The Lawfare Podcast: Rational Security – “Take a Light Out of Crime” Edition
Release Date: March 19, 2026
Participants: Scott R. Anderson (host), Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpet, Ari Tabatabai
Main Theme:
A deep dive into the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign in Iran—specifically, the repercussions for global security, economics, diplomacy, and the rules governing armed conflict. The team tackles three major intersection points: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its geopolitical ripple effects; the collapse in US-European cooperation and NATO’s future; and the consequences of a stripped-down approach to civilian harm mitigation by the Pentagon.

Episode Overview

This episode examines the unfolding crisis as the US and Israel’s air campaign in Iran enters its third week. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through global markets, strained military and diplomatic alliances, and raised critical questions over legal, moral, and strategic standards in warfare.

Key Discussion Points & Segment Timestamps

Opening Banter & Updates (02:49–05:23)

• Benjamin Wittes humorously notes his “freedom” from an “ankle monitor” after a protest-related court appearance, setting a light-hearted tone.
• Wit about courtroom attire, with Wittes discussing choosing between his Ukrainian embroidered shirt and dog-themed shirts.
• Memorable Quote:
  “As Martin Luther King said, free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I am free at last.” – Benjamin Wittes (03:07)

1. The Strait of Hormuz Crisis: Geopolitics, Energy, and Economic Fallout (07:29–31:27)

Key Takeaways:

• Strait of Hormuz Blockage:
  Iran has halted most shipping through this vital channel, sending oil above $100/barrel and affecting fertilizer supplies, raising fears of global food insecurity and migration surges.
• Iran’s Methods & U.S. Preparedness:
  • Iran uses mines and selective transit permissions (primarily for India, Pakistan, and China-aligned ships) as tools of hybrid warfare.
  • Ari Tabatabai critiques administration for failing to anticipate a classic escalation scenario long rehearsed in US war games.
    • “This scenario of a potential US-Iran conflict has been played out ... for decades. ... It’s been predicted for a very long time. And the fact that we clearly did not plan for it or didn’t take it seriously is a little baffling to me.” (12:20)
  • The US Navy’s minesweeping and maritime countermeasures are under-resourced, with key assets diverted to other theaters.
• European & Allied Reluctance:
  • Europeans, remembering past grievances (notably the “Greenland crisis”), resist US pressure to participate, citing poor consultation and domestic political costs.
  • Natalie Orpet:
    “A lot of the reason why we do the hard work of quiet diplomacy normally ... is so that we have support when we’re actually in the middle of things. ... And it’s not clear to me that the administration has been doing that work.” (22:43)
  • Benjamin Wittes:
    “There is no safe harbor for Europe ... It’s not actually worth having your ships targeted ... getting the US out of a mess it did not consult you about getting into.” (25:28)
  • Scott Anderson predicts Europeans will eventually have to participate to protect economic self-interest, but only under strict caveats.

Notable Exchange:

• On why Europe isn’t stepping up (Benjamin Wittes):
  “If you can’t prevent him from behaving like him by being nice, then what is the value of being nice? ... There’s absolutely no reason for them to step up for us right now. And so they won’t and they’re not.” (25:28–27:03)

2. Transatlantic Alliance: Is NATO Unraveling? (54:42–68:29)

Key Takeaways:

• Post-Greenland Crisis Transatlantic Malaise:

  • Trust in US leadership is at new lows; Europeans see hard breaches of shared values, particularly after the US threat to annex Greenland.
  • Prospects for an autonomous European defense policy, and even a European nuclear deterrent, are more realistically discussed than in past decades.
  • Natalie Orpet:
    “...More and more people, both on the political side and on the general population of Europe side believe what the United States is saying and believe that they might leave and believe that they are no longer ... a reliable partner.” (57:37)
  • Macron’s proposal for a French-led “European nuclear umbrella” is treated with surprising seriousness but hampered by limited nuclear capabilities and political headwinds.

