JVL and Robert Kagan: Marco and Miller Go Full Fascist

Summary

The Bulwark Podcast Summary

Episode: JVL and Robert Kagan: Marco and Miller Go Full Fascist
Date: July 29, 2026
Host: JVL (for Tim Miller)
Guest: Robert "Bob" Kagan (The Atlantic)

---

Episode Theme Overview

This episode centers on a sweeping, “big think” discussion about the current state of American and global politics, focusing especially on the rise of fascist politics, the crisis of political discourse and asymmetry in the U.S., and urgent foreign policy flashpoints, with special attention on Iran’s recent moves in the Middle East. JVL and Kagan merge sharp analysis with wry humor, dissecting how U.S. domestic and foreign policies are shifting in dangerous ways, and what these patterns might mean for the future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Asymmetry in American Political Discourse

• Topic: How public figures like Anthony Fauci are judged by stricter standards than populist or conspiratorial actors.
• Insight:
  • JVL notes how Fauci is relentlessly scrutinized for any misstep, even those made under shifting and limited knowledge early in the pandemic, such as his “lawyerly” comments about mask guidance ([02:10–03:53]).
  • Meanwhile, figures like Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are afforded the benefit of the doubt for any rare, accurate statement—regardless of their broader record for deception.
• Quote:
  • “A figure like Anthony Fauci is judged by the least true thing he ever said once... The thing people harp on with Foushee is the very lawyerly claim he made early on... this was a piece of highly lawyered misdirection... And the fact that this was a lawyerly thing and not a fully transparent and true statement has led people to say, well, see, you can't trust anything he says.” — JVL [02:10]
  • “If Bobby Kennedy, in the course of all of his quackery, says, you know, I feel like it's good for people to eat vegetables, well, see, you agree that it's good to eat vegetables. And so how can you just dismiss his claims about autism and stuff?” — JVL [03:30]
• Memorable Moment:
  • JVL’s “am I a crazy person for caring about these things?” earns a chuckle and a resigned agreement from Kagan ([03:58]).

2. Iran’s Missile Strikes and Geopolitical Intentions

• Topic: Iran’s recent missile attacks on U.S. bases in the Middle East and what’s driving their strategic calculus.
• Insight:
  • Kagan refutes the idea that Iran’s actions are irrational or merely the result of internal confusion. He sees Iranian policy as methodical and coherent.
  • The attacks are retaliatory—direct responses to U.S. and Saudi strikes on Iranian-backed militias—and a demonstration of resolve, showing “they sure aren’t afraid of firing ballistic missiles at American forces, despite Trump’s bloviating” ([05:04]).
• Quote:
  • “Their policy has been incredibly consistent and understandable. Nothing they've done is irrational, including this.” — Robert Kagan [04:58]
  • “It's sort of like, ‘if you hit our guys, we're going to hit you’... they're not afraid to do this, and that's interesting.” — Kagan [05:28]

3. Iran’s Long-Term Goals: Control of the Strait of Hormuz

• Topic: Iran’s endgame and why control of the Strait is central.
• Insight:
  • Kagan says Iran’s priority is deterring future attacks from the U.S. or Israel by securing the Strait of Hormuz, vital for global oil flows.
  • The U.S. (especially under Trump) accepted a bad deal that essentially gave Iran “administrative control” over the Strait—a strategic error now coming to fruition ([06:41–07:53]).
• Quote:
  • “From Iran's point of view, they have to anticipate that they're going to get hit again. And the best deterrent they have is control of the strait. So I think from the very beginning that has been the number one goal.” — Kagan [07:04]
  • “Trump was so desperate for a deal that he accepted this bad deal which gave Iran administrative control of the strait.” — Kagan [07:36]

