The New Realist Podcast

The long-running game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire allows contestants to ‘ask the audience’ for help if they are uncertain of an answer. This lifeline has proved remarkably useful because the audience is right about 9 out of 10 times, particularly as it pertains to the first 10 questions.

We find something similar in polling. Although in this case its not a matter of the public providing the ‘right’ answer, rather its the majority giving a clear and nuanced assessment of an otherwise complex issue. During my time at the Roper Center I had the privilege of working with Dr. Everett Carll Ladd who regularly make this case about public opinion on issues as complex as abortion.

When I looked at the results of the latest CBS News/You Gov poll this weekend I was struck by the fact that the same is true in the case of public opinion on the Iran War.

According to the poll, more than three-quarters (78%) of Americans want the war to end but they are they are not particularly satisfied by how it has ended or what the end means for the future of the Middle East, its neighbors, U.S. alliances, nuclear safety and a host of other issues.

As Dr. Ladd used to say, peoples views are complex, they see the benefits of the war ending as it pertains to everything from the price of gas to the billions it has cost and the human lives and suffering that have come as a result. That said, they are not convinced that the MOU ‘end’ is to the U.S.’s benefit (just 22% say it is). Nor are respondents convinced that the MOU has brought an end to Iran’s nuclear program (69% say it has not), its ability to threaten its neighbors (69% say it has not), its ability to subjugate the Iranian people (74% say it has not), its interest in pursuing a more positive relationship with the U.S. under new leadership (79% say it has not).

What they do see is that the Trump administration pushed to end the war primarily because they feared the economic and political disaster that would result if they didn't. A full 64% of respondents said administration had not foreseen the impact of the war on the economy at the outset - something Trump made clear in his statements last week when he noted that if he didn’t make the deal the economic impact would be catastrophic and he would end up being likened to Herbert Hoover.

The majority is right in its assessment, this war needed to end because there weren’t any other options. It needs to remain ‘paused’ or ‘cold’ because the alternative is more bombing or back to the status quo of a closed Strait and world economic crisis.

They are also cognizant that the problems we confronted in the Middle East before Trump took us down this path remain as intractable as they were a decade ago. The fact that this war solved nothing except to allow Iran to show that it can hold the world economy hostage helps explain why almost 7/10 Americans said it was “not worth the costs.”

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Four takeaways from President Trump’s press conference on the US/Iran MOU in France today.

Note, just after the press conference, the US finally released the 14 point MOU -referenced below.

* THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVING FUNDS & UNFREEZING ASSETS?

Trump talked so much over the last decade about what a fool Obama was to have made a deal with Iran that gave them back money sanctioned against them –yet he is doing the same. The MOU includes unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets. When he was asked what the difference is between what Obama did and what he’s doing (i.e. giving Iran billions of dollars and unfreezing $300 billion in Iranian assets) Trump said: “We have taken their money. It’s not our money. It’s their money and we froze it. At a certain point in time I guess we have to give it back.”

MOU POINT 6 — “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

* NO DIFFERENCE MOU & JCPOA ON NUCLEAR IRAN

Trump said 99.9%+ of the reason we went to war was to make sure Iran never has a nuclear weapon. He said today that with the MOU, he has achieved that.

Here is what the MOU POINT 8 says “The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.”Here is what the JCPOA preamble that he ripped up when he came to office the first time said “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

Not a bit of sunlight between the two except in the case of the JCPOA there was a detailed verification mechanism

* RE-OPEN STRAIT TRUMP’S WAR CLOSED OR RISK GLOBAL RECESSION

Trump said we must sign deal with Iran because if we don’t the result will be “economic catastrophe.” Today in the press conference he repeatedly mentioned his fear of turning into Herbert Hoover. Yesterday he said “the alternative to a deal would have been a global recession… stupid people want a global recession. They are stupid people. The strait would never have opened.”

Unclear who stupid people are but his message is that we need to either reopen the strait or risk a global recession. What he didn’t say is that it’s his fault it was closed in the first place. He caused it to be closed when he started this war.

* THAT WAS ‘A LONG TIME AGO’ - STRIKE ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Trump was asked about whether he would hold anyone in his administration accountable for the US strike on a girls school in Iran? Trump called it a ” strange question to be asked,” because it was “a long time ago.”

