Scott Horton, longtime radio host and podcaster, director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of Antiwar.com, and author of several best selling books, joins us this week to talk about the desperation in the air as neoconservatives and Washington war party denizens try to prove victory in Iran is just a few bombs and a regime change away. 

We also discuss Laura Loomer's new "moral clarity" on Ukraine, and Zelensky's attempt to merge both the Iran and Ukraine wars to keep Trump boxed in for support. But in reality, can the U.S military keep going?

Listen, and please don't forget to subscribe!

• 0:00 Welcome And Why This Feels Familiar
• 2:35 The New Push For Iran Regime Change
• 6:55 The Unspoken Price Of Escalation
• 14:10 The Nuclear Slope And Impossible Invasion
• 20:55 Interceptor Shortages And Pentagon Spin
• 28:35 An Illegal War And Congress Ignored
• 31:50 Loomer Zelensky And Linking Two Wars
• 38:55 Stockpiles Attrition And The Hormuz Trap
• 43:35 Final Takeaways And Scott’s Book Plug

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

• 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

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?

• 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

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.

• 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

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.

• 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

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?

“They’re weeks away” has become the most durable talking point in modern Middle East politics, and it keeps steering the United States toward confrontation with Iran. We sit down with legendary journalist, historian, and policy analyst Gareth Porter to unpack how the Iran nuclear program was turned into a decades long crisis narrative and why that story still drives today’s war politics.

We walk through Porter’s reporting behind Manufactured Crisis and the claim that key “evidence” used to cement the nuclear weapons accusation, including the infamous set of documents that arrived via European channels, was treated as definitive even as German officials questioned its credibility. That opens up a bigger discussion about the relationship between intelligence, the national security state, and mainstream media: how thin assertions become “known facts,” why corrections rarely catch up to first impressions, and why challenging the consensus can be professionally risky even when the sourcing is solid.

From there, we trace the policy arc across administrations: Clinton era choices that deepen alignment with Israel against Iran, the George W. Bush period when the nuclear scare blends with regime change thinking, Obama’s long path to the JCPOA nuclear deal and the political battles that surround verification, and Trump’s decision to rip up the agreement and reimpose sanctions. We also talk about escalation dynamics today, including the predictable economic and security stakes around the Strait of Hormuz, and what happens when pressure campaigns collide with regional realities Washington often misunderstands.

Subscribe to Trip the Beltway Fantastic, share this conversation with someone who follows Iran policy, and leave a review with the toughest question you want us to tackle next.

• 0:00 Welcome And Why This Matters
• 2:55 Trump’s Nuclear Fear Pitch
• 3:46 33 Years With No Proof
• 7:24 The Briefcase Documents Allegation
• 10:50 Germany’s Warning And Media Silence
• 12:53 Clinton Era Alignment Against Iran
• 15:16 Netanyahu’s Repeating Bomb Warnings
• 19:33 Scare Stories As War Cover
• 21:26 Regime Change Thinking Under Bush
• 25:42 Obama, Sabotage, And The JCPOA
• 29:48 Trump Exits The Deal And Squeezes
• 36:16 Strait Of Hormuz And Blowback
• 40:05 Final Takeaways And Thanks

A brand-new acting Director of National Intelligence with no intelligence background sounds like a scandal until you hear the darker possibility: maybe the job isn’t meant to restrain anyone. We sit down with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern to unpack what the DNI role has become, why real power can bypass “oversight,” and how information gets filtered before it ever reaches the president.

Then we turn to what might be the most under-covered national security story on the Hill: a measure embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act that could push U.S. Israel military integration into a new phase, from co-producing weapons and cyber technology to building shared industrial capacity. We talk about what happens when foreign military aid shifts into quieter, harder-to-track arrangements and why that matters for transparency, congressional accountability, and the risk of escalation.

From there, we examine the machinery that keeps war options on the table, especially with Iran: alleged cooked intelligence, the intimidation factor inside high-level meetings, and how dissenting analysis can get sidelined. We also discuss AIPAC’s influence operations and revolving door, the role of media narratives and paid messaging, and why public opinion is shifting anyway. Ray closes with a stark reminder from Eisenhower: the only antidote is a well-informed citizenry.

