Oh, the Homanity!

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast — "Oh, the Homanity!"

Date: February 5, 2026
Host: John Podhoretz (Editor, Commentary)
Panelists: Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor), Seth Mandel (Senior Editor), Eliana Johnson (Editor, Washington Free Beacon)

---

Episode Overview

The episode explores significant shifts in the Trump administration’s approach to illegal immigration enforcement—particularly the pivot to targeting only criminal illegal immigrants, and related political strategies and consequences. The panel also analyzes the broader implications of migration trends in the U.S., demographic changes, and the tangled politics of red state/blue state divides. In the latter half, they dive into the ongoing diplomatic drama with Iran, debating Trump’s intentions and possible American responses to Iranian provocations.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Pivot on Immigration

• Tom Homan's Announcement:

  • Redeployment of 700 Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis (from 3,000 to 2,300; [01:21–01:24]).
  • Focus: Cooperation from local authorities in Minneapolis and jails to pick up criminal illegal aliens ([06:16]).

• Trump’s NBC Interview with Tom Yamas:

  • New focus on detaining criminal illegal aliens only—representing a "softer approach."
  • The administration will act only in localities that “want us.” Sanctuary cities/states that resist federal help are left to “live with their criminal illegal population.”
    • "We're going to go into cities that want us and the cities that don't want us and that are going to resist us can be damned." — Paraphrased Trump via Eliana Johnson ([02:03–03:57]).

• Strategic & Political Calculus:

  • This move is interpreted as a significant concession to public pressure and a rational political adjustment to adverse optics, especially after negative feedback from aggressive enforcement in 2018 ([09:48]).
  • The administration is avoiding “pitched battles” in sanctuary cities, choosing instead to concentrate enforcement resources in red states seeking assistance ([02:03], [13:57]).

• Panel Concerns:

  • Seth raises a worry: publicly stating that resistance will lead to a lack of federal enforcement may embolden activists and undermine federal authority.
    • “You enforce federal law or you don't enforce federal law, but you definitely don't tell people... if you organize your own roadblocks... we'll leave you alone. That's... not something you should say." — Seth ([11:16])

---

2. Policy Philosophy, Enforcement, and Political Blowback

• Point of Comparison:

  • John uses "seatbelt law" as an analogy: Emphasizing enforceability based on secondary infractions rather than sweeping random enforcement ([03:57–06:10]).
  • Panel distinguishes between targeting criminal aliens and mass roundups of ordinary undocumented immigrants at places like Home Depot (Eliana, [06:10]).

• Ideological Concession:

  • The administration is backing off from the idea, championed by hardliners (like Stephen Miller), that all illegal immigrants should be removed, and instead focusing on a pragmatic and sustainable approach ([06:32–09:00]).
  • Some hardliners still want “tougher” enforcement and are dissatisfied with the focus on criminal aliens alone ([29:50]).

---

3. Migration Trends, Demographic Shifts, and Political Consequences

• Depopulation in Blue States:

  • John describes significant domestic shifts, with people leaving states like NY, CA, IL, and moving to NC, TX, SC ([14:02–16:50]).
  • Demographic projections: Fewer congressional seats for NY/CA after the 2030 census; FL and TX may become the two most populous states ([14:02]).

• Political Impact:

  • These changes shift the "blue wall" advantage away from Democrats, making it harder for them to clinch 270 electoral votes in the future ([14:02–16:29]).
  • However, John and Seth caution against deterministic thinking as internal migration brings diverse politics—many blue-state migrants still retain liberal views ([20:05–24:06]).

Notable Quotes

• “People are voting with their feet because of the blue. This is the ultimate fulfillment of Walter Russell Mead's idea that blue state governance is going to have real world consequences.” — John ([14:02])

• "Most of the New Yorkers that I know who moved to Florida during the pandemic... were liberals who were complaining about Desantis right up until the point that they moved." — Abe ([23:39])

• Shifting Self-Identification:

  • Over generations, immigrant families are less likely to self-identify with their original communities, complicating demographic and political predictions ([22:24]).

• New York City Example:

  • John notes the city’s transient population and difficulties in attracting family residents due to cost-of-living, which interrupts historical political continuity ([24:06–28:20]).

---

4. Iran: Negotiations, Deterrence, and American Strategy

• On–Off Talks:

  • The Iran nuclear/missile talks—abrupt location and negotiation shifts, with the U.S. insisting on broader terms (missiles, terrorism); Iran resists ([34:22]).

• Two Trump Administration Voices:

  • A) Trump wants an “off-ramp,” a way out through a deal, after promising help to Iranians.
  • B) The administration is staging and preparing for possible strikes on Iran, awaiting the right moment ([33:46–35:59]).

