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

The Rational Policy Podcast is back with Episode 45! We have returned to our regularly-scheduled programming, with hosts and breaking down the week in current events. In this slightly longer than usual episode, we hit on the biggest topics of the past week and the week to come. We lead off with geopolitics, previewing the NATO summit this week in Ankara, Turkey. We use that meeting as a jumping-off point to hit on the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, the role of Turkey in NATO, and how the alliance may evolve into the future. We also contrast the disparate approaches of Marco Rubio and JD Vance when discussing our issues with Europe. Next, we swing to the home front, recapping the fascinating and important past few weeks at the Supreme Court. We talk immigration, executive power, campaign finance, and more, plus the future impacts of these influential judgments. Finally, we celebrate the Downfall of the Democratic nominee for the US Senate from Maine, Graham Platner. We talk about how this was all predictable for anyone who has a modicum of sense or a moral compass - as well as how a good deal on the left seem to lack either.

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, enjoy the World Cup while it is still here; you won’t regret it.

Subscribe now

I had another appearance today on the ever-enjoyable Break It Down Show with my friend Pete Turner, this time to discuss the upcoming NATO summit and the many geopolitical issues the attendees will be focusing on this week in Turkey. We talked about the wars in Iran and Ukraine, how the transatlantic alliance is handling them, and how that historically successful multilateral partnership should evolve into the 21st century. We also touch on the broader Trump administration foreign policy and whether it has been successful, the importance of messaging and rhetoric in diplomatic affairs, and some of the most surprising recent developments in geopolitics. Plus, why the World Cup matters and what the wild success of this event says about America.

Subscribe now

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

Share

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Those are the opening words of the most important document written by human hands in the past 2000 years, the Declaration of Independence. That historic work of political rhetoric was proclaimed on this day a quarter of a millennium ago, marking a crossing of the proverbial Rubicon into outright revolution against the British Crown and the eventual creation of the United States of America. This was also a burn-the-boats moment for the men who signed it, as they had just attached “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to an attestation of treason. The immortal Benjamin Franklin recognized this, remarking (perhaps apocryphally) upon the signing of the Declaration in Philadelphia that now “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” The risk was palpably real, as the British were on the march and the Continentals on the retreat for most of the war to that point – the Redcoats would go on to capture and occupy Philadelphia itself just over a year later. This immense dedication in the face of a seemingly insurmountable challenge would come to represent the best of America for the next, resoundingly successful, 250 years.

Subscribe now

Two hundred and fifty years is an incredible amount of time for anything to endure, much less a newborn nation, attempting to split off from the most powerful empire on the planet. Not only was the deck stacked against the Founding Fathers, the ideals that they centered their proposed polity on were historically radical. Personal liberty, human freedom, restrained government, and individual rights were incredibly groundbreaking concepts at the time and remain so today. They were beginning to be adopted by the elite intelligentsia in parts of Europe – absolutism was still the rage on much of the Continent – but never before had they formed the basis for a political revolution in the real world. The founding of America was an experiment in liberty the likes of which mankind had never seen. And its success was not guaranteed, as much as we tend to read history backwards and assume the glorious country that we live in today was set in stone from the start.

But America has always been a contingent nation. A bold hypothesis – that a continental republic could be based on the ideas of limited government and individual liberty – constantly being tested against the harshest of trials, with no foreknowledge of the end result. Foreign invasion, domestic insurrection, political violence, constitutional crisis, economic depression, terrorist attack, natural disaster, total war, and more. We survived them all. Hell, we didn’t just survive; we thrived. From our earliest days as an independent nation, we have continually endeavored to make America a better place than it was for our forebears, all while retaining the same radically inventive and profoundly moral ideals they permanently etched into our national consciousness. Not only have we strived for that result, we have achieved it. We have defeated our enemies, foreign and domestic, all while safeguarding the things that make us truly exceptional. And we have done so over and over. There is no need to “Make America Great Again” because America never stopped being great.

