President Trump has publicly speculated that resuming military operations against Iran could trigger an economic catastrophe, warning of soaring gas prices and even a global depression. It is rumored that senior officials within the administration are driving this narrative in an effort to steer Trump away from finishing the conflict, as fears of Iranian long term impact on global oil markets appear to be exaggerated. Economist Glenn Hubbard argues that while energy markets and inflation deserve consideration, the role of economists is to analyze tradeoffs and identify ways to mitigate the economic costs of national security decisions; to inform policy, not determine it. On balance, he contends that the long-term costs of failed deterrence outweigh the short-term economic risks. So, as the administration weighs whether to return to combat or settle for an unacceptable status quo, is the greater economic and national security risk resuming the fight or leaving Iran's threats unresolved? And what price does America pay for failing to finish the job?

Glenn Hubbard is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on a wide range of economic issues including health care; poverty; public, corporate, and international finance; and financial markets and institutions. A former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers at the White House, Dr. Hubbard concurrently serves as dean emeritus and Russell L. Carson Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia Business School. He has also served as a deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury Department and as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, among other positions.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Donald Trump's on again off again deal making with the Iranians has hit another flashpoint this week as exchanges of fire on commercial shipping and US military bases in the region stymied negotiations before their 60 day deadline. Although large-scale combat has subsided, the conflict between the United States and Iran is far from over. Nick Carl argues that Tehran has emerged from the war with a new strategic objective: establishing de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz and using it as a tool of coercion against the international community after its traditional sources of deterrence fell short. He also examines the regime's evolving leadership following Ali Khamenei's death, the continued discontent between Iran's rulers and its people, and why Tehran believes it can outlast the United States politically despite suffering major military setbacks. While conventional wisdom suggests Iranian weakness (as discussed in our many conversations with General Jack Keane), Tehran is nonetheless negotiating from a position of confidence.Is the United States remains committed to denying Iran control of the Strait? Can diplomacy succeed without rewarding Iranian aggression? And ultimately, who has the greater will to persist? Will President Trump accept a bad agreement or abandon his deal making desires in pursuit of a more decisive outcome?

Nicholas Carl is the Assistant Director for the Critical Threats Project and a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Carl is the author of reports, analyses, and maps covering Iran’s regional strategy and nuclear program, military structure, and politics. His commentary and maps have been featured in a variety of media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, fundamental questions about the Constitution and the balance of power are once again at the center of American politics. John Yoo joins to examine the Supreme Court's landmark term, arguing that its recent decisions have restored presidential authority over the administrative state, clarified the constitutional limits of independent agencies, and reaffirmed birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment while leaving broader immigration policy in Congress's hands, as the Constitution intended. From executive power and the civil service to court packing, the filibuster, and the separation of powers, John explains whether the Court is actually reshaping American government and executive power or restoring an originalist vision of the Constitution. As calls to restructure the Court grow louder, are America's constitutional guardrails strong enough to withstand the political battles ahead? And once again, we ask if Congress will do its job in weighing its own responsibilities in the system of checks and balances?

John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the 9/11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. Professor Yoo has published almost 100 scholarly articles on subjects including national security, constitutional law, international law, and the Supreme Court. He also regularly contributes to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and National Review, among others. Professor Yoo’s latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.