It was February 28, 2026 - the first day of the war when 156 to 168 people were killed when a missile struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School. The vast majority of the victims were schoolchildren aged between 7 and 12, along with teachers and parents

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

On February 28 President Trump issued a video on Truth Social announcing the start of major combat operations against Iran.

In the video he described his four primary war aims. He would…

* raze Irans missile industry to the ground

* annihilate their navy

* ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world

* ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, ever

The text of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by both countries virtually this week has still not been released. Since it was signed already, the failure to make the terms public yet is curious.

Moreover, the MOU has been signed despite the fact that by his own measure, at least 3/4 of his war aims have not been met. Three-quarters is a very generous assessment because it means we give him credit for the destruction of Iran’s Navy — which is questionable because for over 100 days they have kept the Strait closed.

There is no debate on his other three aims, however, none have been achieved.

* Iran’s ballistic missile program remains active as ever and by all accounts it is not even addressed in the MOU

* The region’s proxies, including Hezbollah remain active even in just the last few hours

* We have no agreement on Iran’s nuclear program or enriched uranium. If the accounts of the text yet unreleased are yet to be believed, Iran has agreed to abide by the non-proliferation treaty it signed on to long ago putting us right back where we were before this War of choice again.

This is not a deal, it is a capitulation to reopen negotiations the President halted imprudently when he decided to engage in a War of choice that has now cost thousands of lives, unprecedented displacement and destruction, billions of dollars, and a world economy to the brink. Not to mention, has left Iran in the hands of a more radicalized, wealthier, and powerful regime led by a Supreme Leader whose entire family was killed in the War and an IRGC that is more embolden than ever.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Rundown: Trump sees the DNI as is a position from which foreign interference in US elections can be ‘investigated,’ and any shred of evidence, whether credible or not, used as a pretext for federal involvement in elections.

The House failed to pass an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) today. This all but insures that FISA, the post-911 law that allows the federal government to spy on foreign targets outside of the U.S. without a warrant, will expire tomorrow night.

This is primarily due to President Trump’s decision to name Bill Pulte, someone with no intelligence, security, or military experience, to the position of acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). As head of the nation’s intelligence, DNI is so critical that the law requires a nominee to “have extensive national security expertise.” Trump named Pulte as Acting regardless. The question is why? What interests of the president is Pulte going to serve in this Acting DNI capacity?

The activities of his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, help tell the story.

From the time of her appointment, Gabbard’s most notable activities were putting out memos and other material accusing President Obama and his administration of committing treason by subverting Trump’s election victory in 2016 (there is no evidence for this). Her second claim to fame was taking part in a raid of Fulton County Georgia’s election office where ballots pertaining to the 2020 election were seized. She later told the Senate that the president requested her presence.

Trump has already said that he expects Pulte to do the same, beginning with investigating the 2020 election. Following his appointment, Trump told reporters that “you may find out some things about the rigged elections.” Of course, Pulte is the perfect person for this given the lengths to which he has shown he will go to take down Trump’s enemies. And if he can do that from an obscure housing office, imagine what he can do in 200+ days as the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community?

Trump does not see the need for a DNI with intelligence experience because he has no use for non-partisan intelligence gathering. Instead, Trump sees the DNI as is a position from which foreign interference in US elections can be ‘investigated,’ and any shred of evidence, whether credible or not, used as a pretext for getting the federal government involved in election supervision.

How bad might it get? Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence described what Pulte could do from this position a few days ago:

“What he could do is take a single piece of intelligence that may not be corroborated or make something up and say, country X is going to interfere or is sending people to encourage non-citizens to vote, and that be used as an excuse for Trump to bring in ICE, federal troops close down elections, seize polling stations. The list is extraordinarily frightening, and again, this guy doesn’t have any national security background.”

Likewise, John Sipher who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for decades, put it this way:

“A director determined to politicize intelligence does not need to overtly fabricate. A bad actor can do something more subtle, and often more effective — such as treating the intelligence community as a private detective agency for the president… It is easy to declassify and publish one document but not another; highlight a raw report while burying the caveats; emphasize one dissenting view while concealing the broader consensus; strip context from reporting; and turn uncertainty into an accusation.”

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

There is no question that Trump is desperate for the Iran war to end. The question is, how desperate is he? Is he desperate enough, for instance, that he is willing to go beyond talking tough with Netanyahu and take action on arms sales, intelligence sharing and the like? After all, we have now reached the point in this war of choice where that is what is likely necessary to bring it to an end.