Notable Panel Insights

• Eliana:

  • “I actually think the former is what Trump wants. I think he wants a way out, and he would like an excuse not to do this, even though from the outset... I thought he would end up doing it.” ([34:22])

• Seth:

  • Proposes that Iranian provocations may be meant to force Trump’s hand, assuming he’s preparing to attack once ready.
    • “I think the Iranians... think the answer is choice number two... that Trump is waiting to strike when the time is right and everything's in position.” ([35:59])

• Abe:

  • Considers that deterrence is “working in a weird way” but believes future American–Iranian confrontations are inevitable ([37:28–37:53]).

• John:

  • Expresses skepticism about what any potential deal could credibly include, questioning whether Trump could legitimately return with “a piece of paper” offering empty promises from the Iranian regime ([41:01]).

• Historical Analogies:

  • Gulf War (Bush 41’s patience and coalition building) and Iraq War (Bush 43’s attempts at UN process). Panel recalls how preparations for kinetic action are sometimes misread as reluctance ([41:01–46:26]).

---

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• “Trump, as usual, is saying the quiet part out loud...” — John ([12:45])
• On demographic migration trends:
  “Nothing is static. You know, California was a Republican state until 1996. People forget that.” — John ([24:06])
• On limitations in U.S. political “third way” outlets:
  “There is no Nigel Farage. There is no like third actor. And so you got nowhere to go, buddy. You know, enjoy yourself in your rage.” — John ([30:22])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:46–03:57: Explaining the new enforcement focus; difference between Trump’s and Homan’s messaging
• 06:10–09:00: Effects and implications of shift; hard-liners’ reactions
• 14:02–16:29: Demographic/democratic impacts from domestic migration
• 23:39: Anecdotal evidence about blue-state migrants keeping their politics
• 33:46–37:53: Iran segment; U.S. negotiation/strike strategy
• 41:01–48:30: Strategic dilemmas, historical analogies, possible U.S. actions
• 48:30–51:32: Panel wraps up on the various levers in action regarding Iran

---

Conclusion

The episode underscores profound shifts in enforcement philosophy under Trump—pivoting to pragmatism over maximalism on immigration, while highlighting the complex interplay of national migration, demographic evolution, and political strategy. The latter segment’s Iran discussion illustrates the ambiguities and dilemmas facing U.S. leadership amid regional volatility—a blend of realpolitik and reluctance driven by both external resistance and internal calculation.

Panelists maintain their characteristic tone—wry, candid, engaged—balancing sharp policy analysis with historical perspective and lively intra-panel debate.

---

For further reading on these topics, visit Commentary Magazine’s archives. For ongoing discussion, tune in to the next episode as the panel continues tracking developments.

Transcript

[A]

Hope for the best, expect the worst. Some drink champagne, some die of thirst the way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best, Expect the worst, hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, February 5, 2026. I am John Pot Hord, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[B]

Hi, John.

[A]

Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[C]

Hi, John.

[A]

And Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.

[D]

Hi, John.

[A]

Tom Holman and Donald Trump both gave press well, one gave a press conference, one gave an interview press conference to a group of reporters. Trump an interview to Tom Yamas, the anchor of NBC's Nightly News. And apparently the balance of the interview will appear on the super bowl on Sunday. But news in the in the ongoing Minneapolis fight, Homan announced the redeployment of 700 out of the 2000 Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis.

[D]

I think it's 3000. So they're down to 2300.

[A]

Right. So it's so so 700 being, being redeployed. He said the mission hasn't changed. Our approach is changing. And Trump then with Yana, said, we're going to try a softer approach. But Eliana, you noted a very important shift in the administration's approach on illegal immigration. In Trump's comments after saying he wanted a softer approach.

[D]

The president told Yamas, we are going to focus just on criminals and detaining criminals. And another important, which, which has the, which does have the public support. And it's a little bit different, actually, from what Homan said, because I think Homan was not aware likely that the president was going to say that. Homan in his morning press conference said, we're focusing just on criminals, but nobody who should be here, who's here illegally should rest easily. You may still be detained. And I think he thought the president or the forces in the administration might be upset if he said that we're only focusing on criminals, which the president did go on to say in his interview with Tom Yamas of NBC. So it's clear the administration wants people to know their focus is entirely on criminal illegal aliens. Now, the other interesting thing that he said, and we'll see if this proves to be true, he said we're going to go into cities that want us and the cities that don't want us and that are going to resist us can be damned. They can live with their criminal illegal population. And he noted that he had gotten outreach from the governor of Louisiana who had asked for help in dealing with that state's criminal illegal population. And he said he's gotten outreach from other red state governors, but that in sanctuary cities and states they're not going to get into these pitched resistance battles. And that did seem to me like a major concession that, you know, these woke confederacies are, you know, they're going to let them lie.

