The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: Are We About to Attack Iran?
Date: January 29, 2026
Host: John Podhoretz
Panel: Abe Greenwald, Eliana Johnson, Christine Rosen, Seth Mandel

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the United States’ imminent military posture toward Iran following reports that the Trump administration is readying a naval blockade—an acknowledged act of war—and possibly preparing direct strikes. The panel dissects Trump’s foreign policy instincts, the split among his advisors, the implications for U.S.-Iran relations, and the complexities of regime change. Other topics include the role of protest and law enforcement in the U.S., the dangers of escalated activist rhetoric, and a discussion about the late Charles Hill’s legacy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is War with Iran Imminent?

[01:49–07:53]

• Naval Blockade as Act of War:
  The Trump administration is reportedly preparing a blockade of Iran, which, as Marco Rubio stated in the Senate, constitutes a formal act of war.
  John Podhoretz: “A blockade is an act of war under… the laws of war as they’ve been commonly understood.” (01:49)

• Trump’s Foreign Policy Split:
  There’s internal division: some advisors (Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff) urge diplomacy, while others (JD Vance, Rubio, Pete Hegseth) advocate military action.

• Trump’s Personality & ‘Deal’ Instinct:
  The panel theorizes that Trump's pattern is to seek a deal, but if rebuffed, he escalates.
  John Podhoretz: “When Jared or Wyckoff comes to him and says, I think there’s a deal, the word ‘deal’… [is] like a sugar high effect for a little bit. And then… when it falls apart, he gets offended double time.” (03:15)

2. Triggers for Action and Iran’s Internal Crisis

[04:46–08:35]

• Broken Promises by Iran:
  Trump thought he had an understanding with Iran’s regime not to kill protesters; when they did, this triggered U.S. outrage and new plans.
  Eliana Johnson: “Trump seemed to have thought he had a deal with the mullahs… and they did. So that’s a deal that was broken or made Trump look foolish.” (04:46)

• Force Posture in the Region:
  Panelists note the movement of U.S. military assets, like the USS Abraham Lincoln, into position as possibly deliberate preparation for action.

• Panel Speculation:
  Was Trump “buying time” by talking about a deal, only to move military assets in?

3. The Demands to Iran: Unrealistic and Purposefully Maximalist

[07:55–11:19]

• The ‘Four Terms’:
  No ballistic missiles, no nuclear program, no funding of terror groups, no killing protesters.
  Christine Rosen: “There were four terms this regime will never agree [to] because it would mean the end of the regime.” (07:55)

• Trump’s Negotiation Start-High Approach:
  Panel contrasts Trump’s strategy to Obama/Biden, who were deal-seeking; Trump makes maximalist demands as a starting point.
  Seth Mandel: “Trump is starting high by asking for everything… that’s what shows you it’s a real negotiation.” (08:40)

4. The Obama-era Iran Deal and Its Legacy

[11:19–13:40]

• Unpopularity of the Iran Deal:
  The Obama deal was opposed by much of the American public and Congress; its justification was “better than no deal.”
  John Podhoretz: "The deal was not popular… their effort to push it across the finish line was to say—it’s either this or war." (11:23)

• Panel Retrospective:
  Iran violated the deal immediately, which soured Trump and justified withdrawal in 2018.

5. Why Iran’s Protest Crackdown Changes the Equation

[13:40–18:49]

• Human Rights as Casus Belli:
  Unlike past protests (2009, 2017, 2022), these nationwide uprisings and the Iranian government’s unprecedented repression motivate potential action.
  John Podhoretz: "We’re only really going into Iran because the regime was… challenged from within since December 28… It was a carnage and slaughter almost unprecedented." (13:40)

• Rubio’s Senate Speech:
  Rubio raises the issue of Iran’s internal instability and suppression of protesters; bipartisan calls to bolster internet infrastructure to support protest dissemination.

• IRGC to Be Named a Terror Org in Europe:
  France is dropping its opposition, a significant diplomatic shift tied to the brutality against protestors.

6. The Nature of the IRGC

[17:15–18:49]

• Paranoia and Repression:
  Unlike a normal army, IRGC is conceived as an ideological militia to defend the regime against both foreign and internal threats.
  Seth Mandel: "It’s a fundamentally… creation of paranoia, of militaristic adventurism… tied to the people who are killing protesters in the streets." (17:15)

7. Regime Change: Risks and Precedent

[18:49–23:53]

• Panel Questions the Path Forward:
  The “devil you know vs. devil you don’t” dilemma arises, but after the regime’s mass killings, the calculus shifts.
  John Podhoretz: “…the uncertainty that is created by us toppling them—whatever is gonna come after isn’t gonna be worse.” (21:35)

• U.S. Footprint and Nation-Building:
  Eliana Johnson raises concerns about the aftermath: fissile materials and resources will need U.S. management, which the administration’s non-interventionist bloc fears.

8. Trump as Non-Isolationist ‘Imperialist’

[27:14–32:42]

• Contradiction with MAGA Non-Interventionism:
  Trump is not shy about proposing regime change (Venezuela, Iran) or even territorial expansion (Greenland).
  John Podhoretz: “Trump is an imperialist of some sort that is so counter to the non interventionist credo…” (27:14)

• Pragmatic, Not Ideological:
  Trump’s willingness to act depends on confidence in likely success – his ego is the driving force, not isolationism or anti-imperial ideology.

9. Historical Lessons and How to Sell Action at Home

[35:13–36:34]

• Solidarity Model vs. Iraq Model:
  Panel suggests a model akin to U.S.-Solidarity (Poland)—economic, diplomatic pressure, and support for opposition, not a full Iraq-style invasion.

