Rational Security
"Trump Ruined My Dinner" Edition
Release Date: September 11, 2025
Host: Scott R. Anderson (The Lawfare Institute)
Panelists: Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpet, Beck Ingber
Overview
This episode dives into a tumultuous week for global security, featuring three headline crises:
- A mass drone incursion into Polish airspace, widely seen as a Russian provocation and a test of NATO's resolve.
- Israel’s unprecedented missile strike on Hamas leadership in Qatar, risking major diplomatic fallout across the Gulf.
- The Trump administration’s controversial lethal strike against a narcotics boat linked to Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua organization, signaling the possibility of further escalation and raising legal and political alarms.
The panel—Scott Anderson, Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpet, and special guest Beck Ingber—disentangle the facts, legalities, politics, and implications at play, highlighting how these events stress-test core principles of international order and the ability of the US administration to manage them.
Key Discussion Points
1. Russian UAVs in Polish Airspace: A NATO Test
[03:47]-[27:03]
-
Incident Recap:
Nineteen armed Russian UAVs crossed into Polish airspace, later shot down by Polish and NATO assets. Russians and Belarusians claim it was accidental, variously citing “military exercises” and “misdirected attacks” aimed at Ukraine. -
Panel Reaction:
- Ben Wittes: Dismisses the “accident” explanation, noting the high number (19 drones) and geography make that implausible.
“It’s actually hard for me to imagine you can send between a dozen and two dozen missiles into Poland by accident.” [08:03, Wittes]
- Suggests Putin is probing NATO's credibility, emboldened by Trump’s ambivalence toward NATO in previous years.
- The incident is widely seen as a deliberate test: “We’ve all been speculating for a long time about... ‘Oops, missiles in Poland’—and this is that moment.” [11:50, Wittes]
- Skepticism about Polish and US responses, especially given “Let’s go” as Trump’s only public response.
- Ben Wittes: Dismisses the “accident” explanation, noting the high number (19 drones) and geography make that implausible.
-
Legal Dimensions:
- Beck Ingber: Clarifies NATO protocol distinctions:
- Article 4 invoked (consultation when a member feels threatened), not Article 5 (an “armed attack”), indicating Poland is not treating this as a full-scale attack warranting a collective response.
- Reviews the legal debate on whether drone incursions rise to the level of an “armed attack.”
"Most states with the possible exception of the United States view a distinction between use of force and an armed attack..." [13:33, Ingber]
- Beck Ingber: Clarifies NATO protocol distinctions:
-
Deterrence and the Madman Theory:
- Trump administration’s unpredictability undermines deterrence, possibly encouraging Russian brinkmanship.
“This is a test of the madman hypothesis in a way...” [25:31, Ingber]
- Panel discusses the dangers of unclear US leadership, with Anderson wryly critiquing the idea of unpredictability as a strength:
“The secret of why you don’t poke a bear is because you know exactly how a bear is going to respond… but if you thought that bear, there’s a 50% chance it’ll just roll over, maybe you poke the bear.” [26:27, Anderson]
- Trump administration’s unpredictability undermines deterrence, possibly encouraging Russian brinkmanship.
2. Israel Strikes Hamas Leaders in Qatar: Escalation & Diplomatic Fallout
[27:03]-[44:45]
-
Incident Recap:
Israeli jets, allegedly on Netanyahu’s orders, destroyed a house in Qatar, killing much of Hamas’s political leadership. Action occurred just after ceasefire negotiations showed promise, possibly dooming talks. The strike also reportedly killed a Qatari security official. -
Regional and Legal Stakes:
- Benjamin Wittes: “You’re totally understating it… Blowing up a house in Qatar is a very aggressive thing to do… puts Israel's allies in a very difficult position.” [29:31, Wittes]
- Compares this with routine strikes elsewhere, highlighting the extraordinary threshold crossed here.
- Criticizes the strategic wisdom: “Not normally the way we think of getting to yes… I’m surprised by it, I think it’s dumb, and I think it’s not a good way… They should be winding down this war.”
- Natalie Orpet: Notes the attack wounds Israel’s relationships in the region, even among states with which it’s recently normalized relations.
- Benjamin Wittes: “You’re totally understating it… Blowing up a house in Qatar is a very aggressive thing to do… puts Israel's allies in a very difficult position.” [29:31, Wittes]
-
International Law Analysis:
- Beck Ingber: Outlines two legal tests:
- Macro: Under the UN Charter, force inside another state’s territory requires self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack. There’s little evidence the Hamas leaders met this test.
"Even if Israel claims the targets were operational, imminence and necessity are hard to establish—especially during negotiations." [38:31, Ingber]
- Micro: The individuals targeted must be combatants. Suggests Israel has likely abandoned the civilian/political-military distinction for Hamas.
"Israel has collapsed that distinction." [41:39, Ingber]
- Scott Anderson: Points out Israel's likely argument: an ongoing armed conflict with Hamas justifies targeting leadership abroad, but Ingber notes this is controversial internationally.