[A]

So we should explain a little bit about what we're talking about, about here in the we're going after illegal alien criminals line. So think of it like your seatbelt, like seatbelt laws, seatbelt laws, the way they work is you're not arrested, you're not pulled over. If a cop sees you in a car and your seatbelt is not fastened, if you're pulled over in the car because you're doing something else and it turns out that your seatbelt was not fastened, you'll get written up for having a seatbelt that you weren't wearing. There's some term in the law for this sort of thing like you don't, it's not a primary, it's not something that go that you have primary enforcement of or is considered actionable, but it is something that should it happen in the course of another thing, you will be found in violation of. And it turns out that can be a remarkably successful way to institute large scale social policy because law abiding people will hear, well, I'm supposed to wear a seatbelt. It's against the law. If I don't, if I'm pulled over because I have a broken taillight, I'll get a ticket. I don't want to get a ticket. I don't like having confrontations with police policeman, I'll just buckle my seatbelt and stuff like that had an enormously, like galvanic effect on the fact that most people now wear seat belts almost unthinkingly. Even though it seemed a kind of, you know, weird panopticon, you know, like the government is watching you thing when people started proposing seatbelt laws in the first place. So with this you're saying we're only pursuing alien illegal aliens that we know committed or we, you know, have evidence committed criminal acts. If you are an illegal alien going about your day and you don't do anything, we're not going to just, you know, say, hey, stop there and not.

[D]

Going to round people up at Home Depot and target and doing these mass roundups.

[A]

Right, right.

[D]

Anymore.

[A]

Right.

[D]

And Homan also said that he had secured what he described as unprecedented in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, other surrounding counties, cooperation from law Enforcement that was going to allow ICE to pick up criminals from the jails.

[A]

Right. So you can call it a concession. And it's a concession in the sense that a kind of ideological framework, which is that the number of illegal aliens in America should be zero, and any effort to get that number to zero is, you know, not only legitimate but necessary. And the surrender of the idea that any illegal is illegal and therefore should be treated as a criminal, prima facie, that is a. Was a. Is a big part of the people for whom immigration is the number one issue in which they focus on 15 hours a day. That is this is their desideratum or desideratum for the rest of us, the arresting a criminal, illegal alien, and thereby not even having to deal with the question of what to do with that person in our own system. But to say, you came here, you committed a crime, you're not here legally, you're going back to wherever you came from, and, you know, we're not going to be responsible for detaining you, paying for your food in prison, dealing with you in the parole system, whatever, we're done with you. You weren't supposed to be here in the first place. Versus yeah, there's some guy who, who, like, does gardening, who is, you know, buying something at Home Depot, and then you just arrest. You just pull him in and say, where are your papers? And then, you know, he's hasn't done anything else.

[B]

Where does this.

[A]

Most people, I think, number two, seems like the rational, real world, don't go crazy and, like, turn the country upside down to pursue this almost unpursuable strategy against, you know, according to some of these people, there are 25 million people in the United States who count. Who, who would count toward this number. You're going to arrest 25 million people. So why don't you, like, use the law to make sure that we get rid of people whom we no longer have to have in our charge and if they are arrested. Abe. I'm sorry.

[B]

No, I was going to say, where does this leave the. The Stephen Miller 3000 a day arrest quota? I mean, which is, you know, what, what drives the. The. The. The policy that or the implementation that everyone has a problem with?

[D]

I think the president's statement can be read as a reversal of that policy pretty clearly. And I would note a story in Politico this morning that the Democrats in Minnesota remain apoplectic. They are not satisfied by this. They do not consider this a reasonable compromise. And I do think that's a debate and an argument to be had on much more favorable terms to the administration.

[A]

I mean, it's also a heartening example of how a political, a politically savvy group of people reacts to reality. That is to say, Trump is like going down. And he can either go down the way he went down in 2018 by pretending that the things that he had said and done weren't having a negative effect on him and the Republicans, and then tried to gin up his issues, like the famous caravan coming up from South America to forestall the Democratic wave. Or he can look reality dead in the eye and say, this seems to be accelerating my party's problems. I better back off. Didn't work. We got terrible pictures. Is it worth we're discrediting our own immigration policy with these pictures, with people that we need on our side? Not like, you know, Jacob Fry, but like an independent voter? Let's switch gears. That's what, like, a rational political actor does.

[C]

We tried it, but is the stated reason. I agree with all of that, and I also agree with, you know, just the general tenor of the conversation about ICE and what it's been doing to Republicans. But I guess I'm just sort of caught up on offering as the explicit reason we're not going to send federal agents to the places where they're going to be resisted by these groups. Right. I worry that that's not something you should say. Like, even if they should pull ICE out of there. I'm not crazy about saying that, because either you enforce federal law or you don't enforce federal law, but you definitely don't tell people. You know, if you organize your own roadblocks, the way they've done in Minnesota will leave you alone. That's, that's. I think what's. What's. What I'm, I'm not sold on, as, you know, probably better to find a different, phrase it differently, word it differently. Everybody knows what happened. Everybody knows the resistance in Minnesota is responsible for them leaving. And so, you know, there's not a huge gap between, you know, whatever you say and the, you know, the reality of it. However, I do think as a government official, you just don't go on record saying, like, well, you know, if we're going to get physical resistance from activists, then, then we won't come near you.

