The Long Game – "Geopolitics of the Olympics & Iran's Deal Dilemma"

Hosts: Jake Sullivan & Jon Finer
Date: February 5, 2026
Network: Vox Media Podcast Network

Episode Overview

In this episode, Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer, senior national security advisors from the Biden administration, tackle two timely and weighty global issues: the complex geopolitics surrounding the upcoming Winter Olympics and the fresh round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program. With Finer traveling and ailing with a sore throat (“playing injured like Michael Jordan in the flu game” [00:52, Jake]), the duo keep things concise but deeply analytical, drawing on their insider experience to offer both context and debate.

The episode features two main segments:

1. Geopolitics of the Winter Olympics – Examining the diplomatic and political rifts, especially regarding Russia, U.S.-China dynamics, and the U.S. decision to send ICE officials to accompany the Olympic team.
2. Iran’s Deal Dilemma – A ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ exercise where the hosts role-play Iranian advisors arguing whether Iran should pursue a deal with the U.S. or resist and risk further military escalation.

1. The Geopolitics of the 2026 Winter Olympics

Olympic Fever Meets International Tensions

• Personal Olympic Connections and Soft Power

  • Jon Finer recounts his lifelong interest in the Olympics, starting with the 1980 U.S. vs. Russia hockey game (“My first memory in life is watching the 1980 Olympic hockey gold medal game…with my dad in a very cold house in Vermont” [02:36, Jon]).
  • Norwich, Vermont (Finer’s hometown) claims more Winter Olympic athletes per capita than any other U.S. town [03:07].
  • Jake Sullivan hails Minneapolis and shares a personal connection to skier Lindsey Vonn, noting her resilience competing with a blown ACL [03:19-03:54].

• Russian Absence and the Ukraine War’s Shadows

  • This is the first Winter Olympics since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; Russian teams are banned [04:42].
  • NHL players can return, but Russian national team athletes are excluded, making it “almost an all-NATO hockey tournament” [05:08, Jake].
  • Individual Russian athletes may compete as “neutral,” meaning no Russian flag or anthem [05:41-06:41].
  • The U.S.-Russia Olympic rivalry is discussed, including the absence of Russian hockey—“Support the decision. We’ll miss watching some of the great Russian hockey players” [03:54, Jon].

• Doping, Documentaries, and Olympic Identity

  • Russia’s historic and recent doping scandals are referenced, giving context to the ban (with a plug for the documentary Icarus [07:29, Jake]).
  • Both recommend Olympic-themed media—Netflix documentaries and a YouTube video of a child reciting the “Miracle” speech, adding a human touch [08:37-09:02].

• U.S. Sends ICE to the Olympics—A Controversial Move

  • The Trump administration is sending ICE officials to Italy to “vet and mitigate risks from transnational criminal organizations” [09:02, Jake].
  • This is “almost tailor made to just create division, friction, challenge” between U.S. and Italian authorities [09:13, Jake].
  • Finer critiques the optics: “Very odd move from a soft power perspective…maybe not the best for the US Brand” [10:21, Jon].

• U.S.-China Rivalry and Athlete Loyalties

  • The rise of Eileen Gu—an American-born snowboarder competing for China—highlights shifting soft power and identity politics in the Olympics [10:46, Jake].
  • Both reflect on the tradition of athletes “swapping” national allegiances for opportunity but note the rarity of a U.S.-born star joining a rival team [12:09-12:53].

• Surprising Nations in Winter Sports

  • Human-interest stories surface, including a skier from the UAE who learned at Ski Dubai—“a tiny indoor ski facility in the middle of a desert nation” [14:16-14:35, Jake and Jon].
  • The phenomenon of “one athlete” Olympic delegations is highlighted as a celebration of the Olympic spirit [14:35-15:06].

• Olympic Truce Traditions and Today’s Relevance

  • The ancient Olympic truce is referenced, including recent calls for ceasefires during the Games—specifically Macron’s failed proposal for Ukraine [15:06, Jake].
  • Jake raises whether Trump would consider the Olympics in his Iran-strike calculus, noting the history of countries (especially Russia) launching invasions during Olympic periods [16:35-17:44].
  • Jon replies, “I see no evidence that it is…but you could imagine this at least crossing his mind” [16:35], suggesting the administration is less likely to be swayed by Olympic truce traditions.

