The Tom Woods Show Ep. 2748 – We Should Have Listened to Pat Buchanan
Date: April 2, 2026
Guests: Tom Woods (Host), Andrew Day (Senior Editor, The American Conservative)
Episode Theme:
A critical examination of American foreign policy, especially recent wars in the Middle East, through the lens of Pat Buchanan’s non-interventionist conservatism. The conversation compares the current Iran war with Iraq 2003, investigates the motives behind interventionism, explores U.S.–Israel relations, the shifting right-wing discourse, and laments the lack of political integrity in foreign policy critique.
Main Episode Theme
- The episode explores why the American right—and the nation at large—should have heeded Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy.
- Tom Woods and Andrew Day discuss how the ideas championed by Buchanan and The American Conservative have proven prescient amid recent U.S. military actions, especially the ongoing war against Iran.
- The guests critique audience-driven punditry, the influence of the Israel lobby, and the dangers of planless militarism.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The American Conservative’s Antiwar Roots
[01:06–02:58]
- Founded in 2002, ahead of the Iraq War, as the neoconservative ascendancy pushed aggressive interventionism.
- Pat Buchanan played a leading role, seeking a conservative platform for non-interventionism—a tradition that predates the Cold War.
- Now, similar arguments resurface with the Iran war, but there are signs the right is less unified in militarism:
“It was less comfortable actually back then to be an anti-war conservative. … this time around, the Iran war is less popular even among traditional Republicans.” — Andrew Day [02:35]
2. Audience Capture & Punditry Integrity
[02:58–05:47]
-
Woods and Day criticize pundits and “influencers” who reverse their positions based on audience trends or career ambitions rather than principle.
-
Woods is critical of those who change stances for prestige or access:
“I don't want to accuse people of just chasing clicks or chasing influence, but ... it's impossible to respect that on any level.” — Tom Woods [03:37]
-
Day notes that many right-leaning commentators modulate criticism to maintain access to the Trump circle:
“They need to use their brain. They need to exercise their critical faculties, because we are in a mess, and it’s going to be ... difficult to extricate ourselves.” — Andrew Day [05:24]
-
Memorable moment: Woods discusses the triviality of fawning for White House invites:
“Would you really raise your children to aspire to such trivialities?” — Tom Woods [05:37]
3. Personal Context: Growing Up on Military Bases
[06:43–07:50]
- Day grew up on U.S. military bases, giving him firsthand insight into the cost of war, but he credits his antiwar consciousness more to observing Iraq War fallout and Pat Buchanan’s writing.
4. “Finishing the Job” vs. Rethinking Intervention
[07:50–14:33]
-
Woods and Day critique the “finish the job” mentality: even critics of intervention insist on worsening commitments once involved military.
-
The Trump administration’s messaging is muddled—goals of the Iran war shift, and the rationale is unclear.
“What is the job that we're supposed to be finishing? The administration has done a truly abomination job of telling us what the strategy is, what the strategic goals are.” — Andrew Day [09:50]
-
Noting poor planning: failure to anticipate Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, degrade U.S. radar/sensor systems, and strike bases.
-
Day posits that stopping bombing (“pulling back might be the right option here”) is an option rarely considered in D.C.
5. Trump’s “Madman” Tactics and Delusions of Control
[14:44–20:20]
-
Woods compares Nixon/Kissinger’s “madman” routine to Trump’s direct threats.
-
Day sees Trump as susceptible to audience flattery, with his decision-making shaped by whoever last speaks to him.
-
A notable exchange on pundit influence:
“So how do you like your brand new friends now? ... Maybe they're not thinking about my best interests.” — Tom Woods [19:43]
“It seems like the Mark Levins and the Ben Shapiro of the world are the ones who Trump is going to listen to.” — Andrew Day [20:20]
6. The Israel Lobby, U.S.–Israel Relations, and Policy Capture
[21:19–34:04]
-
Refutes claims that it’s “denying agency” to Trump to mention Israel’s influence over U.S. decisions.