Over the weekend we saw the most serious escalation of the war since the US and Iran struck a ‘truce’ in April. Iran launched a wave of missiles into Northern Israel in retaliation for Israeli attacks near Beirut and in Southern Lebanon. Israel defied President Trump by retaliating with attacks on Tehran. By morning both sides had agreed they would temporarily halt strikes, provided no additional provocations were forthcoming.

While all this was going on, Trump was speaking to reporters, his usual bravado on full display. During an interview with Axios he said “I am going to call Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] right now and tell him not to retaliate. Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one.”

In a conversation with the Financial Times he went even further stating that Netanyahu “won’t have any choice” but to accept a deal with Iran, before adding ”I call all the shots.”

If he calls all the shots or has all the cards, as he likes to say, he is going to need to use them if he hopes to end this war. And ending the war is going to require going beyond his usual tough guy rhetoric.

No one should have been surprised that Iran responded to Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon over the weekend. They had been threatening to do that for weeks. Nor should it have been news that Iran was going to enforce its red line in Lebanon with hard power, they have saying that since the war began.

And while none of it was surprising, this weekend did mark a stunning turn in the region. For the first time in decades, a third power made clear they were going to limit Israel’s maneuverability in the region. This is, after all, what Iran has signaled over the last 72 hours, that its deterrence zone extends well beyond itself, into the region more broadly (specifically Lebanon).

There is no question that from Israel’s perspective, this represents a real and existential threat to the nation and one which they will not accept lying down.

All of this puts Trump and the US a very difficult position - Iran is saying an agreement to end the war must be region wide and include Lebanon. To make this deal the US would need to pressure Israel; but since the nation is facing an existential threat, talking will not be enough. Trump will have to remove or limit its ability to strike, and this would require taking action such as potentially limit arms sales, intelligence sharing etc.

The question then is, how desperate is Trump to put this conflict behind him? Is he desperate enough that he is willing to take the steps necessary to pressure a close ally and face the pushback that action will inevitably elicit from inside his own party, not to mention from other sectors?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Yesterday there were more very concerning allegations about Maine’s Democratic nominee for Senate, Graham Platner. The allegations, revealed in the New York Times, included interviews with former girl-friends, three of whom described his behavior and remarks in the past as “toxic,” “unsettling,” and “offensive”; and one of whom accused him of physical misconduct (i.e., grabbing her, forcibly pushing her and holding her in a room, among other things).

In response, Platner went on MS Now to defend himself, saying

“Some allegations in [the] piece… are simply not true. Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of somebody politically motivated. That is not true.”

These, however, are just the latest in a series of allegations that have rocked his campaign. It was only weeks ago the focus was on a Nazi tattoo that he subsequently removed and his questionable use of social media and sexting.

All are serious, but in the case of the first two many Democrats responded with a ‘redemption-style’ story, arguing that it was likely a result of the impact of Platner’s four combat deployments on his mental health. An argument recently articulated by James Carville. This was, however, before the emergence of the most recent set of charges.

When asked about the controversy, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) put it best, noting

“I look forward to the day where I am not answering every single week a question about bad behavior by another dude.”

The primary in Maine is Tuesday and while former candidate Governor Janet Mills (D) suspended her campaign, she remains on the ballot. If Platner gets 85-90% it will suggest Maine primary voters are willing to overlook this latest in a series of horrifying allegations; if he gets much lower it bodes badly for Democrats chances in November unless they move in another direction.

This race is amongst the most consequential in November because if Democrats hope to take the Senate, Maine is a ‘must-win’ given it is one of the few states up in November that Harris won by 7%.

Reminder, in order to capture the Senate, Democrats must hold their seats and win at least four currently held by Republicans. This includes at least two in states Trump won by significant margins in 2024.

Source: NYT

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Earlier this week, President Trump nominated Bill Pulte to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Given his lack of qualifications, the nomination has drawn a good deal of criticism.

While most people agree Pulte could not be confirmed by the Senate, that is beside the point. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, he doesn’t need to. He can serve as the acting DNI for up to 210 days without confirmation.

More than 200 days takes us to late December, which is more than enough time for Pulte to do what his boss most wants - insure his party wins the Midterm or cry fraud if he doesn’t, and go after his perceived enemies.