Notable Quotes & Moments (With Timestamps)

• “It’s almost an all NATO hockey tournament, especially now that Finland and Sweden are in NATO.”
  — Jake Sullivan [05:14]
• “If the Olympics is about putting your best national foot forward…ICE is going to be present at the same time as people around the world are watching them crack down on American cities … maybe not the best for the US Brand.”
  — Jon Finer [10:21]
• “Rare, though, to have someone who could be the leading player or competitor on a US Team actually choose to go compete for someone else. I can't think of another case like Eileen Gu.”
  — Jake Sullivan [12:22]
• “These one person, one athlete Olympic teams that some countries have, I find just fascinating … So pretty cool thing.”
  — Jon Finer [14:35]

2. Red Team, Blue Team: Iran’s Nuclear Deal Dilemma

Negotiation Context [20:23 – 26:17]

• Upcoming U.S.-Iran talks in Oman are framed as the latest high-stakes effort to address Iran’s nuclear program, missile arsenal, and regional proxy support.
• Recent history: The U.S. and Israel conducted the “12 Day War” bombing, which Trump claimed left Iran’s nuclear program “totally obliterated”—but now, negotiations involve limits on enrichment, implying the program survived [22:17-22:35, Jake].
• Participants: U.S., Iran, and possibly regional actors (Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Saudi, Pakistan) [22:36].
• Secretary Rubio (the U.S. SecState) wants to expand talks to include human rights and regional issues; Iran insists on discussing only the nuclear program [23:08-23:34].
• The U.S. has amassed military assets in the region, suggesting military action is still possible [24:50, Jake].

The Debate: Should Iran Take a Deal With the U.S.?

Red Team (Jon Finer): Argues ‘DO take the deal’ [26:17–34:27]

• Security and Survival:
  • “Our air defenses…are as weak as they have ever been. Virtually gone.”
    — Jon Finer, roleplaying Iranian advisor [27:07]
  • “The economy needs a boost, not another attack. And the first US President who has ever bombed our territory…and the one who is probably the closest to our enemy, Israel, is still sitting in the Oval Office. So we need a timeout and to build back a bit. Not another war. The timing is bad.”
• Trump’s Motivations and Limited Concessions:
  • “This guy does not really know the details…He just wants to be able to claim a win for himself, for the United States.”
  • Iran can offer a suspension of enrichment that costs little: “We aren't enriching uranium anyway…So just tell Trump…we will not enrich uranium during the remaining tenure of your administration.”
• Missiles/Regional:
  • Proposes offering to suspend the (largely nonfunctional) space program and to talk regionally about missiles as a low-cost gesture: “Say that you'll sit at the table with the Saudis, the Qataris, the Emiratis…That negotiation never has to reach an agreement.”
  • Most importantly: Stall and survive—“Nothing in the United States these days lasts longer than one administration anymore…commitment is not as severe, the duration is not as long, and the timing…is terrible for a confrontation.” [34:22]

Blue Team (Jake Sullivan): Argues ‘DON’T take the deal’ [34:27–41:51]

• Ideological Resistance & Distrust:
  • “What we didn't hear from him were the principles of the revolution, the dignity of the Iranian people…We stand up…against American aggression and American imperialism.”
  • “You cannot trust the Americans…they did that again any time…even if they made some agreement with us, that deal's not gonna last…Trump…already pulled out of a deal…he'll do it again.” [35:05-36:13]
• Leverage & Deterrence:
  • “Once we surrender, we're completely naked. As long as we have it [enrichment], we've got this possibility that we could dash for a bomb…that preserves some degree of deterrence for us.”
  • Argues the U.S. only respects force, not concession: “Countries that push back, that say, no, those are the ones that get a decent outcome with this guy.”
• Delay Tactic:
  • “Let’s keep them talking…We can make some very small marginal concessions…let’s not make the major concessions that they seem to be demanding. I think we can wait these guys out.”