4. Trump’s Calculus on the Iran File

• Topic: Why Trump is persisting with a failed Iran strategy instead of cutting losses.
• Insight:
  • JVL questions why Trump doesn’t just “take the loss.” Kagan counters that Trump’s decisions are all about ego and avoiding humiliation, even as Iranian policy consistently does humiliate him ([08:16–09:42]).
  • Kagan foresees a new reality: Iran, no longer fearful of U.S. retaliation, will leverage its position for maximal regional and global influence ([10:09]).
• Quotes:
  • “What does Trump think? Who knows what Trump thinks? For him, I believe it's all about his image and his ego.” — Kagan [09:13]
  • “It is a fundamental strategic defeat with huge ramifications that I honestly believe people have not even begun to understand.” — Kagan [10:00]

5. Implications for China and Global Order

• Topic: How Iran’s strengthened hand might benefit China and reshape global alliances.
• Insight:
  • JVL speculates that if Iran holds the strait, “China really controls the strait.” Kagan disagrees but acknowledges China’s increased leverage and the knock-on effect for Indo-Pacific energy security ([11:03–11:29]).
• Quotes:
  • “If Iran controls the strait, then it means that China really controls the strait... within the Indo Pacific, everybody there who's getting their oil from the Middle east needs to start making side deals with China as well.” — JVL [11:10]
  • “I wouldn't go that far.” — Kagan, immediately reining in the hyperbole [11:28]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Am I a crazy person for caring about these things?” — JVL, highlighting the psychological toll of asymmetrical political standards ([03:50])
• “Their policy has been incredibly consistent and understandable. Nothing they've done is irrational, including this.” — Robert Kagan on Iran ([04:58])
• “It is a fundamental strategic defeat with huge ramifications that I honestly believe people have not even begun to understand...” — Kagan on Trump’s Iran policy ([10:00])
• “If Iran controls the strait, then it means that China really controls the strait... within the Indo Pacific, everybody there who's getting their oil from the Middle east needs to start making side deals with China as well.” — JVL ([11:10])

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [00:35] Episode introduction; focus on political “big think”
• [01:16–04:10] Discussion of Anthony Fauci, political double standards, misinformation
• [04:26–05:53] Iran’s missile attacks—strategy and message to the U.S.
• [06:28–08:10] Iran’s long-term strategic goal: controlling the Strait of Hormuz
• [08:16–10:08] Trump’s approach to the Iran debacle; Kagan’s forecast for a new, bolder Iran
• [11:03–11:29] The China connection: implications for global energy and power politics

---

Tone & Style

• The conversation is contemplative, wry, and slightly pessimistic—reflecting Bulwark’s signature mix of urgent realism, sharp historical context, and irreverent banter.
• Both speakers balance seriousness with wit, often pausing for a rueful laugh at the absurdities and dangers of the current political moment.

---

Summary prepared to provide a thorough, engaging synopsis for listeners who want a full sense of the arguments, context, and character of this rich Bulwark conversation.

Transcript

[A]

That's great. Super great.

[B]

Oh, did I, Did I just out dark you? JVL Just wait.

[A]

Just wait. I'm saving my. My good stuff for the end. Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, jvl, sitting in for Tim Miller, who'll be back next week. I am joined today by a very, very good and old friend of mine, Bob Kagan from the Atlantic. Bob, it is good to see your face again, my friend.

[B]

Same here, although I see it every day.

[A]

Jv that's very kind of you. So we have a lot of big think stuff to do today because that's what Bob Kagan is here for. We are going to talk about fascism coming to America and an amazing, amazing event that happened last week where members of the administration gave a talk about the dangers of political violence. But first we gotta do some news of the day. Bob, you and I were talking in the green room a moment ago. Today Anthony Fauci was up on Capitol Hill testifying before the Senate. And this was something that you have basically zero opinion on, correct?

[B]

That's probably strong. I mean, my general sympathy is with people who said that you needed to take vaccines to deal with COVID and not with people who said that you didn't need to. So in the big picture, I'm on the Foushee side, but I can't speak to all the details of what he said or what he didn't say or et cetera.