[A]

Well, how about the idea that Trump, as usual, is saying the quiet part out loud, meaning he's like, well, we sent these people in. We're arresting illegal aliens, which the American people want us to do. We're arresting criminal, legal aliens which everybody should want us to do because we should arrest criminals. And these lunatics in Minneapolis seem intent on making this as hard as possible. So let them stew in their own juices. Like, what am I, I can't like take over the city. I don't want to take over the city. They're all crazy. So you know what? We're pulling out. We're leaving. We're not going to go into places like this. Let's see how they like it. You know what? You don't want it. You didn't vote for me. Good. You know, I'll go to Mobile, Alabama and arrest alleles and, and because they want me there or, you know, or to New Orleans or to Baton Rouge or wherever where, where we're wanted. The public will be very happy there with this display of force and will make me more popular there and will support this policy.

[D]

And this won't have to be a display of force. Right, because there won't be massive organized.

[A]

Left wing resistance and these that are committing to the idea that, you know, no one is illegal who lives on stolen land. So, you know, one of the things that's going on and we could transition this a little bit are these stories that have come out in the last couple of weeks about the demographic patterns in the United States after what is expected in the 2030 census. That there is, and it's been going on now for 25 years, but it is accelerating that the relative depopulation of New York and California in particular is going to New York, which once had like 40 members of Congress, is going to end up with 24, supposedly after the 2030 census, California is expected to lose four to five seats. Like a lot of these red states, people are voting with their feet because of the blue. This is the Walt. This is the ultimate fulfillment of Walter Russell Mead's idea that blue state governance is going to have real world consequences. He just thought it meant that there would be revolutions inside these states where they would elect more right wing people to clear up the mess that the blue state governors and mayors have created. It turns out that's not possible. And what people do is say, I'm moving to Florida. And then they move to Florida. And in 20 years, Florida and Texas will be the two most populous states in the union. And the blue wall that used to help be the thing that made Democrats electable at the, at the national level will be gone. And they will be struggling to get to 270 electoral votes in the America that exists in the 2000-30s and beyond. And you could say that if you believe that that is the case. Trump saying, okay, you don't like the federal government coming in to give you a hand and helping with your crime problem. Let's see what life is like for you, Kathy Hochul, when we don't lift a finger to help you because you don't want our help.

[D]

The one.

[B]

It also means that in Trump's announcing it, as Seth says, it will send whatever illegals haven't already flocked to these states. They are now going to go there in droves because the words at the there's been a presidential announcement, we're laying off you.

[D]

The one wrinkle with that is that these states are rewarded because illegal immigrants are counted in the census. They're rewarded for their illegal immigrant populations with representation. And that is unfair to the legal residents of every other state state. But the numbers are striking, as you said, John, you know, the top three states that benefited from domestic migration are North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina. And the bottom three states where the people left 495051 are Illinois, New York and California.

[A]

Right.

[E]

Nobody would ever accuse me of being a fashion plate. But I do know because I am almost 65 years old, that a well built wardrobe, pieces that work together and hold up over time, and that I can tell you from personal experience, is what Quince does best. Premium materials, thoughtful design and everyday staples that feel easy to wear and easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. During this cold snap, for example, I put on a nice thick quint sweater. I put on my puffer jacket, which I can wear when it's 50 or I can wear when it's 0 degrees and feel the same level of comfort. Quince works directly with top factories, cuts out the middleman. So you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. Everything is built to hold up to daily wear and still look good season after season. So look, refresh your wardrobe with quints. Go to quince.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com Commentary Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Commentary it's been a pretty rough season and the most important part of the day is that moment when you get under the covers and get ready to have a nice restful sleep after a cold, grueling day shoveling snow or wandering through snow or wandering through the cold. And that's what you get from Bolen Branch's Signature Sheets and Waffle Bed Blanket. The sheets are amazing, but the blanket also is just a new kind of comfort, a new level of comfort that.

[A]

Will change your evening, change your life.

[E]

Change your entire experience of sleep. The signature Sheet set that iconic, essential love for its buttery, soft feel that gets softer with every wash. And the Waffle Bed Blanket bottle drapes you in the soft, springy, near weightless warmth of its coveted texture. Together, they create the softest, most breathable bedding experience, designed for better sleep season after season. So discover a softness beyond your wildest dreams. With bowl and branch get 15% off your first order plus free [e-mail] commentary with code COMMENTARY that's Bowl and Branch.

[A]

B O L L A N D.

[E]

Branch.Com commentary code commentary to unlock 15% off exclusions apply.