Debate Analysis & Reflection

• Divergent Worldviews:
  • Sullivan observes the opposing logics: Finer’s rational, pragmatic case vs. Sullivan’s argument from “machismo and revolution and…deep structural mistrust of the United States” [42:32, Jake].
• Erosion of Pragmatists:
  • “Anybody making the kind of argument that I was making is maybe not even in the room anymore for these discussions because their vision…has been so badly discredited by…the last few years.”
    — Jon Finer [44:40]
• Iran’s Diplomat – Which Path?
  • Speculation about Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchee’s stance (“a real professional diplomat…logical, rational…”) but uncertainty as to whether pragmatism or hardline values currently dominate Tehran [46:07, Jake].
• U.S. Promises & Credibility:
  • The hosts remind listeners that Trump's public encouragement of Iranian protestors (“help is on the way”) raises U.S. credibility issues if no action follows regime violence [48:26, Jon].

Notable Quotes & Moments (With Timestamps)

• “You need to buy time. Nothing in the United States these days lasts longer than one administration anymore…”
  — Jon Finer as Iranian advisor [34:15]
• “Iranians don't do that…We stand up, up on behalf of all the people of the world…resisting and pushing back against American aggression and American imperialism.”
  — Jake Sullivan as Iranian hardliner [34:36]
• “We have developed in this country a bit of a false sense of security about our ability to use military force without consequences for us…there could be significant consequences should [Trump] choose military action in this case.”
  — Jon Finer [48:26]

3. Memorable Moments & Timestamps

• Olympic nostalgia and pride:
  • “My first memory in life is watching the 1980 Olympic hockey gold medal game…”
    — Jon Finer [02:36]
• ICE at the Olympics as a geopolitical misstep:
  • “Almost tailor made to just create division, friction, challenge.”
    — Jake Sullivan [09:13]
• Rift in U.S.-China athlete loyalties (Eileen Gu case):
  • “Rare, though, to have someone who could be the leading player or competitor on a US Team actually choose to go compete for someone else.”
    — Jake Sullivan [12:22]
• Dramatic debate roleplay on Iran strategy:
  • “Nothing in the United States these days lasts longer than one administration anymore…The commitment is not as severe, the duration is not as long…”
    — Jon Finer [34:22]
  • “You cannot trust the Americans…they did that again any time…Trump…will do it again.”
    — Jake Sullivan [35:22]
  • “Iranians don’t do that…We stand up…against American aggression and American imperialism.”
    — Jake Sullivan [34:36]
  • “We have developed in this country a bit of a false sense of security about our ability to use military force without consequences for us.”
    — Jon Finer [48:26]

4. Segments & Timestamps Reference

• Opening Banter & Olympics Personalities: [00:52 – 04:42]
• Russia, Ukraine & Olympic Bans: [04:42 – 07:29]
• Doping & ‘Neutral Athletes’: [06:41 – 09:02]
• ICE Controversy: [09:02 – 10:46]
• U.S.-China & National Allegiances: [10:46 – 13:04]
• Olympic Truce & War Timing: [15:06 – 18:30]
• Iran Deal Dilemma – Context: [20:23 – 26:17]
• Red Team/Blue Team Debate: [26:17 – 41:51]
• Analysis & Endnotes: [41:51 – 50:57]

5. Takeaways

• Olympics as a Mirror: The Games act as a microcosm for political tension, with nationalism, power projection, and soft power strategies on full display.
• U.S. Policy Optics Matter: Decisions like deploying ICE have diplomatic ripple effects, especially when paired with domestic crackdowns.
• Iran Dilemma Is Deep: Realpolitik and revolutionary ideology collide in Iran’s policy debate, and the chilling effect of “deal-and-betrayal” shapes mistrust.
• Military Force Is Not Risk-Free: Even successful limited strikes, Sullivan and Finer caution, carry risk of blowback—military, diplomatic, and domestic.

For Listeners

This episode gives rare insider perspective on current events, blending narrative, debate, and personal experience to illuminate how global politics and national security are shaped behind closed doors. Those interested in U.S. foreign policy, international relations, and realpolitik will find it essential—and even those just tuning in for Olympics talk will learn how much more is at play than sports.