Trip the Beltway Fantastic With Kelley Vlahos and Friends

If you have been paying any attention to international politics over the last four years you have no doubt picked up on the phrase “Global South” relating to a host of middle and small powers ranging from South Africa and Indonesia, Brazil to the Pacific Islands and their growing influence on the geopolitical stage. These nations have emerged as opposition to Western policies on Ukraine and Israel, they have raised the specter of alternative financial systems, even de-dollarization, to get around sanctions and the iron grip of the West in international markets and trade. They have asserted themselves at the UN and are gathering influence in groupings like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.They embrace what they believe is the new multipolar world.

But now Trump is back. It would seem many of these nations just want to open up to trade, and provide security for their people without being forced to choose sides in any Great Power Competition or dynamic. What kind of approach will the new president take? Will the threat of tariffs right off the bat spoil any chance for productive relations? Are many of these countries — particularly in Latin America — already predisposed to an adversarial relationship with Trump? Are others happy he is back? 

Is there any real “Global South” in which they are acting on behalf of a collective realignment? 

I talk with my friends and colleagues Sarang Shidore director of the Global South program at the Quincy Institute, and Karthik Sankaran, senior research fellow in geoeconomics in the Global South program, to set the table on this highly textured issue, particularly has the world awaits Trump 2.0.

More from Sarang:

The Quiet Development Shaking America’s Power

The Return of the Global South

More from Karthik:

 Targeting China, Biden fires a big tech salvo at the entire world

The U.S. Dollar Is Riding High. Trump Could Put an End to All That.

Last week there was a very brief moment in which it looked like the newly inaugurated President Trump was finally going to allow the declassification of all the files relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. This has been decades in the waiting, and he had said clearly in interviews during the campaign and after his election that he was going to immediately release these records – of which there are around 3,000 today sitting in the National Archives and Records Administration In fact, in a Washington rally the night before his inauguration, Trump declared his administration will “reverse the overclassification of government documents, and in the coming days, we are going to make public remaining records relating to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy, as well as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and other topics of great public interest." 

He then issued a much awaited Executive Order on January 16 that directs the DNI – Director of National Intelligence – and the attorney general to develop a plan within 15 days to release the remaining JFK records, and within 45 days a plan to release the RFK and MLK Jr. cases. But the response to this order has been deflation, not elation. 

My guest today is going to explain what this order says, what it does, and why it wasn’t what we had exactly hoped for. He will also walk us through what has and has not been released already, what he is looking for in the remaining classified and redacted documents, and most importantly why it is critical that all of the government records of the assassination, before and after November 22, 1963, are finally made public.

Jefferson Morley is a Washington author and veteran journalist who has been writing for decades about the JFK assassination within the context of official secrecy in Washington’s intelligence agencies. He is the author of several non–fiction histories, the most recent being Scorpions Dance: The President, The Spymaster and Watergate (2022), and The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton (2017). He is the vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation and publishes a popular Substack newsletter called JFK Facts. 

This week he previewed his own special edition, in which JFK Facts and the Mary Ferrell Foundation will be highlighting 12 essential documents believed to be covered in the Executive Order and how they might finally unlock the mysteries of the JFK assassination, including whether Harvey Lee Oswald was indeed the lone gunman, which is the official story of that day in Dallas, November 22, 1963. 

Read more in Jefferson Morley’s newsletter, JFK Facts

Today we commemorate the inauguration of the 47th president, Donald Trump, after the longest and most tumultuous year in recent memory in terms of politics and foreign policy. The results of the 2024 election in November, largely predicted by my two guests today, were still a surprise in a way that no one could have guessed what a seismic shift there would be in the political and social landscape afterwards. 

Where the 2016 election of Donald Trump brought on a wave of protest including the landmark women’s march, which brought over 450k demonstrators to the Nation’s Capitol ahead of his first inauguration, the one that took place on Saturday drew only a few thousand. Original protesters contacted by Politico said there was a mixture of fatigue and frustration within their activist ranks, that the feeling of righteousness was just not there. 

One organizer of the 2017 events told Politico that she was “not that type of progressive anymore” and was frustrated at what she views as a political left that is “completely cannibalizing itself.”