[A]

Sure, I. So I wanted to bring up Foushee only to. To recapitulate something that my colleague Andrew Egger wrote some years ago, which struck me as exactly correct, that we. Part of the problem with where we live today is that we live in this place with these intense asymmetries. And one of the asymmetries is that a figure like Anthony Fauci is judged by the least true thing he ever said once, regardless of the circumstances around it. And so if Anthony Fauci said in the, you know, day 10 of the pandemic, we're not sure if this was airborne or not, it turns out that Covid is, is in fact airborne, then it's, well, can you believe this guy? Right? And the thing people harp on with Foushee is the very lawyerly claim he made early on when he told people that respirators and masks were not necessary right now. And this was a piece of highly lawyered misdirection meant to try to preserve the stocks of masks early in the pandemic to use them for healthcare workers. When it was highly localized in. In the Northeast. And the. The fact that this was a lawyerly thing and not a full week transparent and true statement has led people to say, well, see, you can't trust anything he says. So that is how one side is treated, the other side is treated, so that if anything they ever said was true, then you have to treat seriously every other claim they make. And so, you know, if Bobby Kennedy, in the course of all of his quackery, says, you know, I feel like it's good for people to eat vegetables, well, see, you agree that it's good to eat vegetables. And so how can you just dismiss his claims about autism and stuff? And this, this is how, like, all of political life functions in the age of Trump. It is. You know, it doesn't. Don't pay attention to the fact that Trump said that, you know, if we try hydroxychloroquine or inject yourself with bleach or shine a UV light inside the body, don't pay attention to any of that crazy stuff. Because in this other case, he did say this one thing that turned out to be true. So, see, but then the elites are judged by a totally different standard. Even though President Trump is the definition of elite, he's the President of the United States and leader of the free world. Free air quotes. I don't know, just. Have you noticed this? Does it bother you? Is it just me? Am I a crazy person for caring about these things?

[B]

Bob, the list of things that bother me is so long that I don't know where this one would exactly fit, but I'm not sure. It's at the very, very tippy top today. But I agree with what you were saying. Absolutely. Okay.

[A]

Well, thank you for indulging in my little. My little rant. It just drives me crazy. The other big piece of news today is that last night the Iranians fired missiles at a number of US Bases in the Middle East. And I am curious as to what you make of this. What is the strategic point of what Iran is doing? Or maybe there is no strategic point that these decisions are being made because, you know, command and control has been dispersed to the mosaic level. You tell me. What, what should we think about this?

[B]

No, we've got to stop talking about the Iranians like they don't know what they're doing or they're too confused and they're so divided amongst themselves. Their policy has been incredibly consistent and understandable. Nothing they've done is irrational, including this. I think there's one of two explanations and they may both be right in some way. One, the most obvious, and I think the one that they would point to is that the Saudis and the Americans went after the Iranian backed militias in Iraq because those militias were attacking Saudi. And it's sort of like when the Iranians attacked in response to the breakdown of the Lebanon ceasefire or, you know, because Israel was not abiding or whatever by the, by the MOU agreement. So I mean, to some extent this is like, well, if you hit our guys, we're going to hit you. Now that by itself demonstrates in some ways the biggest point, which is they sure aren't afraid of firing ballistic missiles at American forces, despite Trump's, you know, bloviating about what he's going to do to them. So that's interesting. And the second thing, which I think may be part of it, is that Trump has been spending the last few days saying the Iranian, they, they're talking to the Iranians and they're having negotiations and the Iranians are desperate for a deal. And this is a pretty simple way of putting your thumb in that notion by, by making it clear that not only are you not talking, but actually we are now striking you again in response to this Iraqi stuff. So I think it carries a, an overall message. None of which I would say is good from the American point of view.

[A]

What do you think Iran's endgame is here? Do they have one? I mean, are they just sort of maneuvering within the, you know, what, what context appears to them day to day, or do they have an actual, like, this is how we think this ends.