Pulte, who currently serves as Head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is well suited to do both. Despite his lack of national security or intelligence credentials, he has the only qualification for the job that matters to Trump - he has proven to be a loyal foot-soldier. Since taking the helm at FHFA, Pulte has made a name for himself by finding unique ways to go after the president’s sworn enemies, from NY Attorney Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff to Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook.

In his new position, Pulte would be in a much better position to continue to do that and more, because as Acting DNI he would be in charge of “all 18 intelligence and intelligence-related organizations across the federal government.”

We got a hint of what Trump is expecting from his DNI just a few months ago when, in an effort to curry favor with the president, Tulsi Gabbard took the unprecedented step of going down to Georgia to be near the location of an FBI search of a Fulton County elections office. During the search “truckloads of 2020 ballots” were seized; but even more stunning than that and her presence was what happened after when Gabbard met with some of the agents and arranged a call between them and the president.

Despite this, Trump continued to openly question whether he should retain her in the role, and ultimately before she could be let go, she resigned citing her husband’s health.

Pulte, however, is no Gabbard. There appears to be no one in Trump 2.0 who is more willing or able to do Trump’s bidding. And even if it’s just 210 days, he will be able to use his new post to intensify the pressure on Trump’s enemies and help the presidents party win the Midterm, or cry foul and election interference, if they lose.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

President Trump went on a ‘Truthing’ spree this weekend. Between Saturday 11:15 am and Sunday 1 am he posted more than 60 times. Few if any of these posts focused on the challenges facing the American public. Instead it was a mixture of memes in which Trump celebrated himself, lengthy screeds in which he attacked his enemies and a litany of grievances.

For months Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has been trying to get the president to focus on issues of concern to voters - beginning with the economy. It was reported recently that she has all but given up, opting instead to direct White House staff to: “stick to the affordability script and let Trump be Trump…. There are two tracks - There is what the president says, and then there’s what you as a staff member message on.”

This may explain why the White House sent out Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, to speak to reporters over the weekend.

They may want to rethink this strategy.

When Fox News Sunday’s Shannon Bream asked him about a recent report that 13% of Americans are delinquent paying their credit card bills, the highest since the 2008 financial crisis, Hassett told her it wasn’t a concern because the credit card companies would get their money.

“We talk to the CEOs of the credit card companies in the time, and we do see some stress like the Wall Street Journal pointed out, but delinquency is different than default and there’s not any kind of financial threat to the credit card companies. They don’t feel like they’re heading towards default scenarios. It’s just that people are taking a little bit longer [to pay].”

Likewise, when Bream asked him about the fact that Americans are paying more for everything from gas to groceries, Hassett didn’t express empathy or talk about what the administration is doing to bring down prices, instead he said the following:

“People are spending more on gas… They’re also spending more on everything else, not just groceries, but restaurants and so on…. I think that’s a sign that you would see when people are optimistic about the future… [and not] worried about losing their jobs.”

Yes, when asked about rising credit card delinquency, the NEC Director’s first instinct was to reassure us that the credit card companies will be made whole. He expressed little if any concern about the American people who are drowning in debt.

Likewise, when asked about the fact Americas are paying increasing amounts for everything from gas to groceries, he did not express concern or tell us how the administration plans to address it. Instead he said we are spending more because we are optimistic about the future and not worried about losing our jobs (?!).

As Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) noted on X, “This has all the empathy of someone who learns that people are starving and instinctively calls General Mills to see if they’re feeling an earnings pinch this quarter.”

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

President Trump held his 12th Cabinet meeting today and we gave instant reaction on the air. The meeting comes in the wake of a big win for his chosen candidate in the Texas run-off last night, but also amid mounting challenges at home and abroad, this includes rising gas prices, the lowest approval rating of his second term, consumer confidence at an all time low and an unpopular war, among other things.

Instant reflections above and from my notes below:

(1) During the meeting, Trump tried to tie what happened last night in Texas to the Iran war, arguing its evidence that people do support what is going on in Iran. He also said the midterm will not have any impact on any negotiations with Iran and blamed Iranian officials for stalling a deal to try to exert pressure on him politically. Regardless of what he says and how much he tries to conflate the outcomes of the GOP primary with the general election, Trump knows that what is going on in Iran is an enormous problem for him and his party in the Midterms.

The war is unpopular with Americans and there has never been a time in American history when a war has gotten more popular the longer it has gone on. This is why he and the GOP are up against the clock.