Chapter Markers

0:00. Welcome And Guest Introduction

1:15. A New DNI With No Intel

6:10. Why DNI Oversight Rarely Works

10:45. NDAA Plan For Deeper Israel Ties

17:05. History Of U.S. Cover-Ups And Israel

26:10. Cooked Intelligence And Hitting Iran

32:20. AIPAC Influence And The Revolving Door

38:10. Media Messaging And The Pompeo Problem

41:20. Protest Footage And The Cost Of Dissent

44:15. Winter Soldiers Warning And Closing

Peace talks with Iran don’t just face obstacles overseas, they run straight into a buzz saw at home. Kelly Vlejos is joined by Quincy Institute colleagues Alex Jerdon and Courtney Rawlings, co-hosts of Always at War, to unpack a Memorial Day weekend news cycle that swung from talk of a US-Iran breakthrough to renewed strikes and a full-blown meltdown from the usual hawks.

We dig into the messaging coming from prominent pro-war voices, including the claim that America must “negotiate while fighting,” and why that framing turns diplomacy into a stepping stone for escalation rather than a way out. We also question the contradiction at the heart of so much cable news commentary: if Iran was supposedly “decimated,” why is the answer always more bombing and more open-ended objectives? Along the way, we connect the debate to intelligence realities, including repeated assertions that the Iranian nuclear weapons narrative does not match the available assessments.

The conversation widens to the bipartisan politics that make peace harder, with Democrats sometimes attacking negotiation from the right, and to the deeper culture of the Washington foreign policy blob on display in the Monk debate featuring Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer versus Victoria Nuland and Mike Pompeo. We close by tying it to the core question behind Always at War: what incentives, myths, and moneyed interests keep the United States locked into permanent war logic.

If this helped you think differently about US foreign policy toward Iran, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review. What’s the most dangerous myth you keep hearing about Iran?

• 0:31 Welcome And Subscribe
• 1:53 Tulsi Gabbard And Iran Whiplash
• 4:39 Hawks Push “Negotiate While Fighting”
• 8:46 Ted Cruz And War Narrative Spin
• 15:11 Can Trump Ignore The Pressure
• 21:38 Democrats Undercut Diplomacy
• 25:09 Monk Debate And The DC Priesthood
• 34:01 Always At War And Profit Incentives
• 38:18 Final Thoughts And Thanks

A president doesn’t have to be irrational to use the madman theory, they just have to look irrational enough to be believed. We dig into how this controversial tactic works in real life: a calculated performance meant to plant a sliver of doubt in an adversary’s mind that you might escalate beyond the “normal” rules of foreign policy and deterrence.

With author and scholar James Boyse, we trace the madman theory’s roots in Cold War strategy and negotiation thinking, from Harvard and RAND to the Oval Office. We talk about Thomas Schelling, Daniel Ellsberg, and Henry Kissinger, then follow the thread into Richard Nixon’s approach to Vietnam, where credibility, secrecy, and brinkmanship collide. The history is messy, and that’s the point: you can often see the threats, but the outcomes are harder to measure, especially when your opponent refuses to believe you’ll actually do what you imply.

From there, we bring the framework into today’s headlines. We unpack Trump foreign policy claims around Ukraine and Russia, the administration’s “purposeful strategic ambiguity,” and how NATO pressure can succeed or sour depending on trust and follow-through. We also confront the limits of madman tactics with Iran, where unclear goals, legal concerns, and ally hesitation can drain credibility fast, and we end with Cuba as a live case where pressure and escalation signals could matter in the months ahead.

If you like sharp history that connects directly to current US grand strategy debates, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

• 0:20. Welcome And Why It Matters
• 2:47 What Madman Theory Really Means
• 4:48 Nixon And The Need For Credibility
• 8:58. Vietnam Escalation And Secret Signaling
• 11:25 Did Nixon Actually Succeed
• 12:58 Ellsberg Schelling Kissinger At Harvard
• 16:49 James K Polk And Expansion By Intimidation
• 19:24 Trump Ukraine And Strategic Ambiguity
• 25:50 Iran Limits And Ally Blowback
• 31:15 Cuba As A Live Test Case
• 34:02 Final Takeaways And Listener Requests