• Nuclear Deterrence Evolution, Political Hurdles:

  • Ari Tabatabai:
    “You don’t necessarily need parity as much as you need the political credibility. ... Having that additive not replacement for US nuclear deterrence is actually a good thing ... But Macron’s term ends next year ... so part of it is a time crunch right now to make sure that they make enough progress before the elections in 2027.” (65:15–67:52)

3. The Pentagon’s Changing Approach to Civilian Harm: “Unlawful Good” or Moral Backslide? (68:29–89:57)

Key Takeaways:

• Civilian Carnage in Iran:
  • US strike mistakenly hits an Iranian girls’ school; possibly caused by faulty intelligence and weakened safeguards.
  • Changes in Pentagon leadership under SecDef Hegseth (who calls rules of engagement “stupid”) have gutted legal oversight and civilian harm mitigation programs.
• Rules of War: Legality vs. “Lethality”:
  • Natalie Orpet insists rules are vital, not just for morality but for strategic effectiveness:
    • “The law of war is ... the idea that war is supposed to be for the purpose of accomplishing an objective ... When you kill a bunch of civilians ... you’re just incentivizing resentment and pushing people toward feeling a sense of justifiable grievance.” (71:44)
  • Ari Tabatabai brings operational perspective, emphasizing the loss of US “moral high ground” and increased long-term risk:
    • “Attacking a civilian population ... just hardens their resolve. ... All of that is being dismantled ... and it is part of Secretary Hegseth’s ongoing rap about replacing legality with lethality.” (79:11)
  • Benjamin Wittes uses historical anecdotes to show that precision and minimizing civilian harm are integral to modern lethality, not opposed to it:
    • “When Hegseth contrasts legality and lethality, he’s moronically wrong. Legality and lethality are the same thing, if you know what you’re talking about.” (85:43)
  • Concern from the panel that loss of expertise, institutional knowledge, and acculturation on civilian protection will have cumulative, devastating effects if unchecked.

Notable Quotes

• “There is no safe harbor for Europe ... There’s absolutely no reason for them to step up for us right now.” – Benjamin Wittes (25:28)
• “The law of war is ... the idea that war is supposed to be for the purpose of accomplishing an objective ... when you kill a bunch of civilians ... you’re just incentivizing resentment.” – Natalie Orpet (71:44)
• “When Hegseth contrasts legality and lethality, he’s moronically wrong. Legality and lethality are the same thing, if you know what you’re talking about.” – Benjamin Wittes (85:43)
• [On Macron’s nuclear umbrella proposal] “You don’t necessarily need parity as much as you need political credibility ... having an additive, not replacement, for US nuclear deterrence is actually a good thing.” – Ari Tabatabai (65:15)

Memorable/Lighthearted Moments

• Wittes’ recurring joke about his “court-ordered” attendance at podcasting and playful fashion updates (dog shirts vs. Ukrainian embroidery). (03:02–04:21, 95:09)
• Object Lessons include cooking kits for kids (“Radish Box”), pursuit of rare Taiwanese mountain pepper, portable tech kits, and Wittes’ “Get Ready With Me” fashion videos. (90:09–96:36)

Conclusions

• The US and Israel’s rapidly executed Iran campaign has unleashed predictable, yet insufficiently planned-for, economic and security crises—especially in maritime security.
• European partners are withholding cooperation due to lack of consultation, diminished trust post-Greenland, and domestic political realities. The longer-term future of NATO and the US-led international order is openly questioned.
• Civilian casualties and Pentagon policy changes illustrate the risks of sidelining legal and ethical standards in warfare; rules of war are not just niceties, but proven instruments of both morality and military effectiveness.

Structure and Flow Suggestions

• The episode moves from macro (global military and diplomatic) to micro (internal Pentagon processes and civilian protection).
• Despite the gravity, the team maintains the signature Rational Security mix of rigorous analysis, expertise, and dry wit.

Timestamps

• Opening Banter / Wittes’ “Freedom”: 02:49–05:23
• Strait of Hormuz & Economic Fallout: 07:29–31:27
• European Reluctance / NATO Future: 54:42–68:29
• Civilian Harm & Pentagon Legal Norms: 68:29–89:57
• Object Lessons / Wrap: 90:09–96:45

For those new to the Lawfare Podcast or this episode's topics, this summary captures the flow, depth, and topical range—offering both the substance and flavor that makes Rational Security a fixture in national security discourse.