Mainstream media outlets like CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post seem to be fitting that bill too, cannibalizing and/or imploding. Instead of lashing out to find boogeymen like Putin and Xi Jinping as having engineered the election, the progressive left and even Democratic party members have turned introspective. What does this mean for foreign policy? Well, this week saw the incoming Trump administration get credit for the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, while the Biden team struggled against the optics of protesters at every media appearance. There seems to be more acknowledgement than ever that the only way the Ukraine War will come to an end is through negotiations, and the incoming White House and Trump cabinet nominees seem more in line with that one issue than any other in the foreign policy portfolio.

But are there fissures in the MAGA world already emerging? This week it was reported that Steve Bannon, early New Right impresario who actually did time in prison defending Trump, called Elon Musk, who has been at Trump’s right hand for months through the election and after, “an evil person.” Where can we expect the fractures in the base to open and what does that portend for an effective overall political strategy from the man at the top? Will that bleed into foreign policy and national security? 

Here to talk with me about all of this are my friends and two of the best political analysts I know — political writer and commentator Jack Hunter  and Charles McElwee, reporter and editor for RealClearPennsylvania.

More from Jack Hunter

Neocons are melting down over JD Vance

A MAGA Left-Right Coalition?

More from Charles McElwee

Mainstreet of the Realignment

Tine to Retire Pennsylvania’s ‘Alabama’

The fall of Bashar Assad in Syria has led to grave uncertainties — both in the geopolitical situation there, and in the day-to-day running of the country, which has suffered under civil war for 14 years. 

The new governing authority under HTS is looking for the lifting of international sanctions so it can start rebuilding the country after over a decade of civil war. Also, questions remain over whether or not this new governing authority will be tolerant of the minorities in Syria, which include the Allawites, Christians and Druze peoples. But there are already reports of intermittent attacks on Allawites, revenge attacks on former police, military and former Assad operatives throughout the country. Whether these incidents are disparate or reflective of something more significant about the direction of the new leadership there, remains to be determined, as current leader Ahmed Al-Sharra insists he is in favor of a process that results in an inclusive, representative government.

The U.S. still has at least 2,000 soldiers stationed in the northeastern part of the country, ostensibly to fight ISIS. Turkey is launching attacks against the U.S.-supported Kurd-led Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) in that part of Syria and threaten to eliminate any of the strongholds that the SDF had maintained during the civil war. Meanwhile, Israel has taken over the UN-protected buffer zone in the Golan Heights, reportedly destroying property and threatening local villagers. How far will they go? How long will they stay?

These are just some of the questions as we move into 2025 — including what the kind of policy President Donald Trump will pursue when it comes to Syria — will he help to lift sanctions or be more skeptical of the Sunni-led HTS in Damascus?

Here to talk with me about this are my friends Matthew Petti, who is a reporter for Reason magazine and who has lived in the region,  and Connor Echols, who is the managing editor of the NonZero newsletter and has  also lived and studied in the region. 

More from Petti:

Is Biden Teeing up a war with Iran for Trump?

More from Echols:

Why do Biden and Blinken act like Israel’s lawyers?

For the Palestinians in Israel, conditions keep getting worse. In Gaza, the official death toll is now over 45,000, the vast majority civilians. This cannot take into account bodies still under the rubble, which covers the landscape of the two-mile strip. Thousands are displaced and without food, orphaned, and struggling for healthcare as none of the hospitals in Gaza are working at full capacity today. 

In the West Bank, the situation is reaching a critical juncture. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far right government is now talking openly about fully annexing the territory. Right now there are some 670,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank – settlements that are considered illegal under international law. But the settlements keep expanding even as the U.S. has warned against them. 

Now hawkish Republican voices in the U.S., even those in Donald Trump’s inner circle, have suggested support for a complete annexation of the territory, which now houses some 2.7 million Palestinians, many of whom have been brutally attacked by extremist settlers in the last several years, particularly after Oct 7, 2023. Where will they go if they are squeezed out of their homes and villages? 

My guest Annelle Sheline, who is a Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, just published a new report on Jordan amid the turmoil, and an article this week at Responsible Statecraft that talks about how millions of refugees could be headed for Jordan and it could spell the end of the Hastemite monarchy if and when the West Bank is annexed. 

More from Annelle Sheline:

Jordan braces as Israeli annexation of West Bank looms

Opinion: Why I’m resigning from the State Department

Implications of Assad’s Fall for Syria and the Region

This week we have seen the utter collapse of the Assad regime and the Baathist political ideology in Syria. This follows a year of crisis and turmoil in the Middle East and absolute uncertainty in the days ahead as power centers completely shift and foreign militaries, including the Turks, Israel, and the U.S. race to take advantage of the power vacuum and chaos that remains. 