[A]

Now there is a wrinkle there too, because, you know, assuming demography is destiny and that these migratory patterns are destiny meets the rubber meets the road a little bit. If Texas is a place where suddenly Democrats see some rays of light, not only in these election results, in the special election last week or whatever, that, for all I know, was two days ago, or it could have been two months ago, I can't even remember now because of the way time works. But they see rays of light there. And people in Texas are like, oh, no, there are all these Californians moving here and they're bringing their liberal politics with them. They moved here because they wanted to get away from California governance, but they're going to bring it with them like, you know, like a, like a virus. And it does complicate the political situations in these states because they're not just going to remain static. Other people are moving there who have other life histories and other connections to things and other ideas and are probably more secular. For example, they're not necessarily moving because they have ideological connections to the states, sort of like, you know, more Christian, more traditional. They're moving there for work, they're moving there for jobs. They're moving there because Silicon Valley is moving from California to Texas. In a lot of ways, they're moving because they don't want to pay high taxes, but that doesn't mean that they don't want liberal social policies. And so we don't know what the, you know, never assume that, you know, X means Y. Youth, the vote, you know, Hispanics. The increase in the Hispanic population is going to mean that, you know, the country is going to be democratic forever. Well, hold up. That's not what the 2024 election said, you know, but now maybe the 2028 election will say, well, don't push Hispanics too far because they'll go right back to the Democrats. So, you know, it is important not to get deterministic about these things. This is a very interesting, unbelievably complicated country and the politics are unbelievably complicated.

[C]

JOHN TYLER and also because immigrants in second generation and then third generation, they fewer and fewer of them self identify as part of that population. Right. I think that actually has stabilized somewhat because Hispanic as a designation has become something bigger than, you know, used to, used to mean recent immigrant or your family or recent immigrants. And they wanted to move away from that. People aren't as, as people aren't looking to move away from the designation as much as, but it is still true that immigrant families self identify as immigrant families less and less as they're no longer immigrants. As, you know, native born Americans. Far, you know, fewer native born Hispanics identify as Hispanic. It's just a thing that happens. And so there are like the number of people who would be technically categorized as Hispanics in the country grows, but the number of Hispanic voters doesn't grow at the same pace because there's this slight drop off. And that's another thing that makes it complicated, you know, to calculate.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

John, I was just gonna say anecdotally to your point about liberals moving to red states and bringing their politics. Most of the New Yorkers that I know who moved to Florida during the pandemic, and I know a fair number of them were liberals who were complaining about Desantis right up until the point that they moved.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And yeah, yeah, it was just taxes.

[A]

So nothing is static. You know, California was a Republican state until 1996. People forget that, you know, state of Reagan, state of Senator Hayakawa. I mean, it was a, George Murphy, you know, it was the aerospace industry. And you know, it was, it was a, it was a reliable, it was the, it was the red wall for, for Republicans. And then, you know, things change because things change and nothing remains the same. And we don't have barriers against people moving. I mean, I'll tell you about New York, which is that, you know, New York is particularly New York City. We have this very weird thing which is like half of the people in New York City did not live here 20 years ago. That is a, that is a kind of remarkable. So no one has historical memory of a New York that was the New York of the 1990s or very few people or like remarkably few Given, you know, how big the city is. And two things about that. Number one, because the people who moved here are overwhelmingly single and they and families don't move to New York City because it's too expensive. And I know again, anecdotally, if you know people who are employing, trying to get people to work in New York and work in New York City, which, let's say 50 years ago was the most desirable thing you could be, if you were like an upper middle class person, you were moving to the red hot center. You go to the theater, you go to restaurants, you could shop, you could, you know, you could live a glamorous life that you saw on, you know, on television. Even if the crime rates started get bad and things started to get bad, New York was still the red hot center of advertising, of media, of banking, of everything. And so people wanted to move here and live here and live here with their families. And now you have to be a millionaire to move here. If you have three kids, you have to be able to buy a $2 million or more apartment just to live. And then there's schooling and then there's this and then there's that. And you can't get people to take jobs in Manhattan unless they're 25 years old. And then they come, they're 25 years old and they're all from the top 50 elite universities and they bring their politics with them and they vote for Mamdani. So now they're going to live in the Mamdani New York. And as they grow up and as they think about pairing off, if they do, because there's all these evidence, all this evidence that they're not going to live more the conventional lives that we have expected people to live as they move into their 30s and 40s, but let's say they do, then they're going to be like, oh my God, I can't take my kid on a stroller down the subway platform because the schizophrenic isn't going to push me down the stairs. I better move to the suburbs or get the hell out of here and go to Austin where people are weird. But you know what, it's like really safe and it's warmer and you know, there's a lot of tech people there. I mean, you know, it's a, this is how, how in our country, and it's been the story from 1776 onward, people go where there are opportunities or they go where they think they can make a better live life for themselves. And if the, if the Federal government gives up on sort of like playing a role. If the federal government allows these localities run by very liberal or leftist governances to be left to their own devices, will. It's a massive social experiment. And what people, what ordinary people are going to do when they have to live under these regimes, so to speak? I mean, my grandparents were still alive, living in the Twin Cities. Like, they would go to Florida tomorrow and stay in Florida in their condo on Singer island and die there because.

[C]

They wouldn't, they wouldn't follow ICE around suburban neighborhoods.