America was great in 1776 when 56 men put their signatures to a document that would either change the world or cost them their lives – perhaps both. It was great when we asserted that the Western Hemisphere would forever be free of foreign occupation. It was great when we fought back the scourge of internal rebellion and demolished the slave power. It was great when we built the canals, railways, roads, and infrastructure that connected our nation and hypercharged our economic prosperity. It was great when we created the industries, invented the tools, and built the institutions that have lifted billions from poverty and massively improved global living standards. It was great when we traveled across oceans to defeat totalitarian, genocidal foes who threatened America. It was great when we expanded the promissory note of the Declaration to all Americans, regardless of race or sex. It was great when we consigned the ideology of communism to the dustbin of history. It was great when we sent men to the Moon – and it will be great when we send them back once again.

Share

America has always been great. What it hasn’t always – or ever – been is perfect. But no institution, polity, or nation created by fallible humans could be. Our nation’s founding ideals, however, are perfect. And nobody has ever explained that better than our 30th president, the great Calvin Coolidge, to celebrate this auspicious day one century ago.

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

Our individual rights, our system of divided powers, our federalist constitution, our restrained national government, our presumption of liberty, our ability to adapt while keeping our feet firmly planted in the soil of our founding, our pioneering and visionary attitude, and our resilience in the face of overwhelming odds. These are the characteristics that make us unique. Revolutionary, even. They are the foundational building blocks of our modern republic. Without them, our nation would be unmoored in a way that most others – based primarily on shared factors like ethnicity, religion, or language – would not be. We are, at heart, a polity centered on ideas and ideals. And, as President Coolidge so beautifully stated, those propositions are final. Unimpeachable. Insurmountable. Perfect.

And now they have proven themselves remarkably durable. They have endured, through trials and tribulations, for a full quarter of a millennium. Two hundred and fifty years. And that is not due to mere entropy, but the repeated exercise of human agency to consciously choose liberty – messy, complicated, risky, difficult liberty – again and again. The men who signed that Declaration understood what they were signing up for, but they knew it was worth it, no matter the cost. And they were incredibly optimistic for the future, despite the odds stacked against them. John Adams explained this eloquently in a letter to his wife Abigail in July 1776:

“I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Our Founding Fathers knowingly set to us a Herculean task: to keep the republic that they made for us. For two hundred and fifty years, we have. Let’s choose that thorny, painful, profoundly rewarding path for another two hundred and fifty.

Happy birthday, America. May you live forever in liberty.

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! You’re in luck, as this Very Special Episode is our America 250 Extravaganza, a paean to America so awesome that you’ll involuntarily grow a mullet. In all seriousness, though, this is the greatest nation that has ever existed, the greatest triumph for human freedom that mankind has ever created, and the most incredible, dynamic, creative society full of the most generous, welcoming, resilient, and entrepreneurial people on Earth. Your hosts, Mike Coté and Art Vandelay, do their level best to give our nation its proper due on this auspicious anniversary. We discuss why America is so great, how our dedication to individualism was radical in 1776 and remains so in 2026, and how Americans have worked tirelessly to maintain our Union for a quarter of a millennium. We touch on the best and worst presidents, our favorite amendments to the Constitution, and the best recent federal legislators. We then shift to broader cultural topics, detailing our favorite American cities, monuments, food, sports, traditions, historical eras, music, and more. It is a podcast eminently befitting such an exceptional nation on such an awe-inspiring and glorious anniversary.

Happy birthday, America. We love you.

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, go out and celebrate the most successful experiment in personal liberty that has ever been tried. Happy Independence Day!

Share

Subscribe now

America has always been an exceptional nation. By this, I mean that we are indeed the exception, not the rule. No other country on the planet is like us. We are sui generis. One of a kind. Without comparison. This is not always a good thing, mind you. But it is the truth.

One of the ways we are unique and special – and something often remarked upon as a net negative by foreign observers and even some Americans – is our national penchant for seeming disorganization, redundancy, and, frankly, chaos. We Americans are an unruly bunch and our culture, government, and national ethos all reflect that. Compared to most European or Asian societies, our country’s apparent disorder is confusing and bizarre. Compared to places like Singapore or Denmark, it is positively intolerable. Those societies are organized, planned, regimented, and constrained. The range of life outcomes is limited, choices are circumscribed, and efficiency and one-size-fits-all solutions prized. Predictability is relatively high. Tolerance for difference is relatively low. Government is deeply embedded in everyday life so as to ensure that citizens follow the ever-growing societal rulebook – one that can be altered by even the tiniest governing majority. Citizens are protected from their own impulses and made “safe” by authorities who claim to have their best interests at heart. Naturally, the government is assumed to know what these interests are for everyone. Life is made comfortable, as long as the beneficent hand of centralized government is there to ease the way.

