Overview of The Bulwark Podcast Episode: Jonathan V. Last and Robert Kagan on Iran, Trump, and the Rise of Fascist Rhetoric
Jonathan V. Last and Robert Kagan spend most of this episode on two major themes: the escalating U.S.-Iran confrontation and what they see as the Trump administration’s increasingly authoritarian, anti-democratic language and behavior. The conversation argues that Trump’s Iran policy has already produced a major strategic loss for the United States, while the administration’s “left-wing terrorism” conference revealed rhetoric that Kagan says closely resembles historical fascist and totalitarian propaganda.
Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and a Strategic U.S. Defeat
Iran’s missile response and what it signals
- Iran’s missile strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East are framed as measured but deliberate retaliation.
- Kagan argues Iran’s moves are not irrational or chaotic; instead, they follow a consistent strategic logic.
- The message, in his view:
- Iran is willing to hit U.S. forces despite Trump’s threats.
- Iran wants to show it is not being pressured into a deal on Trump’s terms.
- Iran is signaling that it can escalate further if challenged.
The real objective: control of the Strait of Hormuz
- Kagan says Iran’s long-term goal is control of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global shipping chokepoint.
- He argues Iran sees this as the best deterrent against future attacks by the U.S. or Israel.
- Once in control, Iran can:
- Shape oil flow and pricing
- Pressure adversaries
- Reward friendly states and disadvantage unfriendly ones
- He describes this as a fundamental strategic defeat for the U.S. that will reshape global power dynamics.
Trump’s role
- Trump is portrayed as wanting the issue to “go away,” regardless of the long-term consequences.
- Kagan argues Trump’s real priority is ego and image, not durable strategy.
- The administration’s repeated claims that a deal was imminent are described as misleading and unserious.
Global Consequences: Oil, China, and a More Dangerous World
A new balance of power
- Kagan warns that an Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz would force the world into a more transactional and militarized order.
- He predicts:
- Countries will have to cut side deals to secure oil access
- Naval power will matter even more
- Nuclear proliferation is likely to accelerate
China’s indirect leverage
- The discussion highlights how Iran’s control of the strait could increase China’s influence over regional energy flows.
- Even if China does not “control” the strait outright, it would gain leverage over countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
Saudi Arabia and the broader U.S. credibility problem
- The episode also touches on Trump’s Saudi deal, which is described as more fragile and ambiguous than advertised.
- Kagan says the world now sees the U.S. as an unreliable security partner.
- That perception is damaging not just in the Middle East but globally.
Israel, Netanyahu, and the Limits of U.S. Influence
Netanyahu’s position
- Netanyahu’s political future is discussed as uncertain but not easily predictable.
- Kagan suggests Netanyahu is worried most about having lost the United States as a dependable backer.
Israel’s strategic adaptation
- Kagan predicts Israel may diversify its alliances by working more closely with:
- China
- Russia
- other global actors
- This is presented as part of a broader shift in which countries no longer assume U.S. protection is reliable.
Trump and Israel
- Last raises the question of why Trump doesn’t simply blame Netanyahu or cut Israel loose.
- Kagan says Trump has already distanced himself enough from Israel rhetorically that he can keep both camps in play.
- The administration’s posture is described as opportunistic rather than principled.
Lindsey Graham’s “Funeral” and the Logic of Republican Complicity
The case for staying inside Trump’s orbit
- Kagan and JVL discuss whether Lindsey Graham’s transformation was cynical or strategic.
- Kagan gives Graham more credit than most Trump collaborators, suggesting Graham sometimes may have prevented worse outcomes.
But the cost was real
- Both hosts ultimately agree that Graham, like many Republican elites, likely did more harm than good by legitimizing Trump.
- The broader critique:
- Many Republicans believed being “inside” Trump’s world gave them influence.
- In practice, they often just gave Trump and the movement legitimacy.
The larger pattern
- Kagan broadens the point to include figures like:
- HR McMaster
- Condoleezza Rice
- other Republican national security figures
- The episode argues that this is now a normalized pattern of elite enabling.
The Trump Administration’s Conference on “Political Terrorism”
Rubio and Miller’s rhetoric
- The episode’s centerpiece is the Trump administration’s conference on the “resurgence of political terrorism.”
- JVL and Kagan focus on remarks by:
- Marco Rubio
- Stephen Miller
- Kagan says the language used was not just extreme, but fascistic and totalitarian.
Why the rhetoric is dangerous
- The administration is portrayed as:
- Targeting left-wing political opposition
- Defining opponents as ugly, abnormal, deformed, or subhuman
- Preparing the ideological ground for repression
- Kagan compares this language to:
- Soviet rhetoric about dissidents
- Nazi propaganda about enemies of the state
Concrete examples of repression
Kagan points to examples he believes show the rhetoric is already being translated into action:
- Aggressive treatment of a man at Atlanta airport over alleged left-wing ties
- Harsh sentences in Texas cases tied to left-wing activism
- A broader pattern of using “terrorism” labels against political dissent
The real target: the opposition itself
- The conversation argues that this is not really about antifa or fringe activism.
- Instead, it is about criminalizing opposition politics and potentially using that framework against election-related protests or Democratic resistance.
Trump, Political Violence, and the Republican Coalition
Was political violence part of Trump’s appeal?
- JVL argues that Trump’s repeated public encouragement of violence was not incidental—it was part of his appeal.
- He suggests that for some voters, Trump’s sanctioning of violence was the feature, not the bug.
Kagan’s broader interpretation
- Kagan agrees Trump’s coalition is not primarily about economics.
- He emphasizes:
- White supremacy
- Male supremacy
- resentment toward enemies of the right
- His view is that Trump voters want him to hurt the people they hate.
Why this matters
- The hosts argue that once political violence is normalized, it becomes hard to contain.
- Kagan warns that it can spread rapidly and create a self-reinforcing cycle of retaliation and escalation.
Big-Picture Takeaway: An Assault on the Declaration of Independence
The deeper ideological critique
- Kagan closes with a major historical argument:
- The Trump movement is not only an attack on the Constitution.
- It is an attack on the Declaration of Independence and the principle of universal equality.
- He identifies the movement’s intellectual underpinnings in:
- Patrick Deneen
- Adrian Vermeule
- Russell Vought
- Stephen Miller
Final framing
- In Kagan’s view, the Trump movement represents a return to anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal ideas long embedded in parts of conservative thought.
- The episode ends with the warning that these ideas are now being operationalized through state power, foreign policy failure, and authoritarian rhetoric.
Key Takeaways
- Trump’s Iran policy is described as a major strategic loss that could permanently alter global energy and security structures.
- Iran’s actions are portrayed as strategic and consistent, not random or confused.
- The administration’s rhetoric on “left-wing terrorism” is presented as dangerously fascist in tone and intent.
- Republican elites who joined Trump are criticized for helping legitimize authoritarianism.
- The deeper ideological battle is over equality, democracy, and who counts as fully human in public life.