[D]

They wouldn't be blowing whistles in the faces of ICE agents.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, they would be. Yeah, they would. That's exactly who they were. But I mean, like, they were literally like the Most boring Minneapolitans St. Paulites you could possibly imagine of. Absolutely. No. And they were you know, just sort of standard issue. Democratic voters, Hubert Humphrey voters. I'm sure they would like Amy Klobuchar, but they would be like, what is go. What, where, what is happening? What is this? You know, so there's that kind of like hair, just like, just like people are looking at the ICE enforcement and they're going, what? Masks with the, and they're like, what, what? That, that's, this doesn't look like the country I'm from. Same kind of reactions like, and Trump is supposed to have that fingertip touch, you know, lizard brain feel for the way people feel and think. And if he has basically taken this turn that Eliana is talking about, that is very significant because it means that the ideological priors that he and other people have brought to this second term have now met the test of their being put into practice and it's time to run the hell away from them.

[B]

Except, by the way, there are still right wingers who want to see the tougher approach, not the softer approach, and who are also questioning why the administration has failed to go after the employers of illegals. That's been a chorus this whole time. So, you know, again, he's gonna, he's gonna face, he's gonna, he's gotta face it in all direct.

[A]

Well, so he is. But I mean, in other words, like, here's the classic thing about running a big coalition that involves people who aren't in your party, which is the question where people always say, well, where are you going to go? You want to enforce what you want, you know, you want a tough on illegal alien administration. You are never going to get an administration tougher than this one. And if they're saying we better back off or you know, or we're about to like, you know, be a buzzsaw is going to cut right through everything that we ever wanted to do. Good luck to you having a big protest about this because you have nowhere to turn to. This isn't England. We don't have Nigel Farage for you to fantasize about voting for, which is what's happening right now in England is that, you know, now the Reform Party is polling better than the Tories and Labor. Our system doesn't work that way. There is no Nigel Farage. There is no like third actor. And so you got nowhere to go, buddy. You know, enjoy yourself in your rage. I mean, I had this fight 20 years ago with Mark Stein on the corner, or various people on the corner, the National Review blog, where we were all group blogging and talking to each other all day, sort of like a preach with Twitter. And it was all this, why doesn't Bush just kill all, you know, the, the Sunnis or why doesn't he do this? And he's, he's wimping out on that and he's not doing what's necessary in the fight against Islamism. And my line was always, this is as good as you're going to get. Like, the kind of crap that he takes for doing what he does do is so severe that if you think anyone is going to come along to, you know, to pursue the policies that you want them to pursue, that's a fantasy. Like, there's no nowhere to go. Now. It turned out it wasn't quite a fantasy because you had to. Then there was this eight year interregnum with, you know, Obama, who then really did everything Bush didn't do. And then that gave an opening for Trump to say, we're going to shut down immigration, particularly from these Arab countries, until we know what the hell is going on. Right. So there, it's not like that. There isn't a ten year program that, where you could get what you want, but you're not going to get it this year. You're not going to get at this moment, you know, Trump's. If Trump says this has gone too far, it's gone too far. Like there's no there, you know, who, who are you going to look to? Tom Massey? I mean, you know, like, seriously. So that's, that's, that's my. Okay, so the Iran talks were off, now they're on. They were on, then they were off, now they're on. And they were going to be in Turkey and now they're going to be in Oman. And two questions present themselves.

[C]

The answer is a way to get.

[A]

Trump out of the box that he got himself in, which is to say he said help is on the way and, you know, this regime should end. And he's looking for a way to say, we made a deal. So isn't that great? We made a deal, or is this all a delaying tactic? And what he needs is a month to preposition materials to protect American forces in the region from Iranian ballistic missiles and for Israel to get itself situated so that it doesn't face, you know, like a barrage of threats that it can't answer.

[D]

I actually think the former is what Trump wants. I think he wants a way out, and he would like an excuse not to do this, even though from the outset I've seen thought he would end up doing it. Because I think the Iranians, through, while they are trying to get the Americans to the table, can't help being themselves. They have sent a drone to harass an American aircraft carrier and sent another ship to harass a second American ship. Ship. And then they're doing what they do with negotiations, which is to say these were supposed to be held in Turkey, and they said, no, we want them to be in Oman. The negotiations, the Americans insisted, would be not only about the Iranian nuclear program, but also about their ballistic missile capacity, which is the heart of the Iranian threat right now, and about the Iranian support for terror proxies. And the Iranians said, no, it will only be about our decimated nuclear program. They are pulling out every trick in the book to force Trump to look foolish if he doesn't bomb them. And the idea that Kushner and Witkoff are going to sit down Friday and emerge with a deal that would be satisfying is fatuous. And I think, although the president doesn't want to take action, I think the Iranians are going to force this hand by being who they are.