This is all happening as a new administration is poised to take over in January. Trump’s nominees for foreign policy and national security are certainly a mixed bag. But one, Tulsi Gabbard, who was nominated for Director of National Intelligence, seems to be igniting partisan fires like no other candidate. Interestingly, the Army reserve officer, former congresswoman and Iraq War veteran has been most prescient when it comes to US intervention in the Middle East. She has warned consistently about meddling in the politics of Syria, about taking sides in the internecine conflicts, and maintaining an aggressive military footprint inside the country. She to this day is drawing fire for her 2017 visit with Bashar Assad because in her words:

“ I did so because I felt that it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace…Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the president of Syria. In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”

Nevertheless nearly 100 former national security officials penned a letter saying they were “alarmed” at her nomination and urged closed door hearings to go over her record, saying that following her trip to Syria, “Ms. Gabbard aligned herself with Russian and Syrian officials." 

She has been called a traitor and a foreign agent by Democrats who want to tank her nomination. But more than 250 conservative military veterans responded Monday with their own letter, saying "Tulsi’s life exemplifies a rare blend of selflessness, courage, and leadership—qualities desperately needed to reform and strengthen our intelligence community," the signatories stated. 

"We are appalled by the baseless attacks questioning Tulsi’s loyalty to our great nation. For over 20 years and across multiple combat deployments, Tulsi has risked her life to defend the safety, security and freedom of the American people. These attacks insult not only her, but every one of us Veterans who have served our country."

Gabbard faces a hard road, but it is not difficult to see that she had been prescient in so many ways, as much of the American regime change wars of the last 40 years have come to destructive fruition just in the last few days. Today, the U.S. insists on keeping military forces in Syria to fight ISIS, a branch of the Islamists who Washington helped to create by its invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein 20 years ago. 

Here to talk about Gabbard’s road to confirmation ahead and what is going on in Syria today is Lyle Goldstein, director of China policy for Defense Priorities and head of the China Initiative at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, and good friend of the show Michael Vlahos, who is a fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and former Naval War College professor.

A week ago Syrian Sunni rebels under the banner of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or HTS launched a surprise attack on the government forces of President Bashar al-Assad, capturing over the last week most of the strategic provinces of Aleppo and Idlib, which had been at the heart of the ISIS insurgency during the early years of the Syrian Civil War. The timing is auspicious : Assad’s key allies — Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have been seriously distracted and/or weakened over the last year.

Most specifically, Hezbollah had just signed a ceasefire with Israel days before the HTS attack and is spending much of its energy right now focused on its remaining elements and the political situation inside Lebanon. Russia has been assisting Assad with airstrikes over the last few days but it too, has limited resources due to its own war over the last two and a half years in Ukraine. Meanwhile the role of Turkey — whether direct or pulling strings — has also raised eyebrows. It is a NATO member, after all, and while the U.S. has no love lost for Assad, Ankara’s support for Al Qaeda inspired terrorists would be unhelpful to Washington. Or would it? Is Washington already stirring up trouble and if so, are our 900 troops in the country being placed further into harm’s way?

Here to walk us through this web of interests and traps is Professor Joshua Landis, who is the head of the Center for Middle East Studies and director of the Farzaneh Family Center for Iranian and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Oklahoma. He is a recognized expert on Syria politics and war, and his new book: Syria at Independence: Nationalism, Leadership, and Failure of Republicanism will be published by the Arab Center for research and Policy studies this coming year.

More from Landis:

US troops should have left Syria and Iraq long ago

On Wednesday the US embassy in Kyiv issued a rare, urgent warning that Russia might launch a “a significant air attack.” The embassy was closed and employees were told to shelter in place. Officials did not provide any specific information about threats to the building, and air raids were sounding for most of the county due to incoming drone attacks from Russia.

The warnings come just days after the Biden administration gave permission to Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles, specifically Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMs, to attack inside Russia. This is the latest in a string of crossed “red lines” for the administration, and according to our guest this week, a big one. He also gave permission for the Pentagon to transfer antipersonnel land mines to Ukraine to use to stall Russian progression on the Ukrainian battlefield (Biden had publicly opposed such weapons as recently as 2020).