-
Day provides a detailed account of Netanyahu and the Israeli government’s persistent advocacy for U.S. war with Iran:
“If you remove the Israeli component, I don't think we do have this war. But also Trump is there, because other presidents didn't do this.” — Andrew Day [23:48]
-
The Gulf states’ and Israel’s interests diverge from U.S. interests: while the U.S. wants nonproliferation and regional stability, Israel seeks “regional hegemony” and potentially state collapse in Iran, which isn’t in America’s interests.
“We don't have as many electric vehicles. ... this is going to affect America's economy more than China's economy.” — Andrew Day [41:35]
-
Woods calls out “who’s we?” confusion—U.S. policymakers conflate Israeli and American interests (e.g., Mike Huckabee’s comment about the Lebanon border).
7. The Nuclear Taboo and Escalation Risks
[37:42–40:37]
-
Day expresses deep concerns about the U.S. or Israel using nuclear weapons in Iran, noting Trump’s lack of respect for the “nuclear taboo” and past comments questioning why nukes can’t be used.
“We’re kind of reliant on the nuclear taboo ... I think he [Trump] might be willing to use them.” — Andrew Day [38:11]
“I think there’s a fair chance ... that Trump feels stuck ... that the United States drop a nuclear weapon as a kind of demonstration...” — Andrew Day [39:30]
8. The Oil Crisis and Economic Repercussions
[41:35–43:40]
- Sanctions and regional instability have spiked oil prices (“price went up to 116 early this morning”).
- U.S. is more exposed than China to oil price shocks due to its more oil-dependent economy.
9. Signs of Hope?
[43:40–44:58]
-
Woods sees a small silver lining: significant right-wing voices are now openly antiwar—not just “skeptical”—in contrast to the Iraq era.
“There are skeptical voices on the right. … You have to be an outright opponent.” — Tom Woods [44:10]
-
Day is not geopolitically optimistic but believes critics of the war will ultimately be vindicated as facts emerge:
“Six months from now ... people like you and me and Joe Kent … and Tucker Carlson and others ... will be vindicated.” — Andrew Day [45:15]
Notable & Memorable Quotes (with Timestamps)
- “It was less comfortable actually back then to be an anti war conservative. … This time around, the Iran war is less popular even among traditional Republicans.” — Andrew Day [02:35]
- “It's impossible to respect that on any level.” — Tom Woods on careerist pundits [03:37]
- “Would you really raise your children to aspire to such trivialities?” — Tom Woods [05:37]
- “What is the job that we're supposed to be finishing? The administration has done a truly abomination job of telling us what the strategy is.” — Andrew Day [09:50]
- “We are in a mess, and it’s going to be kind of difficult to extricate ourselves from this mess.” — Andrew Day [05:24]
- “So how do you like your brand new friends now? ... Maybe they're not thinking about my best interests.” — Tom Woods [19:43]
- “If you remove the Israeli component, I don't think we do have this war.” — Andrew Day [23:48]
- “We are not the same country as Israel. And these people seem to have difficulty ... remembering this, which is deeply disturbing.” — Andrew Day [30:21]
- “I'm quite sure ... people like you and me and Joe Kent ... and Tucker Carlson and other people who are opposing the Iran war will be vindicated.” — Andrew Day [45:15]
Important Timestamps
- 01:06–02:58: History of The American Conservative and Buchanan’s influence
- 03:37–05:47: Criticism of pundit careerism and audience capture
- 09:32–14:33: “Finish the job” mentality dissected; consequences of military adventurism
- 19:43–21:19: On presidential advisors and the echo chamber
- 23:48–24:40: U.S. vs. Israeli interests, Israel’s influence on U.S. war policy
- 37:42–40:37: Threats to the nuclear taboo, the specter of nuclear escalation
- 41:35–43:40: Oil shock, energy security, and U.S. economic vulnerability
- 44:10–45:15: The rise of antiwar voices on the right, future political ramifications
Conclusion
This episode delivers a withering critique of American foreign policy groupthink, highlighting the enduring wisdom of Pat Buchanan’s non-interventionism. Tom Woods and Andrew Day argue that the right’s embrace of militarism has yielded only strategic disasters and that the influence of careerist pundits and foreign lobbies has warped public debate. The episode closes with a glimmer of hope: growing public and right-wing skepticism may, at last, force a reckoning with these failed policies.