• Success Begets Deterrence:
  John Podhoretz: “When you act, you make it unnecessary to act later because you scare the stuffing… out of some 2 bit podunk player on the planet.” (37:19)

10. Trump and Russia/Ukraine: Why He Doesn’t Intervene

[38:47–40:38]

• Desire for Low-Risk Success:
  Admin officials “can’t get the [risks] number down” for Ukraine, so Trump avoids deep involvement—contrasts with possible high-success regime change scenarios elsewhere. Eliana Johnson: “This goes a long way in explaining his inability to do anything regarding Russia, Ukraine, because… they can’t [manage the risks].” (39:09)

• Distracted National Intelligence:
  Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, is busy with 2020 election litigation in Georgia as crisis looms with Iran.

11. Shifting to Domestic Policy and Protest Analysis

[44:48–49:08]

• Minnesota Protest, Law Enforcement, and Rhetoric:
  Newly surfaced footage from Minneapolis protests shows activist Alex Preddy taunting and assaulting law enforcement days before his death; raises questions about protest, provocation, law enforcement restraint, and the consequences of incendiary political rhetoric.

• Panel’s View:
  Much of the protest movement is “woke nullification”—deliberately pushing for confrontation to delegitimize law enforcement. Christine Rosen: “This really is an attempt at woke nullification and that his goal and their goal was to interfere with and prevent the enforcement of federal law.” (45:52)

12. Responsibility, Law Enforcement, and Political Rhetoric

[50:46–66:46]

• Failures of Law Enforcement:
  Local police failed to intervene before violence escalated, allowing minor crimes to snowball.

• Activist Rhetoric:
  Hyperbolic comparison to Gestapo or Holocaust by elected officials (e.g., Philadelphia D.A.), comedians (Stephen Colbert), and local leaders foster a dangerous, morally absolutist protest atmosphere.

• Broken Windows Policing Parallels:
  Allowing petty lawbreaking (“broken windows”) leads to larger breakdowns and tragedy.
  Christine Rosen: “This is also the broken windows theory… allowing these smaller level chaos and disorder… leads to larger level crime… If this had been stamped out, we wouldn’t have had the tragedy that occurred…” (60:14)

• Civic Responsibility:
  For reform, work through democratic political channels—not street confrontations.
  Abe Greenwald: “If you really want to reform ICE… you pay very close attention to who your elected official is backing in these coming negotiations and you vote them out if you don’t like it.” (61:10)

Notable Quotes (With Timestamps)

• “A blockade is an act of war under… the laws of war as they've been commonly understood.”
  — John Podhoretz, (01:49)

• “Trump seemed to have thought he had a deal with the mullahs… and they did. So that's a deal that was broken or made Trump look foolish.”
  — Eliana Johnson, (04:46)

• “There were four terms this regime will never agree [to] because it would mean the end of the regime.”
  — Christine Rosen, (07:55)

• “Trump is starting high by asking for everything… that’s what shows you it’s a real negotiation.”
  — Seth Mandel, (08:40)

• “We're only really going into Iran because the regime was… challenged from within since December 28… It was a carnage and slaughter almost unprecedented.”
  — John Podhoretz, (13:40)

• “It's a fundamentally... creation of paranoia, of militaristic adventurism… tied to the people who are killing protesters in the streets.”
  — Seth Mandel, (17:15)

• “The uncertainty that is created by us toppling them—whatever is gonna come after isn't gonna be worse.”
  — John Podhoretz, (21:35)

• “Trump is an imperialist of some sort that is so counter to the non interventionist credo…”
  — John Podhoretz, (27:14)

• “This really is an attempt at woke nullification and that his goal and their goal was to interfere with and prevent the enforcement of federal law.”
  — Christine Rosen, (45:52)

• “If you really want to reform ICE… you pay very close attention to who your elected official is backing in these coming negotiations and you vote them out if you don't like it.”
  — Abe Greenwald, (61:10)

Important Timestamps

• 01:49 – John Podhoretz explains naval blockades as acts of war.
• 03:15 – Trump’s addiction to the concept of “the deal.”
• 07:55 – The “four demands” for Iran.
• 13:40 – How Iran’s massacre of protesters drives the U.S. response.
• 17:15 – Seth Mandel breaks down the IRGC’s purpose.
• 21:35–23:53 – Is regime change worth the risk?
• 27:14 – Trump’s contradiction of non-interventionist clichés.
• 37:19 – Success abroad as deterrence.
• 39:09 – Why Trump avoids involvement in Ukraine.
• 45:52 – Christine Rosen on the real motives of protestors in Minnesota.
• 60:14 – Broken windows theory applies to current unrest.

Memorable/Light Moments

• Discombobulation Machine:
  The panel jokes about interventionists bringing Trump a fictional “discombobulation machine” to sweeten military plans, with references to “Get Smart” and Count Rugen in “The Princess Bride.” (37:34–37:47)

Book Recommendation

[69:19–74:39]

• The Man on Whom Nothing Was Lost by Molly Worthen
  — Christine Rosen recommends a biography of legendary foreign service officer and Yale professor Charles Hill, praised for both his intellectual and personal mentorship across generations of students.

Conclusion

In this comprehensive and timely episode, the Commentary panel delves into the mechanics, motivations, and potential fallout of America's possible escalation against Iran—with a critical view of Trump’s approach to deals and risks, as well as a broader examination of both international and domestic political storms. The conversation is marked by analytical clarity, historical context, and a recognition of the perils of both action and inaction at home and abroad.