America, by contrast, is messy.

Subscribe now

Our political system is not neat and tidy. Instead of one single national government with plenary power over the daily lives of all citizens, we have a deliberately-constrained federal government alongside 50 state governments, all of which have their own prerogatives, interests, and laws. Each state has its own distinct culture, food, elections, legal systems, and politicians. They are able to set the vast majority of laws and compete internally for investment, people, and economic growth. Contra the trend in Europe (and the vast majority of the world, developed and developing), America retains its regional and local distinctions; federalism ensures that this will remain, even as mass media consolidates global culture.

Our national government is itself a microcosm of this broader complexity and redundancy. It has three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial – all of which compete with one another for power.1 They all have specific prerogatives and abilities, often running counter to those of the other branches. The push and pull of American politics are dynamic and constant; there are no permanent victories unless they are codified into our Constitution. (More on that in a bit.) Divided government is the norm, not the exception. This is completely alien to most of the world, where the country is either run by unelected leaders or the democratic system allows for a bare majority to control the entire polity. The idea that 50% plus 1 vote, much less a mere plurality of the electorate, could lead to wholesale alterations to the political system is antithetical to the American experiment. “One Weird Trick” governance is not a thing in the United States of America, no matter how much partisans on both sides would like it to be.

In fact, government in America is exceptionally constrained, and not only by the federalist system and separation of powers, but by the rest of our Constitution. Our polity has established limits on government that can be very inconvenient at times, but center and defend our rights and liberties. Would there be less violence if the Second Amendment didn’t exist? Sure, but that would also mean the destruction of one of the most profoundly important rights we have, that of self-defense, whether against crime or tyranny. The same applies to the First Amendment and many other amendments, notably the Ninth and Tenth. Our constitutional order also proscribes how the document itself can be changed and the presumption of unconstitutionality overcome. The amendment process is complex and distributed, requiring large majorities in both houses of Congress and a presidential signature, plus independent ratification by 38 of 50 states. Similar hurdles, though not constitutionally mandated, exist in the Senate, where the filibuster ensures that at least 60 of 100 senators must agree to pass most legislation. This friction is a feature, not a bug.

Is having such a dispersed and complex political system efficient? Not at all. But its inefficiency allows for far more variety, choice, and internal diversity than anywhere else on the planet. That means that progressive Rhode Island and conservative Wyoming can coexist in the same nation. It means that the people have far more control over their everyday lives and the polities they reside in; there simply is no real possibility for over-the-top central planning in a nation like ours, where difference is prized over conformity. And that is a very good thing. An overweening national government undermining the constitutional order, regardless of its regnant ideology, would lead to the inevitable dissolution of this great nation. What allows our unique continental republic to thrive is not homogeneity, but diversity. Not skin-level diversity, something that frankly does not and should not matter, but real difference on the basis of ideas, life choices, faith, careers, and more. Diversity does not reside at the group level, but at the only level that truly matters: that of the individual. And nothing makes America messier or better than our hyperfixation on the individual.

Share

Our country was founded, more than anything else, on the inextricably-linked ideas of individual liberty, personal agency, and human freedom. Those ideas were radical in 1776 and they are just as radical 250 years later. There are infinite possibilities here in America – for good and ill. We let a thousand flowers bloom. That will inevitably result in some bad or suboptimal outcomes, but that is the result of centering the individual in everything we do. Humans are flawed, imperfect beings; our choices will not always be the best or safest ones. Sometimes our own choices will lead to penury, pain, or even death. But just as often – I would argue far more so – the ability to choose for oneself leads to incredible outcomes. It leads to risk-seeking, entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity, and autonomy. It breeds personal responsibility and a never-say-die mindset. It has created the world’s most impressive and dynamic economy and a culture that is rife with change and imagination. Individualism has defined our nation for 250 years; we can only hope that it continues to define America for the next quarter millennium.

In America, liberty is the assumption. The people are not constrained by government; government is restrained by the people. From the outside, that can look like chaos or disorder – surely an inefficient and imperfect way to run a nation. But we wouldn’t have it any other way. America may sometimes feel like a mess, but damn, is it a beautiful one.

Share

Subscribe now

Welcome to a Very Special Episode 43 of the Rational Policy Podcast! In this installment, host Mike Coté interviews Dr. Arthur Herman, a Pulitzer Prize finalist and New York Times bestselling historian, about his new book Founder’s Fire: From 1776 to the Age of Trump.1 We discuss the idea of the founder’s fire – the risk-seeking, action-oriented, visionary strain in American life – and how it characterizes our nation’s past and could come to do the same in the future. From Tocqueville’s early America and the politics of Abraham Lincoln to the Gilded Age industrial magnates and Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement, American history is rife with this particular impulse, often tied directly to our original founding 250 years ago. We touch on how government can supercharge or hamper this spirit, how capitalism and individual liberty intersect, and how American culture has fully embraced the founding mindset. We also detail some of the threats to this exceptional attitude, notably the rising tide of socialism, and how we can ensure that the founder’s fire is kept alight for future generations. On top of all that, we hit on how the proliferation of social media will impact future historiography, the immense complexities and opportunities of the Iran War, and what our nation’s 250^th birthday signifies.

Share

Tune in for a wide-ranging discussion of American history, modern politics, and more. Thanks so much to Dr. Herman for joining us for this Very Special Episode. Be sure to follow him on Twitter/X and pick up a copy of the excellent Founder’s Fire, either on Amazon or anywhere great books are sold. We’ll be back with another Very Special Episode later this week. Thanks for listening!

Subscribe now

Welcome back to the Rational Policy Podcast! In this installment, Episode 42, your steadfast hosts and break down the week in news, touching on policy, politics, and foreign affairs. We start with the latter, delving into the latest updates on the Iran ‘deal’ and how things look a week later. (Spoiler alert: not great!) We talk about the Iranian refusal to comply with the very terms it agreed to, the piss-poor and contradictory statements from the Trump administration, and the centering of Vice President JD Vance as a pro-deal messenger to the American public. We also discuss the potential resumption of fighting, what this war has accomplished, and how we could still win the peace, in spite of the White House’s best efforts. Mike also posits an alternative and more ambiguous end to the conflict, one that might be more consonant with American interests.

After this discussion, we remain overseas but shift to rank politics, talking about the rapid and stunning decline of the just-resigned British prime minister Keir Starmer. We mention how the Labour Party has squandered its historic electoral landslide, the very real issues with migration and related violence in Europe, and why the left’s inability to deal with the problems they ran against could open the door for a dramatic pendulum-swing in the region’s politics. Finally, we come back stateside to talk about the recent New York primary elections, focusing on the far-left Democratic Socialist (read: communist) primary winners who will be in Congress early next year. What do these results say about the future of the Democratic Party in America? (Hint: nothing good.)

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 two Very Special Episodes. Until then, enjoy the summer weather and the air conditioning! USA! USA!

Subscribe now

The Rational Policy Podcast is back! After a weeklong hiatus, we return with Episode 41, in which hosts and dive into the latest developments in news and politics over the past fortnight. Unsurprisingly, we spend the lion’s share of the podcast discussing the war (or conspicuous lack thereof) in Iran, breaking down the just-signed Memorandum of Understanding between Tehran and Washington. We talk about the ridiculously bad terms of that ‘deal’, how it gives away the store to the Iranians, and why the president suddenly got cold feet when he was on the precipice of victory. We also touch on why this agreement is worthless, how it will inevitably fall apart, and what might happen afterward. This isn’t the end of the war, but it might be end of Donald Trump’s ability to credibly threaten the use of force to achieve American national aims - and that is a very dangerous thing.

Another dangerous thing is our second topic, the lapsing of FISA intelligence collection authority after Democrats held the renewal up to protest Trump’s terrible nomination of Bill Pulte as Director of National Intelligence. The rationale may have been sound, but the consequences could be massive; let’s hope we never see them. We finish off with a discussion of the World Cup currently ongoing here in the good old US of A. We talk about the tournament itself, the way it has helped demolish the preconceived notions that foreigners have about America, and how it showcases the best of our great nation.

Share

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

Subscribe now

I’ve returned to the pages of National Review again, discussing the latest US-Iran memorandum of understanding. My piece takes a different approach than the usual criticism (of which I have plenty!1), instead focusing on why any deal with the Iranian regime is a fool’s errand. I explain the three major structural factors that preclude the regime from making a deal that is good for America and undercut their claims on enforcement and compliance. The regime’s legitimacy rests on staunch opposition to the “Great Satan” of America, it lacks the ability to enforce deal terms on radical and autonomous IRGC cadres, and the regime lies like it breathes. All of these factors make a deal with Iran worth less than the paper it is written on.

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

In many ways, this whole back-and-forth misses the forest for the trees. It does not particularly matter if this deal is in some ways better or worse than the JCPOA. It does not much matter whether Iran has agreed to our demands or we have agreed to theirs. What matters is the ground truth: No deal that could possibly be agreed to by the Islamic Republic of Iran is a good one for the United States. Three major structural factors internal to the Iranian regime itself ensure that this is the case.

First, the regime’s domestic legitimacy depends on its stringent opposition to America. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the regime has rested on three pillars to justify its existence to the Iranian people. It claimed to be a better steward of the country than the government of the shah, it repudiated the hereditary monarchy and replaced it with a theocratic government of Islamic jurists, and it promoted itself as the mortal enemy of the United States, orienting all foreign policy to defeating the “Great Satan.” Today, two of those three foundational claims have collapsed. Over the past 47 years, the mullahcracy has proven to be a complete failure at improving the lives of its citizens, funneling funds best used to face down domestic challenges into foreign terrorist proxies, allowing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to co-opt much of the country’s productive economy, and brutally repressing ordinary Iranians who dare speak up in protest. After the killing of longtime leader Ali Khamenei, the second pillar has fallen as well; his son Mojtaba, nobody’s idea of a respected Islamic jurist, has been appointed supreme leader with the backing of the IRGC. All the regime has left is staunch opposition to Washington, something on which it has doubled down for the past three months. There is no way for the regime to surrender to American terms and continue to rule Iran, so any deal must be heavily biased toward the interests of the mullahcracy.

Second, the regime as it exists today — massively degraded, with less centralized control than ever before — may not even be in a strong enough position to enforce a deal on its own radical cadres. Since the decapitation strikes that began this war in February, the Iranian response has relied on disparate and self-directed regional factions within the IRGC, granting serious autonomy to each sector to prosecute the war; this at least partly explains the continued cease-fire violations and the maintenance of the threat to commercial shipping. Our Iranian interlocutors may not be in control of the kinetic situation, especially if they are, as media reports suggest, politicians, not military leadership. If a deal is viewed as suboptimal by the most fundamentalist segments of the IRGC, even if leadership disagrees, they simply will not comply with it. And when the biggest current issue, the disruption of Hormuz, is being carried out entirely by rhetorical threats, the suggestion of mines, and occasional low-level drone launches, those independent actors within the system have immense ability to ruin the bargain. This has the potential to scuttle any deal we make, even if it receives widespread buy-in at the top levels of the regime. Hoping that our negotiating partners are able to enforce our demands on intransigent armed radicals is at odds with the evidence of reality.

Finally, we come to the Iranian regime’s specialty: deception. The Islamic Republic has routinely dissembled in the past. It says one thing and does the opposite. It talks out of both sides of its mouth, making conciliatory noises in discussions with credulous Westerners while simultaneously redoubling its malign efforts. Nowhere was this more obvious than with respect to the JCPOA. Iran repeatedly averred that it would never seek a nuclear weapon and solely intended to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This was a lie, as we discovered when the Israelis spirited away the regime’s secret nuclear program archive from Tehran in 2018. It turns out that they never stopped working on weaponization, never intended to stop working on weaponization, and sought to use the fig leaf of the nuclear deal to protect its clandestine program until breakout was assured. They have returned to this strategy of mendacity throughout this war, including in the current cease-fire, during which the Strait of Hormuz was supposed to be open to all shipping. Clearly, it isn’t. Their continual redefinition of terms in these very negotiations similarly shows their deceitfulness.

Believing that Iran will comply with an agreement it makes is foolish in the extreme. The regime has proven again and again who they are and how they act. They lie, they cheat, and they find any and every way to undermine what has been agreed to. This constant deception, paired with the other structural factors detailed above, makes it impossible for any deal we sign with Iran to be a good or durable one for us. This agreement with the Iranian regime is not worth the paper it is written on. American leaders must recognize this fact and act accordingly. Anything less is courting disaster.

Subscribe now

Share