Ukraine has taken its new authority and is running hard with it, launching at least six ATACMs into Russia on Monday, hitting an ammunition facility in the Bryansk region in Southwestern part of the country. According to the New York Times, “the strike represented a demonstration of force for Ukraine as it tries to show Western allies that providing more powerful and sophisticated weapons will pay off — by degrading Russia’s combat capabilities and relieving pressure on Kyiv’s overstretched forces.”

But my colleague, Mark Episkospos, a research fellow in the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute and a scholar of Russian history and military strategy, says this is folly, that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia not only prolongs a war that will never ultimately turn in Kyiv’s favor, but opens NATO countries up to Russian retaliation, even nuclear attack. 

To put a finer point on it, the Kremlin updated its nuclear doctrine this week, declaring nuclear retaliation on nuclear powers fair game if Russia is attacked with their weapons via a non-nuclear power like Ukraine.

Mark walks us through with why this red line may be the most dangerous yet.

More from Mark Episkopos:

Biden's ‘Last bang’: Allow long range missiles in Russia

Trump has a mandate to end the Ukraine War

Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Is a Two-Edged Sword

Ukraine & the West are crossing red lines. Why isn't Russia reacting?

It’s been an incredible roller coaster ride and it’s only been a week since the election, with Donald Trump winning both the popular and electoral vote in what he and his supporters are calling a mandate for their side. Where does this leave foreign policy and national security? After what was considered a “win” for realism and restraint last weekend, Trump announced that he would not be asking uber-hawks Michael Pompeo or Nikki Haley to join his administration. But not but a day afterward, the President-elect confirmed that he has appointed Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador. 

Stefanik is a staunch Israel proponent who worked for the arch neoconservative organizations Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Bill Kristol’s Foreign Policy Initiative. 

Then word hit that Trump had planned to appoint Rep. Mike Waltz, another super hawk who not only didn’t want to end the war in Afghanistan, but has been open to attacking Iran and building up the military for a confrontation with China, as his National Security Advisor. 

Then word came down that Trump was expected to nominate Sen. Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, setting off a wave of repulsion from the restrainer crowd. Rubio, groomed by neocons, has been a career-long supporter of Israel and has been open to going to war with Iran. 

Where is this going? Should restrainers panic or take a deep breath and try to discern Trump’s strategy here? 

I talk to (Ret.) Lt. Col. Danny Davis of the Deep Dive podcast and Jack Hunter, a writer for Based Politics and Responsible Statecraft to get the insights from the right end of the non-interventionist dial.

More from Davis:

More from Hunter: 

We are just days away from the presidential election, in fact we are entering the final weekend. Interestingly, Donald Trump appears to have seized on all of Kamala Harris’s weaknesses on foreign policy — particularly the hell she has been taking from her left flank over Gaza — to try and peel off voters in key swing states including Michigan and Wisconsin, which we know have big Muslim-American populations.

So while Kamala Harris has been campaigning with neoconservative Liz Cheney, blowing the minds of her progressive base, many of whom no doubt see the looming face of Dick Cheney and both father and daughter’s support for the Global War on Terror in every step they make on the campaign trail, Trump has been talking about peace in the Middle East, ending the War in Ukraine and reanimating his attacks on the George W. Bush administration.

His running mate Senator J.D. Vance, meanwhile, actually posted on X late last week that “Israel has the right to defend itself, but America's interest is sometimes going to be distinct. Sometimes we're going to have overlapping interests, and sometimes we're going to have distinct interests. And our interest, I think, very much is in not going to war with Iran.”

He also criticized the Harris team squarely on Gaza. 

“Even though they say they want to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, they pursued the pathway that maximizes those casualties,” Vance said. “They say that they're pro-Israel. They've pursued the pathway that has prolonged the war as long as possible, which is bad for Israel.”

While Harris has been talking tough on foreign policy, indicating that she would not change Biden’s policies, multiple polling has found that Americans are more confident in Trump’s ability to steer foreign policy in 2025.

Why is this? My guess this week has written a great article about it and is in his own right a U.S. foreign policy expert. Peter Van Buren spent over two decades in the foreign service, including a stint in Iraq during the war, before retiring from the State Department in 2012. Today he is a regular columnist for The American Conservative and the author of three books, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.

More from Peter:

What Will Trump II Do for Foreign Policy?

Kerry’s Constitutional Confusion

A Pre-Debate Letter to Donald Trump