The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett, and Ariane Tabatabai to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“Keeping It On the Strait and Narrow.” Three weeks into the U.S. and Israel’s air campaign against Iran, ship traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual stop, sending crude oil prices north of $100 a barrel. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that vessels are safe to sail through the strait, but continued attacks on tankers suggest otherwise. Some neighboring Gulf states, among others, are growing antsy that U.S. strikes won’t go far enough in preventing attacks by Iran. What do we make of these developments, and how will it impact how other countries are navigating the broader conflict?“‘Nein’ to Five.” U.S. efforts to secure European support for efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have fallen on deaf ears, with German officials describing it as “not our war” and far outside the obligations imposed by NATO’s Article 5 and other defense commitments. In response, President Trump said that he was “disappointed” in NATO and once again hinted that he might exit it. It’s the latest nadir in a precipitous decline in transatlantic relations over the past three months. How much worse can things get? And what could it mean for the future of the broader alliance?“(Un)Lawful Good?” A U.S. strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran in the earliest days of the U.S. military campaign there has put a new focus on decisions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to scale back rules and processes meant to reduce harm to civilians in armed conflict. Hegseth has called the rules of engagement “stupid” and has said he wants to give military commanders “maximum authority on the battlefield.” He’s also repeatedly called for “no quarter” in Iran and other contexts—an order that, if taken literally, would itself be a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Exactly how far has Hegseth unraveled the Pentagon’s rules of engagement? And what could the real world consequences be in Iran and elsewhere?In object lessons, Natalie (or rather, her son) is cooking up a delicious recommendation for the culinarily curious kid in your life with Raddish Kids (hey there, Raddish Kids, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). Ari is feasting on (and hoarding) the indigenous Taiwanese pepper, Maqaw. Scott is traveling in style and efficiency with his portable office kit, consisting of his fave iPad case and the Anker Power Bank (while we hate to sound like a broken record, uh, hey there, Anker, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). And hey there, girlies, Ben is doing Ben things while getting ready for court. 

In today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Michael Feinberg sits down with his former FBI colleague retired Assistant Special Agent in Charge Derek Pieper to discuss the differences between counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, the skill sets needed for each, and the dangers of politicizing the cases.

On today’s episode, Lawfare’s Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina talks to an expert on Russian foreign policy in the Middle East, Director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Middlebury College Hanna Notte, about the relationship between Iran and Russia, and how far their cooperation can go in the context of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Eric Columbus, Roger Parloff, and Kate Klonick to Judge Boasberg’s opinion quashing subpoenas to Fed Reserve chair Jerome Powell, Anthropic’s suit challenged the Defense Department’s designation of it as a supply chain risk, Judge Lambert finding that Kari Lake was unlawfully running the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

From August 30, 2024: Elliot Jones, a Senior Researcher at the Ada Lovelace Institute, joins Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to discuss a report he co-authored on the current state of efforts to test AI systems. The pair break down why evaluations, audits, and related assessments have become a key part of AI regulation. They also analyze why it may take some time for those assessments to be as robust as hoped. 

From September 26, 2024: Steve Coll’s latest book, “The Achilles Trap: Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A., and the Origins of America’s Invasion of Iraq,” seeks to explain why Saddam Hussein would put his regime at risk over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that didn’t exist. Saddam ultimately lost his regime, and his life, in part because he saw America as an omniscient puppeteer seeking to dominate the Middle East. The United States put thousands of troops in harm’s way in pursuit of a rogue WMD program that turned out to be a fiction. Were these outcomes inevitable?Lawfare Student Contributor Preston Marquis sat down with Coll, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, to explore this question. “The Achilles Trap” is unique in that it relies on Saddam’s secret tapes and archives to unpack twists and turns in the U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship dating back to the Cold War. The full review is available on the Lawfare website.

For today’s episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and head of its Syria Initiative, to talk about the dramatic developments that have taken place in Syria the past few weeks, which have ultimately led to the impending withdrawal of U.S. troops after more than a decade in country.Together, they discuss the challenges Syria has faced since the fall of the Assad regime, how the new transitional government in Damascus has managed its relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces, what the exit of U.S. troops means for efforts to combat the Islamic State terrorist group, and the role the United States has played in it all—and is likely to play moving forward.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“MisAnthropic.” On Monday, Anthropic filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of California and a petition for hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the Department of Defense’s designation of the frontier artificial intelligence company as a “supply chain risk.” The litigation capped off weeks of building tensions between Anthropic and Pentagon officials over the firm’s two ethical red lines for the Defense Department and its use of its AI model, Claude, specifically around widespread surveillance of Americans and the use of AI and autonomous weapons. What exactly are the Pentagon’s grounds for designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and how does Anthropic argue that doing so is inconsistent with the law? And what might the implications be for the AI industry as a whole?“The Mashhadian Candidate.” Fears that Iran would respond to the ongoing Israeli-U.S. military campaign through overseas terrorism have come to a head this week, as reports emerged that U.S. intelligence had detected an encrypted message being transmitted from Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for assets sitting outside of the country. What do we know about Iran’s involvement in past clandestine operations, including terrorism? And what does it mean that this is all happening at a moment when the Justice Department and FBI have lost so many of their experienced national security personnel?“Maricopa-calypse Now.” Federal investigators have ramped up several inquiries that appear to be aimed at longstanding—and, thus far, unsubstantiated—allegations of fraud in the 2020 election that are particularly popular with President Trump and his closest supporters. Last month, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Fulton County’s election office and confiscated ballots and voting equipment used in 2020. Last week, the FBI reportedly subpoenaed records from a conservative Arizona legislator over the state senate’s audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County. And days later, the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations office (or HSI) requested records from Arizona state officials regarding their own investigations into alleged 2020 malfeasance. What should we make of these developments? And at what point should we be concerned about the federal government's engagement in these sorts of matters in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterms?This week’s object lessons are all-consuming. Kate is celebrating online legal analysis by drinking from her Balkinization mug. Troy is lamenting yet another slate of firings at the FBI by drinking from his EX FED mug. Scott, finding himself with unexpected free time at Union Station, devoured Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” And Molly introduces us to the texturally triggering cherimoya.