[B]

They've been very clear all along, which is that they want to control the Strait of Hormuz and we treat this like it's a power grab and it's like a luxury. And wouldn't it be cool for them? And you know, to some extent, obviously it is a power grab. But I think much more importantly, I think we need to understand from the Iranian point of view, I think they have every reason to assume at some point down in the future either Israel or Trump are going to attack them again, even if they made a deal. Trump has demonstrated that his deals are completely unreliable. He breaks them at the first opportunity and Israel will never abide by the deal. So from Iran's point of view, they have to anticipate that they're going to get hit again. And the best deterrent they have is control of the strait. So I think from the very beginning that has been the number one goal. And by the way, the MOU gave them control of the strait. And the. And the thing about this is, like, the media treats this like. Well, it's a misinterpretation. Who. We don't really agree on the interpretations. What happened was Trump was so desperate for a deal that he accepted this bad deal which gave Iran administrative control, the strait. It says in the memorandum of understanding. Then, because he didn't really want to give it away, or maybe Witkoff never told him that he had given it away. Who knows? He tries to claw it back by opening up and having the American forces defend the route along the Oman coast. From the Iranian point of view, that was a violation of the agreement. And everything they've been doing since then has been to make sure that the end of the day, they control the strait. And it makes perfect sense.

[A]

I have a couple questions going forward from this. The first is, why is Trump doing this? Why not just take the loss, give up control of the straight, pull up stakes and get out? I wrote about this a day or two ago, and it would be very bad for America and the world for Trump to do that, but he does things that are very bad for America and the world all the time. So it's not like this would be the first time he's done going to war. This war was very bad for America and the world. Does he think that he is going to exit this with Iran not controlling the strait? Because I. I have to be honest, I don't see how that happens.

[B]

Well, I don't see how it happens either, unless we're willing to do things, which he is clearly not willing to do and which I think any president would be reluctant about, which is a ground invasion of Iran. That's the only way of being sure. If you replace the regime with a regime that you can have some control over, or at least is definitely sympathetic to you. What does Trump think? Who knows what Trump thinks? For him, I. I believe it's all about his image and his ego. And I think that if he could wave a wand and make Americans forget that Iran ever happened, even though Iran now controls the strait, I think he would be fine with that. The problem is Iranian policy. Now, I don't know whether this is Iranian intent, but certainly Iranian policy has had the effect of humiliating him at every step. He just wanted a deal where the Iranians would say, yes, we're not going to go for a nuclear weapon, and yes, the oil is going to flow through the strait. And the Iranians have refused and have refused to give him any of this. And it may be that they are intending to humiliate him. Putin also humiliated him. You know, we've forgotten because he also said, we're going to have a deal on Ukraine, you know, 55 times. And Putin never budged an inch and also made it very clear. So the let's humiliate Donald Trump camp grows every day. But what does he want? I think he wants it to go away, but it won't go away. Setting the whole Trump of it aside, it is a terrible loss. It is a fundamental strategic defeat with huge ramifications that I honestly believe people have not even begun to understand, which is we're going to have what I would call now Iran 2.0 once this is all over. Which is Iran? An Iran that is no longer feeling endangered by the United States. An Iran which controls one of the most important waterways of the world and has some control over the world's energy supply. Do we think that at that point they're going to become sort of meek and, like, try to figure out how to get along with everybody, or do we think that they're going to exploit that incredible advantage to make sure that the world is configured in a way that is more conducive to their interests?

[A]

I don't know. Let's pull on the string a little bit. Let's talk about some of the consequences of this and what the world begins to change shape into over the coming years. I mean, the first thing I think about is China and how the relationship between Iran and China changes. Because if Iran controls the strait, then it means that China really controls the strait. And that wouldn't go that far.

[B]

I wouldn't go that far.

[A]

But they have a great deal of influence over the flows of oil east from there, which means that within the Indo Pacific, everybody there who's getting their oil from the Middle east needs to start making side deals with China as well. Right. I mean, doesn't this change the entire strategic calculus of the Pacific theater?