Commentary Magazine Podcast – January 15, 2026

Episode Title: Did Trump Blink?

Theme Overview:
This episode centers on President Trump’s handling of the Iranian protests and the larger question of American interventionism under his administration. The panel analyzes whether Trump’s recent decisions regarding Iran—perceived by some as “blinking”—represent a backing down, a prudent pause, or a continuation of his unconventional, disruption-driven foreign policy doctrine. Alongside Iran, the team discusses Trump’s broader approach to foreign affairs, including Venezuela and Greenland, and tackles the moral, strategic, and historical ramifications of his choices.

Panel

• John Podhoretz (Host, Editor, Commentary Magazine)
• Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor)
• Seth Mandel (Senior Editor)
• Christine Rosen (Social Commentary Columnist)
• Eliana Johnson (Washington Free Beacon Editor)

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Did Trump “Blink” on Iran?

• John Podhoretz opens by asking whether Trump has backed away from more aggressive intervention—what he calls “blinking”—following regime crackdowns and mass protests in Iran. He notes the complexity compared to previous cases like Venezuela.

  • “This is, after all, a vastly more complicated matter to deal with than even Venezuela was… And Trump apparently wanted to be able to deal a decisive death blow to the regime and is being told by his people… it just isn’t that simple.” (01:53)

• Seth Mandel cautions that it’s too soon to know if Trump has truly “blinked” or if decisions are still unfolding. He warns about the risk to US credibility if Trump’s threats aren’t backed by action:

  • “My problem is you put the US credibility on the line… as the commander in chief who backs up his threats with action, there’s a good chance of his undoing that if he in fact doesn’t make good on his word this time.” (03:53)

• Historical Echoes:

  • Podhoretz draws a parallel with the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, where US encouragement was not matched by tangible support, resulting in a moral stain for “giving false hope” and subsequent bloodshed.
    • “A lot of people died and a lot of blood was spilled because there was an expectation that the United States was going to intervene… and that this was a moral stain on the United States...” (06:57)

2. Calculated Restraint or Failure to Act?

• Eliana Johnson notes Trump has at least forcefully spoken up for protesters, more than some previous presidents, but the underlying conditions in Iran haven’t changed. She wonders what Trump will do if repression resumes:

  • “He may have bought himself time… But what happens if they start doing it again? What does he do?” (09:03)

• Seth Mandel flags again that Trump may have undercut his reputation for action:

  • “If there’s no strike this time… our enemies… have a little more justification for saying, ‘eh, he talks a big game’ and that doesn’t help us in… all sorts of areas.” (11:02)

• Abe Greenwald and Christine Rosen critique the administration’s vagueness and Trump’s cavalier tone, heightening uncertainty both for adversaries and allies.

  • “The administration isn’t good about communicating… the options they are considering, and then explaining to the American people what the plan is.” (12:10)
  • “My worry is that Iran’s leadership mooted an idea so extreme that they then sounded like they made a concession… Nobody believes that the repression has stopped.” (14:15)

3. Searching for a Trump Doctrine

• Podhoretz argues Trump’s foreign policy is aggressive and interventionist but not guided by traditional ideals like democracy promotion or human rights:

  • “It is an aggressive foreign policy that does not mind striking at the heart of regimes, but is not organized around the theory of regime change and is very interventionist, but not in an overarching frame that involves freedom.” (16:54)

• Panelists debate whether Trump’s approach is best defined as mere disruption (“disruptor-in-chief”), as a kind of “amoral” or simply transactional unilateralism, or as something more coherent.

  • Greenwald: “If you don’t have any sort of central animating principle like ‘freedom is good, people should be free’… that inconsistency… is why, from a domestic perspective, at least, I find it frustrating.” (20:46)

• Seth Mandel adds the crucial dimension of commerce to Trump’s decision-making:

  • “…Commerce… is a huge part of all his thinking in this. Getting other countries’ natural resources, making investment deals… to him, that supplants the liberty, freedom element.” (23:08)

• Podhoretz and others see a pronounced unilateralism and resonance with Israel’s approach—prioritizing national interest and “free hand” over multilateral structures.

  • “I’m not going to not do what I want to do because I’m part of the NATO alliance. Screw the NATO alliance…” (27:04)

4. Inconsistencies, Contradictions, and Strategic Risks

• Discussion of contradictions in Trump’s approach: punitive tariffs hurting allies, driving “hemisphere” partners like Canada toward China (29:36), and posture as an “agent of chaos” who, paradoxically, dislikes chaos and seeks to impose order.

• Greenwald highlights the dangers of simplistic thinking (“Gordian knot” approach):

  • “…almost every problem as a Gordian knot style problem. The whole point of that legend is that that's true for some problems, but not every problem... decisive action is perhaps not always warranted.” (43:45)

• Concerns about being drawn into complex situations without adequate planning or understanding of downstream effects (immigration, regime change, etc.).

5. Historical Lessons and Contemporary Realities

• Podhoretz develops a long thread on “containment” (citing George Kennan): success often required decades, not the “now, now, now” approach Trump prefers. There’s debate whether containment, rollback, or some hybrid is operative.

• Christine Rosen argues that in the real world, containment requires rollback—especially in the face of regimes like Iran who export revolution and violence.

