A blunt panel read on the Strait, Iran, and the media politics around Trump and Piker.
It takes a hard look at whether the Strait is open, what the ceasefire is doing to Iran, and how the war is being framed through talks and political signaling.

National Review
149 episodes listed below
National Review's panel argues out the Iran war, Trump's cabinet shakeups, and 2028 politics.
The Editors gathers National Review voices for brisk, serious argument about American politics, law, war, and conservative strategy. Recent episodes move from Iran and the Strait of Hormuz to birthright citizenship, social-media liability, Hungary, airports, and the limits of Trump-era coalition politics.
PRESS PLAY
The Editors is a panel-format political podcast produced by National Review, built around long-form debate (roughly 65 to 95 minutes) rather than one-on-one interviews or scripted narrative. Rich Lowry hosts most episodes, with Noah Rothman filling in regularly; the rotating panel also includes Phil Klein, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Charles C.W. Cooke, and Audrey Fahlberg, all National Review writers or editors rather than outside guests. The show does not typically bring on external interviewees — the format is staff-only cross-talk, with panelists staking out and defending distinct positions on the same story. Recurring subject matter includes the Iran war and its aftermath, Trump administration personnel and management decisions, immigration enforcement operations, congressional and cabinet controversies, media criticism of legacy outlets, AI's labor-market effects, and 2028 primary positioning for figures like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio. Episodes often open with sponsor reads (e.g., watch and cookware brands) before moving into two or three discrete topic segments. The tone is argumentative and opinionated, with panelists sometimes using blunt language about political opponents. Analysis leans on named sourcing — citing outlets like the Wall Street Journal, CNN, or the New York Times — which panelists then dispute or endorse. The show closes many episodes with 'exit questions' that force panelists to make short, direct predictions. Listeners who want a conservative, insider-flavored read on breaking Washington and foreign-policy news, delivered as debate rather than consensus, are the core audience.
Made for: Conservative-leaning listeners who follow U.S. foreign policy and Republican politics closely and want detailed, argumentative analysis rather than a single editorial line.
What sets it apart: Unlike single-host commentary shows in the same space, The Editors puts multiple National Review staffers in open, sometimes sharp disagreement with each other in nearly every episode rather than presenting a unified position.
Unravel the threads of American politics with incisive commentary and in-depth analysis on the state of the political scene. Join National Review editors and writers Rich Lowry, Charles C. W. Cooke, Jim Geraghty, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Phil Klein, Noah Rothman, and Audrey Fahlberg, plus guests for political commentary you can't get anywhere else. Longing for a refreshing dose of sanity? All you need to do is tune in.
Based on 6 episodes we listened to · September 2026
The Editors turns conservative disagreement over war, law, institutions, and Trump into sustained, specific political argument.
Rich Lowry leads a rotating group of National Review colleagues through political arguments that rarely settle for a single verdict. The Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz recur across several episodes, with the panel testing military objectives, diplomatic off-ramps, Donald…
Iran-war postmortems become a group argument before you've finished choosing a side.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A blunt panel read on the Strait, Iran, and the media politics around Trump and Piker.
It takes a hard look at whether the Strait is open, what the ceasefire is doing to Iran, and how the war is being framed through talks and political signaling.
A brisk discussion that ties Iran talks to the politics of Viktor Orban.
The Editors episode follows two linked fights: the Iran ceasefire aftermath and the political uses of Viktor Orban. It moves from the missing deal out of Islamabad to the dispute over how long enrichment would be suspended, then to a sharper question about whether backing Orban…
A ceasefire debate that turns into a sharper argument about Trump's coalition than about the war itself.
The episode treats the Iran war less like a clean win than a fight over Trump, MAGA, and who gets to claim the better read on events. Rich Lowry and the panel move quickly from the ceasefire to the political fallout: whether Trump's threat was really an off-ramp, how J.D.
A sharp, ideologically clear argument about leverage, law, and the politics behind both.
The Editors spends its time on two familiar but consequential conservative questions: whether pressure in the Strait of Hormuz can turn into real leverage, and what the Supreme Court's Colorado conversion-therapy ruling means in practice.
A sharp panel debate that treats Iran, Trumpism, and social media liability as serious political questions.
The Editors spends much of its time on a moving target: whether the U.S. and Iran are actually close to a deal, what that would mean, and how much of the public stance around it is leverage versus theater.
A dry, grim panel discussion that connects the Iran war, DHS shutdown pressure, airport delays, and Trump's shifting deadline.
The Editors spend much of the hour on the Iran war and the Cuba question, then widen the frame to the DHS shutdown, airport delays, Congress, and Trump's shifting deadline.
A war-and-markets conversation that keeps pulling the stakes back to politics.
The episode frames energy markets and the Iran war as the main thread, with the Strait of Hormuz presented as still effectively closed and some shipping managing to move through.
A brisk panel debate over Iran, war powers, and the meaning of an imminent threat.
The Editors frames the Iran conflict as a fight over war, restraint, and how far the United States should go. It opens with more targeted killings, the Strait of Hormuz still effectively closed, and Marines moving toward the region, then turns to the political argument over who…