[C]

Have the Iranians considered getting into the crypto game? Because that might be the way out of this. But I actually think what's interesting is that I've come to think that the Iranians think the answer is choice number two. Like, as Eliana said, the answer is probably choice number one, that Trump is looking for an off ramp of some way because he likes the deal and this has been drawn out. But I think the Iranians, the only real explanation for their aggressive behavior this week and doing so in a way that got the summit temporarily called off, the only explanation is that they think it's number two, that Trump is waiting to strike when the, when the time is right and everything's in position. And their gamble might have been, maybe we can interrupt the flow of this and even ultimately prevent a strike by saying, well, go ahead, do it now. If you're going to do it, do it now before they're fully ready. And then see, you know, either try to get them to hesitate and look like they've hesitated or something like that, or backed off, and then maybe that changes the momentum of the talk. So I, I actually, I, I think that the Iranians, it's funny, but it's, it's, that's how deterrence works. I think the deterrence is working in a weird way because I do think the Iranians were nervous about him being ready to strike when things are in position.

[B]

I think that's a fascinating take, actually, the idea that they're trying to get Trump to strike now when it would be. When it would be less of a. Less devastating for them. What I think, though, is that that could very well be true. I'm guessing that whatever happens in this.

[A]

Chapter.

[B]

Trump will strike again in another chapter because the Iranians are not going to stop doing what they do in regard to regional provocation, in regard to their own people, and, and in regard to building up the ballistic arsenal. And it's just going to happen. It's going to all come together again.

[E]

It's been a pretty rough season, and the most important part of the day is that moment when you get under the covers and get ready to have a nice, restful sleep after a cold, grueling day shoveling snow or wandering through snow or wandering through the cold. And that's what you get get from Bolen Branch's signature sheets and Waffle Bed blanket.

[A]

The sheets are amazing, but the blanket.

[E]

Also is just a new kind of comfort, a new level of comfort that.

[A]

Will change your evening, change your life.

[E]

Change your entire experience of sleep. The signature sheet set that iconic, essential love for its buttery, soft feel that gets softer with every wash. And the Waffle bed blanket drapes you in the soft, springy, near weightless warmth of its coveted texture. Together, they create the softest, most breathable bedding experience, designed for better sleep season after season. So discover a softness beyond your wildest dreams with bowl and branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bowlandbranch.com commentary with code COMMENTARY that's Bowl and branch.

[A]

B O L L A N D.

[E]

Branch.Com commentary code commentary to unlock 15% off exclusions apply, you of course, know that Our theme song on this podcast is Hope for the Best. Expect the Worst. And when it comes to life insurance.

[A]

It'S really not about expecting the worst.

[E]

It's about preparing for the possibility of that something might happen and that your people are supported. The people that you love are supported no matter what. That's why I can recommend life insurance through Ethos. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes, and get same day coverage. There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health questions. You can get up to $3 million in coverage. Some policies are as low as $30 a month. As of March 2025, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. Ethos has 4.8 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot with over 3,000 reviews. So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Now by going to ethos.com commentary in as little as 10 minutes, you can get your free quote and up to $3 million in [e-mail] that is ethos.com commentary ethos.com commentary application times and rates may vary.

[A]

I don't understand what the deal would be. That's where I the rubber meets the road for me and why. I kind of think that it may be number two, because Trump walked himself out onto the plank and said, help is on the way. This regime should go. Then cooler heads in his orbit said, I don't understand why we're doing that. Like, do we really care? Like, do we care enough about the horrors that are being perpetrated to actually, like, get involved in kinetic action against Iran without understanding how the regime topples if we hit them, what does that mean? How is it going to go? So maybe we better come up with a deal. And he's like, well, okay, but then what's on the deal sheet? I mean, and what possible way does he go to the American people and say the same regime that I said could not be trusted and was behaving untrustworthily and and gulled the Americans in Obama's time into a deal that was only good for them and not good for America, and they wouldn't even hold to that deal while they got $150 billion in pallets of cash for signing it? What am I coming to you with? A piece of paper that says we're gonna not make ballistic missiles anymore? A piece of paper that says we're not gonna enrich uranium anymore? A piece of paper that says we're not gonna support terrorist groups anymore. What are those worth? What is that piece of paper worth? I just stood down my saying, ooh, you better not violate this deal because then I'm going to come after you. What are the conditions under which it will be any easier for Trump to strike in May or July when they haven't lived up to the terms of whatever it is they agree to in this negotiation? And I don't think that that's something that he would wake up to. I think he's got Rubio there. Rubio said yesterday basically that the regime, for all intents and purposes, has to end, even if it doesn't quite end. Like, it has to not do anything that the regime does and we have to agree to not do anything. They have to leave their people alone. They have to stop human rights abuses, they have to stop supporting terrorism, they have to stop their ballistic missile program, they have to not enrich uranium. And in which case, if they not only agreed to all that, but did it, the regime would topple anyway in the space of three months because there would be another set of massive revolts and the regime and people wouldn't turn their guns on the people. And then people would start storming the mullahs homes and things like that, and then the regime would topple. So I kind of feel like it's a temporizing that they are. It's like, all right, we'll come to go to the table. We'll give it one more go. You know, Bush did this in 90 with Saddam. People forget this. Like there was a five and a half or six month period after the invasion of Kuwait when, if you were a supporter of the idea that there needs military action the United States had to enter into in order to get Iraq out of Kuwait. You started getting very antsy and believed that Bush was losing faith, right? And there was a famous Margaret Thatcher said, george, don't go wobbly, we have to do this. And that was sort of leaked out and all that. And it kind of turned out that it was all, it wasn't a ruse, but that we hadn't done anything this size. They had to figure out how to do it. Powell and others had to make the plans. They had to try to get this 52 nation, you know, coalition together to face down Saddam. And then when they were ready and when all this, when, when things were perfectly aligned, they went and it was a, you know, and it was over in two months with almost no American casualties. And, you know, the great failure, of course, wasn't not was in not delivering the death blow to Saddam's regime. But Iraq was removed from Kuwait and it was basically a done deal when they went into Kuwait that America was going to do this, but it took them five months to do it. And then if you were looking at it from the outside, you thought, well, you know, Bush is kind of a wimp and he's not, in the end he's going to chicken out. And that was not fair to him. And there were things going on that we didn't understand.

