.

Share

Subscribe now