Mike Vlahos - Sometime you have to lose a war to WIN

How real is the GOP crack-up over war ahead of the midterms? w/ Jim Antle & Jack Hunter

The death of Senator Lindsey Graham has drawn diametrically opposed eulogies and no shortage of grave dancing. We talk about that, and how Graham straddled two eras of the Republican Party — that of the old Cold War-neoconservative period and that of Trumpian MAGA. We discuss how the latter is about to face a reckoning at the midterms as the war in Iran continues without a seeming end.  Guests: Jim Antle, executive editor of the Washington Examiner Jack Hunter, political writer for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative CHAPTER MARKERS * 0:00 Welcome And Why It Matters * 1:16 Lindsey Graham’s Record And Reputation * 7:26 Political Skill Versus Policy Damage * 17:21 Midterm Map And Wave Reality * 21:33 Iran War Fallout And Gas Prices * 24:41 Tucker’s Third Party Temptation * 28:43 Vance Rubio And The 2028 Fight * 36:13 MAGA Erosion And Rogan Democrats * 39:51 Final Plugs And Wrap

Democrats finally axing Israel from the program? w/ Annelle Sheline & Erik Sperling

A handful of primary wins can look like noise until you notice the common thread: Gaza. We sit down with Annelle Sheline, a Quincy Institute research fellow and former State Department Foreign Service officer who resigned in protest, and Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, to sort out what these races are really telling us about Democratic voters, donor influence, and the future of US policy toward Israel and Gaza. We talk through the data showing Democrats increasingly see the US as too supportive of Israel, then stress-test the big question: is this a district-by-district phenomenon or the start of a wider political realignment? From New York City to Colorado, we unpack why candidates are running on rejecting AIPAC money, opposing more military aid for Israel, and linking war spending to everyday pressures at home, like affordability and public trust. Then we get concrete about power in Washington. We dig into AIPAC’s evolving tactics, the broader Israel lobby ecosystem, and the fight inside the NDAA over deeper US Israel military integration that could shift oversight into the Pentagon and out of clearer congressional control. Finally, we look at the renewed Red Scare rhetoric, the fragile bipartisan overlap on anti-intervention, and why reforms like ranked choice voting keep coming up when people imagine a politics that actually reflects majority views. If you want a clearer map of where Gaza fits into Democratic Party politics and what to watch heading into the midterms, listen now, subscribe, and share this with a friend. After you listen, what do you think will move votes more in 2026: Gaza, corruption, or cost of living? CHAPTER MARKERS * 0:00 Welcome And Guest Introductions * 1:50 Progressive Primary Wins And Gaza * 7:30 Public Opinion Shifts Inside Both Parties * 10:00 AIPAC Influence And The Massey Fight * 15:30 NDAA Military Integration And Oversight * 19:15 Democrats’ 2024 Autopsy And Gaza Silence * 24:10 Consultants Versus Voters On Foreign Policy * 27:50 Red Scare Politics As A Wedge * 32:40 Right Left Coalitions And Third Party Talk * 38:30 Wrap Up And How To Support

America's 250th : Republic vs Empire w/ Andrew Day & Brandan Buck

The U.S. is nearing its 250th birthday, and we still can’t escape the argument at the heart of American foreign policy: are we supposed to be a restrained republic or a globe-spanning empire? I’m joined by Brandon Buck of the Cato Institute and Andrew Day of The American Conservative to dig into the founding-era warnings that shaped the country’s early posture, from Washington’s caution about permanent alliances to John Quincy Adams’ refusal to go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” We also square that tradition with the uncomfortable parts of the early national story, including violent continental expansion and the limits of the “isolationist founders” narrative. From there, we track the real inflection points that made intervention feel normal: the Spanish-American War and overseas annexations, the progressive-era push toward moral mission language, and the way modern finance changes politics by hiding the true costs of war. We talk about Congress’ constitutional role in declaring war, why militarism corrodes republican institutions, and how American universalism can become a justification for crusades abroad, especially after the Cold War when “defending democracy” turns into habit. We also tackle one of the most toxic pressure points in modern debate: the stigma around anti-war conservatives and the way Charles Lindbergh gets invoked to shut down America First arguments. Finally, we bring it to the present moment, asking what the Iran war, cheap drones, vulnerable bases, and depleted munitions reveal about the hard limits of U.S. military power and whether restraint could return by necessity rather than choice. Subscribe, share this with a friend who argues about foreign policy, and leave a review with the biggest question you’re still wrestling with. CHAPTER MARKERS * 0:00 Welcome And The 250th Countdown * 1:53 The Anti-Imperialist Tradition Recovered * 7:59 Founders’ Guardrails Against Militarism * 11:45 When Expansion Became Overseas Empire * 14:07 Progressives, Money, And Hidden War Costs * 16:35 Universalist Crusades From 1898 To NATO * 21:29 World War I Splits Progressives * 24:20 Lindbergh, Smears, And America First * 35:36 Iran War Aftermath And Forced Retrenchment * 40:42 Closing Thanks And Where To Subscribe

Mike Vlahos - Sometime you have to lose a war to WIN

A ceasefire memo, a reopened Strait of Hormuz, and a 60-day sprint toward Iran nuclear negotiations sounds like progress until the backlash hits. We dig into why powerful voices in Washington call the deal “surrender,” and why that label can miss the real strategic question: are we achieving our objectives, or are we just chasing the appearance of military victory? From the first reactions to the 14-point plan to the warning that future escalation could turn into forced control of Hormuz, we trace how domestic politics, alliance pressures, and prestige can hijack US foreign policy decision-making. We also test a provocative idea that makes people uncomfortable: sometimes defeat is good for a nation. Drawing on military history and statecraft, we talk through how Japan’s devastation in 1945 also broke a crushing security dilemma and opened a pathway to long-term stability. Then we revisit Nixon’s opening to China as a reminder that diplomatic reversals often look like weakness in real time even when they become historic wins later. Along the way we confront a deeper critique of punitive strategy, moral absolutism, and the habit of framing diplomacy as appeasement rather than as a tool for achieving national interests. Finally, we ask why a wealthy, technologically dominant military can still struggle to “win” against mid-level powers and irregular strategies. We unpack the long-running faith in sea power and air power, the temptation to treat precision weapons and AI-driven systems as a decisive fix, and how the military-industrial complex can steer lessons toward bigger budgets instead of better strategy. If you care about US national security, Middle East stability, the Strait of Hormuz, and what “winning” should mean in foreign policy, listen through to the end, then subscribe, share the show, and leave a review so more people can find it. CHAPTER MARKERS * 0:00 Welcome And Guest Introduction * 1:30 The 14 Point Iran Memorandum * 3:56 Why Defeat Can Be Useful * 7:34 Japan’s Loss That Became Security * 11:39 Nixon’s China Flip As Template * 16:06 The Punitive Mindset In Washington * 21:19 McMaster Clip And Moral Projection * 28:26 Twilight Of Empire And Diplomatic Risk * 34:14 Sea Power Air Power And Tech Faith * 40:41 Expensive Weapons And Closing Requests

Nick Cleveland-Stout & Ben Freeman : Israel’s Influence Machine: Media, Intelligence & Washington

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