  • “The only way to contain Iran is to roll back its influence in those areas and put it back within the Iranian borders…” (50:44)

6. Succession Challenges & Regime Change Fantasies

• Skepticism about potential successors like Pahlavi in Iran due to lack of legitimacy, experience, and presence inside the country.
  • Podhoretz: “It does seem like a little bit of a fantasy that you take a nation of 90 million people and you say, oh, this guy who has been living… in Los Angeles, let's let him run it. Because… when he was 3, his father ran the country…” (56:46)

7. Moral Stains & Credibility

• Return to the hazard of over-promising and under-delivering for US foreign policy credibility and moral authority:
  • Seth Mandel: “I guess I’m just bothered that Trump… put US credibility on the line in such an emphatic way beforehand… [then] acted as if it was [simple]. And that is the problem.” (60:50)
  • Podhoretz: “…it would be a moral stain on the United States. This is the other problem, which is that he can decide that it's bad that we can't sacrifice our blood and treasure to knock over the Iranian regime… The moral stain is if people stayed in the streets out of a realistic expectation that the United States, again, was going to be the cavalry and riding in to save them.” (62:02)

Notable Quotes and Timestamps

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:53 | John Podhoretz | "Trump apparently wanted… to deal a decisive death blow to the regime and is being told by his people that it just isn't that simple…he is really not in it for a massive war to enact regime change." | | 03:53 | Seth Mandel | "But my problem is you put the US credibility on the line if you’re not really going to do [it]…" | | 06:57 | John Podhoretz | "A lot of people died and a lot of blood was spilled because there was an expectation that the United States was going to intervene and… this was a moral stain on the United States…" | | 12:10 | Abe Greenwald | "The administration isn’t good about communicating… the options they are considering and be then explaining to the American people what the plan is." | | 14:15 | Christine Rosen | "My worry is that Iran’s leadership mooted an idea so extreme that they then sounded like they made a concession… Nobody believes that the repression has stopped." | | 16:54 | John Podhoretz | "It is an aggressive foreign policy… not organized around the theory of regime change and is very interventionist, but not in an overarching frame that involves freedom." | | 20:46 | Abe Greenwald | "If you don't have any sort of central animating principle like freedom is good, people should be free… I find it frustrating." | | 23:08 | Seth Mandel | "I think we're leaving one important dimension out of this, which is commerce. And that's a huge part of all his thinking in this." | | 27:04 | John Podhoretz | "I’m not going to not do what I want to do because I’m part of the NATO alliance. Screw the NATO alliance if the NATO alliance is a handcuff on me…" | | 43:45 | Abe Greenwald | "His Achilles heel is actually that he does see almost every problem as a Gordian knot style problem. A complicated thing just requires bold action. And the whole point of that legend is that that's true for some problems, but not every problem." | | 50:44 | Christine Rosen | "The only way to contain Iran is to roll back its influence in those areas and put it back within the Iranian borders and then you can contain it…" | | 56:46 | John Podhoretz | "It does seem like a little bit of a fantasy that you take a nation of 90 million people and you say, oh, this guy who has been living… in Los Angeles, let's let him run it. Because… when he was 3, his father ran the country…" | | 60:50 | Seth Mandel | "I guess I’m just bothered that Trump… put US credibility on the line in such an emphatic way beforehand… [then] acted as if it was [simple]. And that is the problem."| | 62:02 | John Podhoretz | "The moral stain is if people stayed in the streets out of a realistic expectation that the United States, again, was going to be the cavalry and riding in to save them… If you did don't mean it, you're doing the wrong thing by giving them false hope." |

Segment Timestamps

• Opening & Setup (01:04–01:53)
• Defining the “Blink” & Initial Reactions (01:53–06:56)
• Historical Parallels & Moral Dilemmas (05:27–09:03)
• Current Administration’s Rationale, Credibility Risks (09:03–14:15)
• Nature of Trump Doctrine & Foreign Policy Philosophy (16:54–25:05)
• Contradictions, Commerce & Unilateralism (25:05–32:09)
• Containment vs. Rollback, Israel & Iran (40:55–52:23)
• Succession Issues, US Moral Responsibility (56:46–62:02)
• Closing Thoughts (61:25–end)

Tone & Style

True to their dynamic, the panel mixes conversational back-and-forth with pointed historical and philosophical references, deploying irony (“madman theory,” “agent of chaos”) while ultimately engaging in serious moral and strategic debate. Each contributor brings a mixture of skepticism, analytical rigor, and occasional personal reflection to the dialogue.

Useful For:

• Understanding the ongoing evolution of the so-called “Trump Doctrine”
• Grappling with the policy and moral complexities of intervention in Iran
• Historical comparisons: Hungary 1956, Soviet containment, Venezuela
• Gaining insight into how US foreign policy rhetoric affects real-world outcomes and expectations abroad

FINAL TAKEAWAY

The episode explores the high-stakes gamble of US foreign policy under Trump, especially regarding Iran. While Trump’s stance is disruptive and at times aggressive, it is shown to lack a unifying moral or strategic doctrine—serving US interests and projecting power, but not always willing to pay the price of regime change or to shoulder the responsibility that comes with stirring hope among oppressed peoples. The debate leaves open whether recent restraint is prudence or weakness and situates this moment in a long arc of US policy missteps and moral quandaries.