- Beck Ingber: Outlines two legal tests:
-
US (Trump Admin) Response:
Panel notes a chill in the formerly close Trump-Netanyahu relationship, speculating this event could be a turning point—even with personal and strategic ties between the US and Qatar (base, natural gas, gifts of planes).“It’s not one that the President of the United States—even Donald Trump—can just say rah, rah when the Israelis start blowing up buildings in the capital of Qatar.” [44:45, Wittes]
- Orpet is skeptical this rhetoric will lead to actual policy constraints, citing internal incoherence in US Middle East policy.
3. US Strike on Venezuela-Linked Narcotics Boat: Legal Stretch and New Precedents
[50:29]-[63:49]
-
Incident Recap:
Trump admin targets a boat allegedly run by Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, claiming self-defense under international law and signaling open-ended authority for further strikes (“cruise control”). War powers reporting language echoes the past "global war on terror," but with even flimsier legal grounds. -
Panel Critique:
- Beck Ingber: Expresses grave concern at the normalization of lethal force against suspected criminals with only the President’s word as justification.
“None of the legal arguments that justified what took place under the drone strikes... justifies the strike we're talking about here.” [53:11, Ingber]
- Stresses that this crosses the line between law enforcement and war, violating prohibitions on extrajudicial killings. International and domestic law both prohibit summary execution, except in wartime, and there is no armed conflict here.
“Summary execution of suspected criminals entirely on the President's say so.” [61:09, Ingber]
- Beck Ingber: Expresses grave concern at the normalization of lethal force against suspected criminals with only the President’s word as justification.
-
Parallel to Domestic Immigration Policy:
- Natalie Orpet: Draws strong parallels with the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport en masse, noting similar overreaches and legal contortions—"astonishing powers... in an area where Congress has legislated a lot.” [58:32, Orpet]
- Both constitute strategies of "creating facts on the ground" to justify maximal executive power.
- Suggests these actions may be timed to influence or react to ongoing litigation.
- Natalie Orpet: Draws strong parallels with the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport en masse, noting similar overreaches and legal contortions—"astonishing powers... in an area where Congress has legislated a lot.” [58:32, Orpet]
Notable Quotes & Moments
-
[08:03] Benjamin Wittes:
“It’s actually hard for me to imagine you can send between a dozen and two dozen missiles into Poland by accident.” -
[13:33] Beck Ingber:
"Most states with the possible exception of the United States view a distinction between use of force and an armed attack..." -
[25:31] Beck Ingber:
“This is a test of the madman hypothesis in a way…” -
[29:31] Benjamin Wittes:
“You’re totally understating it… Blowing up a house in Qatar is a very aggressive thing to do…" -
[38:31] Beck Ingber:
"Even if Israel claims the targets were operational, imminence and necessity are hard to establish—especially during negotiations." -
[44:45] Benjamin Wittes:
“It’s not one that the President of the United States—even Donald Trump—can just say rah, rah when the Israelis start blowing up buildings in the capital of Qatar.” -
[53:11] Beck Ingber:
“None of the legal arguments that justified what took place under the drone strikes... justifies the strike we're talking about here.” -
[61:09] Beck Ingber:
“Summary execution of suspected criminals entirely on the President's say so.”
Timestamps for Key Segments
- 03:47 — Russian drones violate Polish airspace, NATO response
- 08:03 — Wittes on plausibility and intent of the incursion
- 13:33 — Ingber breaks down Article 4 vs Article 5
- 21:05 — Ideal US/NATO response debate
- 27:03 — Israel's strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar
- 29:31 — Wittes on unprecedented escalation
- 38:31 — Ingber’s legal analysis of the strike
- 44:45 — US (Trump) political reaction and implications
- 53:11 — Venezuela boat strike: legal analysis
- 58:32 — Domestic parallels: Alien Enemies Act and executive action
- 61:09 — Panel on erosion of legal norms
Final Thoughts
Throughout the episode, the panelists highlight unsettling trends:
- The encroachment of military logic into law enforcement and immigration.
- Growing disregard for international legal norms in the name of defending sovereignty or fighting crime.
- Strategic ambiguity and unpredictability from US leadership, which could embolden adversaries and destabilize alliances.
- The central role of public and international perception in deterrence and escalation dynamics.
As Anderson sums up:
“I could not think of a good precedent for the United States directly targeting people who have always traditionally been considered civilians before for it—it’s just kind of extraordinary. But it’s happening.” [57:30]
Addendum: Object Lessons & Notable Lighter Moments
- Wittes highlights a lawsuit by former FBI officials against Cash Patel, reflecting institutional turmoil.
- Orpet recommends The Elegance of the Hedgehog for contemplative escapism.
- Anderson recommends The Paper, a new TV show, for light entertainment.
- Ingber muses about the costs of renaming the Department of Defense, poking fun at the administration's controversial push for a “Department of War.”