[B]

There's a different kind of example in George W. Bush in that despite what everyone says, he didn't want to have to go to war with Saddam. He tried desperately to go, to go to the UN to genuinely get these resolutions for inspections. And you know, because the whole world, everyone's intelligence was, was saying that he, he had chemical weapons. And because of European leaders blocking these efforts and because of Saddam's refusal to back down, Bush reluctantly went into war. So.

[C]

And the UN's too. Remember oil for food, Right?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So. So I'm just saying I, it could be either. And I mean, I, we don't know. We'll know, you know, when the, when the archives are opened or when, you know, when they start talking about what happens once something happens or doesn't happen. Clearly there are these two voices in the administration and one of them, which isn't necessarily just made up of isolationists, is saying, I mean, this really wasn't on our dance card to like take the regime out. You know, I thought we didn't want to take regimes out and he doesn't need to, but I mean, then why are we doing it? That's the problem. They haven't done anything to us. Like they only did this horrible stuff to their own people. So which is the trigger for all of this? So why wouldn't we do it if we weren't doing it to get the regime out? I mean, even I would question a strike or action that didn't get the regime out. Because what do you do? Like what's, show me the strategic purpose to show that we can attack Iran.

[D]

Of course, long term strategic purpose, of course should be aimed at continuing to destabilize the regime to motivate protesters. But the strike he takes doesn't have to be the decapitation of Khamenei. It can be aimed at the ballistic, ballistic missile program. It can be aimed at the irgc, Navy and so on. Like this strike does not have to decapitate the action he takes, right? Now does not have to be aimed at decapitating the regime, weakening the ballistic missile program or the navy. We've seen as when he targeted the nuclear missile program. Targeting Iran's hard power itself weakens the regime and advances our long term goals in doing.

[A]

But you don't have to negotiate about that. Like he said, after Operation Midnight Hammer, you start rebuilding and will hit you like that. He could do that tomorrow without, even without this whole question of the six, eight weeks prior to the moment we're speaking this morning could have said, oh, they're, you know, look, they're building ballistic missiles up again. Here come the B52s. Boom. 33 hours. We know it takes 33 hours to fly there, drop some bombs and go away. We're doing that because they just violated the, basically the unilateral terms that we placed on them after Midnight Hammer, which is don't go back into Ford, don't try to excavate Fordo and find the nuclear materials and don't start building ballistic missiles. But he's already sort of on a larger Runway or a larger field of play than that because this all started because of an internal revolt, not because they were building up the ballistic missiles.

[C]

There's also a, you know, from Iran standpoint, you can do certain things that look like they are aimed at Israel and certain things that look like they are aim or will be interpreted as aimed at the west or violating human rights to the extent that it will upset maybe even the Europeans who are, you know, asleep and maybe will wake up one of these days. But you know, I think the Iranians, the mullahs know that the ballistic missile program is really more threatening to Israel even though it's threatening to everybody. And even though the truth is that yes, they, they've supplied the Russians with ballistic missiles and that's, you know, gone out. Those missiles have been shot at. You know, our supposed ally Ukraine, we're supposed to be backing Ukraine and they're shooting those missiles at Ukraine in war also and all that stuff. But I think that they understand that the world thinks nukes bad. And so when the Iranians go after a nuclear weapon, they are on the back foot diplomatically because they, they even, even if the Europeans don't want to strike or whatever, France will come out and say, no, you absolutely can't have nukes. That's ridiculous. Germany will say, no, you can't have like they'll say the principle, you can't have nukes. Nukes. And we have to get to the point where you don't have a path to nukes and killing the protesters. You have to stop killing the protesters. You can't execute protesters in broad daylight. This is something that Trump said. You know, these are things that everybody agrees on and everybody will say. And so they can, they can, you know, they can walk this fine line if they're able to by not provoking the West. And I think that they think that they can hold on to their ballistic missile program without provoking the west. And I think they're probably right about that.

[A]

Okay, well, we can leave it there. Short but sweet for us. So we're back tomorrow. For Abe, Seth and Eliana, I'm John Pod Horowitz. Keep the candle burning.