Rational Security The "Take a Light Out of Crime" Edition
Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Scott R. Anderson (Lawfare Senior Editor)
Guests: Ari Tabatabai (Lawfare Public Service Fellow), Natalie Orpet (Lawfare Executive Editor), Benjamin Wittes (Lawfare Editor-in-Chief)

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the ongoing U.S. and Israeli military operations in Iran and their far-reaching national security consequences. The panel examines the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the shifting dynamics of U.S.-European alliances, and recent concerning developments in Pentagon strategy under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, particularly regarding rules of engagement and civilian harm. The conversation balances detailed policy analysis, legal perspectives, historical context, and characteristically sardonic Lawfare humor.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Strait of Hormuz Shutdown: Strategic and Global Implications

Timestamps: 05:04–29:11

• Background: Three weeks into the U.S. and Israeli air campaign against Iran, the Strait—a key oil and fertilizer trade route—remains all but closed, driving oil prices over $100 a barrel.

• Iran’s Tactics:

  • Iran, despite only deploying a fraction of its mine-laying and naval disruption capabilities, has largely halted tanker traffic except for select allies (India, Pakistan, China) through deals or selective passage. (09:49–15:15)
  • Their strategy leverages cheap, asymmetric harassment—mines and drones—to tie up U.S. resources.

• U.S. Capabilities and Blunders:

  • The U.S. Navy has deprioritized mine-sweeping; much of its Avenger-class fleet was recently decommissioned, creating a critical capability gap for mine countermeasures. (12:00–13:15)
  • The administration appears to have failed to prepare for such a crisis, despite decades of war games anticipating this scenario. (09:49–12:00, 13:15–14:55)

• European and Regional Reluctance:

  • Efforts to rally NATO/European partners to help clear the strait have largely failed—European leaders see this as “not our war.” (15:15–24:56)
  • European countries may be weighing whether remaining uninvolved (and perhaps negotiating separately with Iran for safe passage) is preferable, despite their own vulnerability to the closure. (18:48–19:45)

• Economic Fallout:

  • Beyond oil, fertilizer shortages could drive global food insecurity and spark migratory crises, especially affecting Europe. (08:00–09:49)

• Panel Reflections:

  • Ari Tabatabai: “This scenario ... has been predicted for a very long time. And the fact that we clearly did not plan for it or didn’t take it seriously is a little baffling to me.” [09:49]
  • Natalie Orpet: “A lot of the reason why we do the hard work of quiet diplomacy ... is so that we have support when we are actually in the middle of things.” [19:45]
  • Benjamin Wittes: “There is no safe harbor for Europe ... there’s no amount of working with the administration that is going to insulate them from the next outrage.” [22:22]

2. U.S.-European Alliance: Fragmentation and Fallout

Timestamps: 24:56–63:39

• Strained Transatlantic Relations:

  • European reluctance boils down to deep diplomatic rifts, especially after the recent U.S.-Greenland debacle, and a sense that supporting U.S. initiatives confers no protection against future “outrages.” (24:56–29:11, 49:53–57:11)

• Trump Administration’s Approach:

  • Lack of proper consultation, “bowling ball diplomacy,” and open threats to NATO have made support close to politically toxic for European leaders.
  • The Article 51 self-defense letter to the UN arrived late, highlighting the administration’s disregard for international legal frameworks key to allied participation. (29:11–31:41)

• Europe’s Response and Strategic Rethinking:

  • European countries are genuinely considering more independent defense capacities, including developing an indigenous nuclear umbrella backed by France. (52:32–63:39)
  • “The values-based alliance is just blown up by the total abandonment of the values that everyone thought were the premise of the relationship from the beginning ... Greenland was a real, real signal of that to people.” — Natalie Orpet [52:32]
  • Macron’s proposal for a European nuclear umbrella is “not a complete replacement for U.S. extended deterrence ... but it is very much supposed to be additive to it.” — Ari Tabatabai [58:49]

3. Unlawful Good? Pentagon's Civilian Harm Crisis under Hegseth

Timestamps: 63:39–85:07

• The Catastrophic School Strike:

  • U.S. forces accidentally struck a girls’ school in southern Iran, killing 150–200 children. Possible causes: bad intelligence, overreliance on unvetted AI targeting, and—crucially—elimination of oversight mechanisms meant to limit civilian harm. (63:39–66:54)

• Rules of Engagement Gutted:

  • Secretary Hegseth called the rules of engagement “stupid,” fired military lawyers (JAGs), and shifted strike authority further down the chain to improve “lethality.” Panelists sharply criticize the rhetorical and real consequences of equating legality with weakness. (66:54–74:22)

• Law of Armed Conflict: Not Just Morality, But Strategy:

  • Natalie Orpet: “When you kill a bunch of civilians ... you’re just incentivizing resentment and pushing people toward feeling a sense of justifiable grievance...” [66:54]
  • Ari Tabatabai: “Multilateralism is hard … but it is important because they [allies] have things we don’t have.” [43:17]
  • Scott R. Anderson: Points to the gross strategic harm: “When your allies can’t do things that are in their own interest, that is a really bad sign ...”
  • Ben Wittes provides historical comparison, noting advances in targeting and lethality mean that “legality and lethality are the same thing, if you know what you’re talking about.” [77:49]

• Operational and Political Risks:

  • The disregard for legal and moral guardrails not only ensures higher civilian casualties, but may backfire by:
    • Forfeiting the “moral high ground”
    • Failing strategically and undermining domestic and allied support
    • Feeding adversary propaganda and incentivizing similar atrocities against U.S. personnel in the future (74:22–77:49)

4. Object Lessons

Timestamps: 85:07–91:56

• Natalie Orpet: Recommends “Radish Box,” a global kids’ cooking subscription, and shares sticky toffee pudding home–office adventures. [85:20]
• Ari Tabatabai: Discovers and obsesses over Taiwanese mountain pepper after a culinary tour. [87:19]
• Scott R. Anderson: Shares his “mastered” portable tech and iPad travel kit. [88:32]
• Benjamin Wittes: Humorous plug for his fashion “Get Ready with Me” video, complete with Ukrainian embroidery and dog shirts. [90:19]
  • “The world doesn’t have enough mid-50s kind of male midlife crisis Get Ready with Me videos. And I’m personally on a campaign to fix that problem.” — Benjamin Wittes [90:19]

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Wittes, freeing himself after protests:
  “As Martin Luther King said, free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I am free at last.” [00:39]

• Razor-edge on European engagement:
  “If you can’t prevent him from behaving like him by being nice, then what is the value of being nice?” — Benjamin Wittes [23:12]

• On U.S. lack of operational endgame:
  “It’s a very convenient thing ... if you haven’t articulated what the objective of your operation even is ... you get to place the blame on someone else.” — Natalie Orpet [36:58]

• On civilian casualties and rules of war:
  “Law and lawyers are just an impediment that is restricting American lethality ... [but] the law of war is itself merely an articulation of the idea that war is supposed to be for the purpose of accomplishing an objective.” — Natalie Orpet [66:54]

• On legality and military effectiveness:
  “Legality and lethality are the same thing if you know what you’re talking about.” — Benjamin Wittes [77:49]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Main discussion begins: 03:05
• Iran/Strait of Hormuz crisis: 05:04–31:41
• European and NATO dynamics: 24:56–52:32
• French nuclear umbrella proposal: 57:11–63:39
• Rules of engagement/civilian harm: 63:39–85:07
• Object lessons: 85:07–91:56

Summary Tone and Language

The conversation blends incisive policy critique, serious legal and historical commentary, and the panel's trademark wry, slightly irreverent humor. Quotes are reproduced verbatim, maintaining the panelists’ original voices. The episode is rich, detailed, and accessible for listeners who want to understand not just what is happening in U.S. national security policy, but why it matters and how it plays out at the human, strategic, and political levels.

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode provides a comprehensive and critical look at how the U.S. and its allies are both shaping and being shaped by the conflict with Iran—politically, militarily, and legally. The analysis of European strategic awakening, the Pentagon’s drift into dangerous territory on civilian protections, and the historical lessons drawn make this a can't-miss discussion for anyone following global security developments.