Sharp political debate with policy detail and real disagreement.

Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson debate Canadian politics, from Alberta separatism to Ottawa's bureaucracy.

Robert Evans, Katie Stoll, and Cody Johnston build fake conspiracies and mock right-wing media.

Steve Hayes and Dispatch panelists argue through the week's Iran, DOJ, and Supreme Court news.

Jonah Goldberg's solo political rants and author interviews on conservatism, courts, and current events.

John Donvan moderates two-sided debates on AI, bioethics, feminism, and film's future.
The Editors opens with a simple question: is the strait open?
The Editors episode 865 features Rich Lowry, Charles C.W.
Rich Lowry opens by asking who won the Iran war and what the clash with Trump’s MAGA influencers means now.
This episode of The Editors podcast features host Rich Lowry and panelists discussing various topics, including a demo day and Americans' wealth, with sponsorship mentions.
The hosts analyze President Trump's speech on Iran and discuss related political topics including the Supreme Court's consideration of birthright citizenship.
The Editors opens on the Strait of Hormuz and the question of whether Trump will give up on it.
The panel opens on whether a deal with Iran is close, while also joking about the claim that ground troops are heading toward Iran even as Trump keeps everyone guessing.
The panel opens on where the Iran war stands and why Code Pink was in Cuba.
Energy markets set the tone.
The panel opens on Iran and the latest targeted killings.
Rich Lowry opens by asking whether the Iran war is going off track and whether Republicans should eliminate the filibuster for the SAVE Act.
Rich Lowry hosts Charlie C.W.
The Editors opens on Iran after a week.
The episode opens on the strike against Iran.
The National Review Editors review Trump's nearly two-hour State of the Union address and debate the likelihood of a US military strike on Iran, with all three panelists predicting action within 10 days.
This episode of The Editors discusses recent political developments including tariffs, a Supreme Court ruling, and potential Iran deal negotiations.
The National Review Editors preview the upcoming State of the Union address, with host Noah Rothman flagging Wall Street Journal reporting that the US has the most naval assets in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion, leaving open the possibility that Trump could be delivering a wartime address.
Marco Rubio's Munich Security Conference speech drives the opening stretch.
The Editors panel — Noah Rothman, Phil Klein, and Michael Brendan Doherty — debates AI's economic impact after Matt Schumer's viral essay 'Something Big Is Happening' predicted millions of white-collar workers unemployable within five years.
It opens with the Super Bowl.
Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post anchor the opening dispute, with the panel asking whether the paper is being broken, reworked, or judged too fast, alongside a nod to major medical groups backing off on trans.
The Editors panel — Rich Lowry, Charles C.W.
Rich Lowry opens by naming three subjects for The Editors: "a climb down in Minneapolis," Trump threatening Iran, and Trump's comments on housing.
National Review editors discuss a recent tragedy in Minneapolis with political analysis and sponsor messages.
National Review editors discuss Trump's decision on Greenland and the declining murder rate in the US, with sponsor messages.
National Review editors discuss Trump's push for Greenland and other political news.
National Review editors discuss Trump's insurrection act and Iran crackdown, with sponsor messages.
National Review editors discuss Erica Kirk forgiving her husband's killer and Trump's instructions to Pam Bondi.
National Review editors discuss Jimmy Kimmel's suspension and Kamala Harris's criticism of Joe Biden, along with political and media analysis.
The editors discuss the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the suspect's background.
National Review editors discuss the assassination attempt on Charlie Kirk and its significance in conservative activism.