The Lawfare Podcast · The Lawfare Institute

Rational Security: The “Take a Light Out of Crime” Edition

March 19, 2026·1 hr 30 min·5 clips

Ari Tabatabai exposes how the U.S. ignored decades of warnings about Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

The Lawfare podcast's Rational Security panel convenes with Scott Anderson, Benjamin Wittes, Ari Tabatabai, and Natalie Orpett to discuss three interconnected consequences of the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, now in its third week. The first topic centers on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has established an effective screening mechanism that blocks most international shipping while selectively allowing vessels from India, Pakistan, and China to pass. Reports indicate Iran has deployed mines alongside drones and small boat harassment, and CNN reported that Iran has used only 80 to 90 percent of its strait-blocking capabilities so far. The Congressional Research Service estimates Iran possesses approximately 6,000 mines of various types. Crude oil has risen above $100 per barrel, fertilizer prices are climbing, and European officials worry about downstream effects on agriculture and potential migration flows from affected regions. Ari Tabatabai expresses surprise that the administration was unprepared for the strait closure, noting that this scenario has featured in US war games and tabletop exercises for decades and that a similar tit-for-tat escalation occurred in the strait during the first Trump administration in 2019-2020. He highlights that the US Navy has been deprioritizing maritime mine countermeasures since the Cold War and recently decommissioned half of its Avenger-class minesweepers, with remaining assets deployed in the Indo-Pacific rather than the Middle East. The second topic addresses European refusal to support US efforts to reopen the strait. German officials have described it as not their war, and President Trump has responded by hinting at a NATO exit. The panel identifies multiple factors behind European reluctance: domestic public opinion opposes the intervention, the US is broadly unpopular in Europe after the Greenland crisis, the administration failed to consult allies before launching operations, and European leaders see no guarantee that cooperation would prevent future American coercion on tariffs, territorial threats, or other unilateral actions. Benjamin Wittes argues there is simply no value for Europeans in stepping up for the United States at this moment. Scott Anderson pushes back, predicting some European involvement within two to three weeks, particularly if Iranian actions directly threaten European interests such as attacks on Jewish community centers on European soil. He notes the UK has already shifted its position to allow British air bases to be used for defensive strikes after Iran targeted UK facilities in Cyprus. Anderson frames the broader situation as a zero-sum loss for all parties except Iran, arguing that Trump's bullying diplomacy has created the extraordinary circumstance where allies cannot take actions that serve their own economic interests because alignment with the US has become politically toxic. The third topic covers Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rollback of Pentagon rules meant to reduce civilian harm. A US strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran has spotlighted these policy changes. Hegseth has called rules of engagement stupid, pushed to give military commanders maximum battlefield authority, and repeatedly called for no quarter, a phrase that if taken literally would itself violate the laws of armed conflict. The panel discusses how the late filing of an Article 51 self-defense letter to the UN, likely prompted by State Department officials trying to help with European diplomacy, illustrates the administration's dismissive approach to international legal frameworks. Benjamin Wittes analyzes the domestic pressure points Trump faces, including unfamiliar military failure after a string of quick-strike successes in Venezuela and elsewhere, rising gas prices creating a direct negative feedback loop with voters, and looming midterm elections. He argues Trump expected a lightning operation and is discovering that a country of 93 million people with serious military capabilities does not resolve the way smaller interventions did. The panel concludes that the conflict has exposed fundamental weaknesses in US alliance management, military readiness for mine warfare, and the consequences of abandoning international legal norms that traditionally helped bring allies on board for collective security operations.

As heard by us

A layered look at how war talk collides with markets, incentives, and electoral timing.

The conversation keeps its focus on the gap between fast military talk and slow political reality, using the Straits of Hormuz and Iran to show how markets, gas prices, public patience, and midterm politics can limit a president who leans toward forceful action.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want a creepy episode built around anonymous audio recordings and a strange beeping mystery.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Lawfare Podcast