(2) Trump started the meeting by trying to highlight issues of concern to voters - immigration, security, crime, and the economy. While he did mention the Texas run-off and War, he did not spend much time on them until the Q&A with reporters when he resorted to tough talk about the situation in the Middle East, saying things like:

* We don’t need the Strait of Hormuz

* We will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon

* We will not give Iran sanctions relief or funding

* We will not let them control the Strait, it will be an open waterway again

* If they don’t do what I want this man on my left (Secretary of Defense) will “finish them off”

* Maybe we shouldn’t make a deal unless they agree to sign the Abraham Accords

The bravado belies the fact that the president desperately wants to bring this war to an end but is in a political conundrum because he does not want this war of choice to have been in vain. While he cannot hope to achieve the objectives he originally laid out at the start of the War, he wants to make sure he has something to show for the loss of life, billions of dollars, impact on the US and world economy, etc. As we saw over the last few days, that is not going to be an easy task. When he suggested last weekend an agreement was imminent and the news broke that it may involve putting off the nuclear issue to a later date, he was criticized by many, especially those in his own party.

Trump is grappling with the fact that he has walked the nation down a war path from which there is no good exit. His options are

(1) Military escalation

(2) Maintain the status quo

(3) Strike a deal not unlike the one he was talking about a few days ago that sequences reopening the Strait, compensating Iran and ending the blockade while pushing to later stages negotiations on other key issues, including: the nuclear issue, enriched uranium, US troops, proxies, Lebanon, future of the Strait, sanctions relief, etc.

None of these are palatable. The least bad option is #3, but it also means a humiliating defeat for the president and a huge loss for the U.S. If we follow path #3 we will be almost back to where we were prior to February 28 - an open Strait and a JCPOA style agreement. Not “fully back,” however, given Iran has now shown the world it can close the Strait.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Texas voters head to the polls today in what is the most expensive primary in US history. AdImpact reports that total ad spending in the lone star state primary was over $95m with $128-130m spent by both parties.

Note: C/o AdImpact, as of 2/27

Democrat and Texas State Representative, James Talarico, secured the Democratic nomination in early March. Since no Republican received more than 50% of the vote at that time, however, the two top ‘vote-getters,’ incumbent Senator John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton, were forced into a run-off that concludes tonight.

It is one of the most significant primaries of the season given that if Paxton wins, Democrats may have a real chance of picking up the seat for the first time in years. In an effort to stave that off, establishment Republicans have been pushing hard for Cornyn who did better than expected in early March, beating Paxton by almost 2%. His stronger than expected performance heightened exceptions that President Trump would endorse him. Instead, Trump did the opposite, last week to the surprise and frustration of many, putting his support behind Paxton.

The candidates represent two very different futures for the GOP. Cornyn - running for his fourth term - is a Senate leader, a figure from the Bush-era, who is beloved by his colleagues and a prodigious fundraiser. Paxton, on the other hand, has been a vocal supporter of Trump and pushed harder than any AG in the country to overturn the 2020 election results. He also has a checkered past, having been indicted on charges of security fraud, impeached by his own party on charges of bribery, obstruction of justice and abuse of public trust, as well as the subject of reports to law enforcement by his own staff, amongst other things.

Why Trump endorsed Paxton is unclear, but it may have to do with internal polls showing Paxton is going to win and the presidents interest in being the rain-maker in GOP primaries.

Whatever the reason, Democrats are salivating at the prospect of a Talarico-Paxton match up because they believe Paxton is more beatable than Cornyn, has a lot of baggage, and is a weak fundraiser. The final point is critical, if Paxton wins the question will be does Trump use some of his $300M in Super Pac funds to support him? Moreover, how much will the GOP have to divert from other races to help keep Paxton competitive in this very expensive state during an increasingly difficult year for Republicans?

Regardless of who clinches the Republican nomination, Trump gave us a preview of what is to come a few days ago when he blasted Talarico as a “defective candidate that believes in six genders,” who “takes hits at Jesus Christ,” and is unelectable because "he’s a vegan in Texas." Paxton, in the meantime, continues to try to emulate Trump, telling a crowd recently that he wanted to test out a few nicknames for the Democratic nominee, including “Low-T Talarico,” “Tofu Talarico,” “Tala-freak-o.”

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe