The “Authentic Flavors, Real Fruit” Edition

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett, and Ariane Tabatabai to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including: “Keeping It On the Strait and Narrow.” Three weeks into the U.S. and Israel’s air campaign against Iran, ship traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual stop, sending crude oil prices north of $100 a barrel. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that vessels are safe to sail through the strait, but continued attacks on tankers suggest otherwise. Some neighboring Gulf states, among others, are growing antsy that U.S. strikes won’t go far enough in preventing attacks by Iran. What do we make of these developments, and how will it impact how other countries are navigating the broader conflict?“‘Nein’ to Five.” U.S. efforts to secure European support for efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have fallen on deaf ears, with German officials describing it as “not our war” and far outside the obligations imposed by NATO’s Article 5 and other defense commitments. In response, President Trump said that he was “disappointed” in NATO and once again hinted that he might exit it. It’s the latest nadir in a precipitous decline in transatlantic relations over the past three months. How much worse can things get? And what could it mean for the future of the broader alliance?“(Un)Lawful Good?” A U.S. strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran in the earliest days of the U.S. military campaign there has put a new focus on decisions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to scale back rules and processes meant to reduce harm to civilians in armed conflict. Hegseth has called the rules of engagement “stupid” and has said he wants to give military commanders “maximum authority on the battlefield.” He’s also repeatedly called for “no quarter” in Iran and other contexts—an order that, if taken literally, would itself be a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Exactly how far has Hegseth unraveled the Pentagon’s rules of engagement? And what could the real world consequences be in Iran and elsewhere?In object lessons, Natalie (or rather, her son) is cooking up a delicious recommendation for the culinarily curious kid in your life with Raddish Kids (hey there, Raddish Kids, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). Ari is feasting on (and hoarding) the indigenous Taiwanese pepper, Maqaw. Scott is traveling in style and efficiency with his portable office kit, consisting of his fave iPad case and the Anker Power Bank (while we hate to sound like a broken record, uh, hey there, Anker, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). And hey there, girlies, Ben is doing Ben things while getting ready for court.  To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including: “MisAnthropic.” On Monday, Anthropic filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of California and a petition for hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the Department of Defense’s designation of the frontier artificial intelligence company as a “supply chain risk.” The litigation capped off weeks of building tensions between Anthropic and Pentagon officials over the firm’s two ethical red lines for the Defense Department and its use of its AI model, Claude, specifically around widespread surveillance of Americans and the use of AI and autonomous weapons. What exactly are the Pentagon’s grounds for designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and how does Anthropic argue that doing so is inconsistent with the law? And what might the implications be for the AI industry as a whole?“The Mashhadian Candidate.” Fears that Iran would respond to the ongoing Israeli-U.S. military campaign through overseas terrorism have come to a head this week, as reports emerged that U.S. intelligence had detected an encrypted message being transmitted from Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for assets sitting outside of the country. What do we know about Iran’s involvement in past clandestine operations, including terrorism? And what does it mean that this is all happening at a moment when the Justice Department and FBI have lost so many of their experienced national security personnel?“Maricopa-calypse Now.” Federal investigators have ramped up several inquiries that appear to be aimed at longstanding—and, thus far, unsubstantiated—allegations of fraud in the 2020 election that are particularly popular with President Trump and his closest supporters. Last month, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Fulton County’s election office and confiscated ballots and voting equipment used in 2020. Last week, the FBI reportedly subpoenaed records from a conservative Arizona legislator over the state senate’s audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County. And days later, the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations office (or HSI) requested records from Arizona state officials regarding their own investigations into alleged 2020 malfeasance. What should we make of these developments? And at what point should we be concerned about the federal government's engagement in these sorts of matters in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterms?This week’s object lessons are all-consuming. Kate is celebrating online legal analysis by drinking from her Balkinization mug. Troy is lamenting yet another slate of firings at the FBI by drinking from his EX FED mug. Scott, finding himself with unexpected free time at Union Station, devoured Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” And Molly introduces us to the texturally triggering cherimoya.  To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Daniel Byman, and Ari Tabatabai for an in-depth discussion of the U.S. military operations against Iran, including: “Isn’t it Iran-ic.” Trump’s decision to join Israel in removing Ayatollah Khamanei reflects a deep reversal by the president, who has spent years criticizing his predecessors’ own experiences with regime change and other overseas adventurism. What drove Trump to proceed this time, after stopping short twice in the past year? What can we learn from the way the Trump administration has proceeded? And how far will Trump let things go?“Bibi’s Big Adventure.” Regime change in Iran is something Israel and the Arab Gulf states have advocated for frequently in the past. But they had all adopted a more cautious and even conciliatory posture toward Iran in the months before the current offensive, at least in public. How has the region approached this conflict? And what will it do moving forward?“MIGA.” The death of Ayatollah Khamenei is a major shift in Iran, but we don’t know where it is going to lead. One concern that people have always had about regime change in Iran is that it will be highly destabilizing, resulting in a failed state in a crucial corner of the Middle East. On the other end, other people have asserted that removing the Ayatollah and his regime will give Iran the opportunity to flourish back into a democracy, or at least something closer to a state that’s more stable and free than Iran has been for the last several decades. Between the two is a mass spectrum of possibilities. What does the future hold for Iran in the post-Ayatollah era, if that’s the era that we’re heading into?In object lessons, Ben is vibe-coding his way through Lawfare’s litigation tracker, as well as vibing his way through The Rest is History’s four-part series, Revolution in Iran. Dan is war-gaming his way through the attack on Iran with Next War: Iran. Scott is consuming as much Iran content as he can get his hands on with (another) Scott Anderson’s “King of Kings,” Roy Mottahedeh’s “The Mantle of the Prophet,” Gary Sick’s “All Fall Down,” and Dutch documentary “The Birthday,” finally discovered online by Lawfare’s own Anna Hickey. And Ari, not to be outdone in Iran content, recommends the graphic novel “Persepolis,” but really is escaping it all with Final Fantasy VII Remake. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott was joined by Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien, Lawfare Senior Editor Molly Roberts, and University of Virginia Professor of Law Paul Stephan to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including: “Textual Healing.” On Friday, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority brought an end to at least the current iteration of President Trump’s controversial tariff policies, ruling that language in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (or IEEPA) authorizing the “regulation of…importation” doesn’t include the authority to impose tariffs. That said, President Trump himself has already indicated that he intends to reinstate many of the tariffs he had installed using IEEPA under other statutory authorities. How big a setback is this for the Trump administration’s trade policies? And what might it mean for other aspects of its policy agenda?“Mayhem in Mexico.” Over the weekend, an elite unit of the Mexican army killed one of the country’s most powerful drug kingpins, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho.” His syndicate, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, immediately retaliated, through attacks on Mexican security forces, roadblocks throughout the country, and other measures intended to terrorize the public, particularly in areas frequented by American and Western tourists. The decision to move against El Mencho followed an intense pressure campaign by the Trump administration, which has pushed Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to take a hard stand against the cartels. Should this be seen as a win for the Trump administration? Or Sheinbaum? And what could the long-term implications be for the U.S.-Mexico relationship?“Clap if You Believe.” On Tuesday, President Trump delivered his annual State of the Union address, the longest of its kind. Many had braced for a contentious speech, expecting Trump to ridicule the justices seated in front of him and potentially even announce strikes on Iran. But Trump appeared to pull his punches on both of those fronts—he instead saved his harshest words for congressional Democrats and focused on laying out a rose-colored picture of the state of the country. How effective was Trump’s speech? And what does it tell us about the current state of his second presidency?In object lessons, Tyler just has this strange sense that you will enjoy the Otherworld podcast. Molly (and her dog) find comfort in the soft, squishy claws of Cthulhu. Scott eased his travel woes with a twist on the Vieux Carre at Birch & Bloom in Charlottesville. And Paul mixed his object lesson with three parts: Peter Suderman’s Cocktails if you’re into all things shaken and stirred; Mark Galeotti's podcast, In Moscow’s Shadow, if you’re into all things Russia-related; and Dan Wang’s New York Times Best Seller book, “Breakneck,” if you’re into all things China-related.  To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his foreign-policy-minded colleagues Daniel Byman, Michael Feinberg, and Ari Tabatabai to talk through some recent big news stories around the world, including: “Beer Hall Push-back.” Over the weekend, a raft of bipartisan U.S. and European officials headed to Bavaria for the annual Munich Security Conference. Last year, Vice President J.D. Vance gave a barnburner of a speech, accusing European allies of restraining free speech and giving succor to the European far right. This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave a more conciliatory set of remarks that nonetheless signaled that there were some fundamental changes happening in the relationship. For their part, European leaders mostly seemed to be on board with that as they increasingly leaned into the public stance that it was time for the continent to stand on its own, independent of the United States, although how feasible that will be and on what timeline remain the big questions. What should we make of the different remarks we heard from the conference and the broader messages the two sides are sending to each other? And is this a sign of an impending divorce or a different sort of shift in the U.S.-European transatlantic relationship? “Rial Talk.” American and Iranian officials met again this week in Geneva to negotiate an end to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for an easing or elimination of U.S. sanctions on Iran. The negotiations took place amidst continued saber rattling by both President Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who threatened in a speech ahead of the talks to sink U.S. warships in the region if Iran came under attack. Nonetheless, some participants in the negotiations—particularly the mediators from Oman—seemed optimistic that the two sides were getting closer to some sort of common understanding about how they might move forward. But U.S. military assets are continuing to accumulate in the region, leading some to conclude that a military operation may yet be on the horizon. Is there space for a deal? Or iare we going to see another war in Iran?“Xi Who Must Not Be Named.” A year in, the second Trump administration has not proven to be the China hawk that many expected. Far from drawing a hard line on all things China as the first Trump administration often seemed to do, U.S. officials have instead been surprisingly quiet and conciliatory in regard to China, at least outside the trade context. This has remained true even as reports have emerged of Xi Jinping purging his military of non-loyalists, modernizing China’s nuclear arsenal, and building more submarines—all steps with the potential to significantly upset the balance of power in Asia and beyond. What is the real logic underlying the Trump administration's seemingly quixotic approach to China, and where might it lead the broader relationship between the two major powers? In object lessons, Dan is delighting in John Company, a social-climbing, backroom-dealing, hostile-bargaining board game to, you know, escape the harsh realities of the real world. Ari enthusiastically recommends the Broadway adaptation of Death Becomes Her, which somehow manages to be even quirkier than the original film. Scott has been sucked into the social media abyss by Jess and Quinn’s corny, absurdist, and pun-oriented humor. And Mike offers an anti-object-lesson warning: the “Poetry for Kids” series is not, in fact, reliably for kids. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.