Power Problems

Dartmouth College's Daryl Press and George Washington University's Nicholas Anderson discuss their modeling of an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula, assess the balance of power between the North and South, and explore the implications for the US military alliance with South Korea.Show NotesNicolas Anderson, Daryl Press, “Lost Seoul: Assessing Pyongyang’s Other Deterrent,” Texas National Security Review Vol 8 Issue 3, Summer 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Samuel Seitz, a fellow at MIT’s Security Studies Program, explores so-called “madman behavior” in international politics and whether it’s effective in gaining leverage in international confrontations. He explains why problems of signaling, credibility, and reassurance tend to make madman tactics ineffective and he discusses examples from the Cold War to Trump’s first and second administrations. Show NotesSamuel Seitz, Caitlin Talmadge, “The Predictable Hazards of Unpredictability: Why Madman Behavior Doesn’t Work,” The Washington Quarterly 43:3, 2020.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, talks about the Trump administration’s diplomacy with Iran. He discusses the failures of the first Trump administration’s and the Biden administration’s approaches to Iran, why Trump’s second time around could lead to a new nuclear deal, Iran’s changing regional geopolitical position, and why a more peaceful US-Iran relationship serves US interests in the Middle East.Show NotesTrita Parsi, “Why Trump’s Iran Diplomacy May Work,” Time, April 11, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Stimson Center’s Christopher Preble and Geoff Wilson argue that nuclear weapons modernization programs are wasteful boondoggles that undermine deterrence and stability while serving as a give-away to parochial interests. They discuss a “deterrence first” posture on nuclear weapons, perverse incentives in the bureaucracy, profligate waste and inefficiency, the risks of nuclear escalation, the consequences of eroding nuclear deterrence, and threat inflation on China, among other issues. Show NotesGeoff Wilson, Christopher Preble, Lucas Ruiz, “Gambling on Armageddon: How US Nuclear Policies are Undercutting Deterrence and Lowering the Threshold for Nuclear War,” Stimson Center Report, February 19, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Barry Posen, professor of political science at MIT, argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 qualifies as a preventive war and was motivated in part to thwart U.S.-led efforts to expand NATO in Europe. He responds to detractors from this view and also discusses the partial political responsibility of U.S. leaders, the difference between explaining the war and justifying it, the lack of strategic empathy in U.S. foreign policy, how best to negotiate the end of the war, and whether the U.S. is making a similar mistake in incentivizing preventive war logic in Beijing with respect to Taiwan.Show NotesBarry R. Posen, “Putin's Preventive War: The 2022 Invasion of Ukraine,” International Security 2025; 49 (3): 7–49. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Miranda Priebe, senior political scientist at RAND, discusses US strategy towards Europe and Asia and how to manage relations with Russia and China. She talks about changes to US posture towards Europe and Russia following the Ukraine war, NATO strategy, how to manage the Russia-China relationship, and potential changes to US posture in Asia, particularly towards Taiwan. She also touches upon the ‘isolationist’ label, the complicated politics of restraint, and how to put diplomacy at the forefront of US foreign policy, among other topics. Show NotesMiranda Priebe, Jasen Castillo, “Here’s why Trump’s foreign policy is hard to pin down,” MSNBC.com, December 28, 2024.Miranda Priebe, John Schuessler, Bryan Rooney, Jasen Castillo; “Competing Visions of Restraint.” International Security 2024; 49 (2): 135–169.Miranda Priebe and Sam Charap, :”Will Putin Stop at Ukraine? That’s the Wrong Question.” The Washington Quarterly, 47(3), 143–159.Miranda Priebe, et al. “Like-Minded Allies? Indo-Pacific Partners' Views on Possible Changes in the U.S. Relationship with Taiwan.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2023.Miranda Priebe and Sam Charan, “Planning for the Aftermath: Assessing Options for U.S. Strategy Toward Russia After the Ukraine War.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sam Bresnick, Research Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, discusses artificial intelligence in the context of the US-China relationship. He explains how AI will be used by states in coming years and compares different obstacles and advantages that both the US and China have in their competition to develop AI and its various applications. Among other topics, he also discusses diplomatic pathways for the US and China to avoid dangerous AI scenarios. Show NotesSam Bresnick, “The Obstacles to China’s AI Power,” Foreign Affairs, December 31, 2024Sam Bresnick, et al., “Which Ties Will Bind?” CSET Issue Brief, February 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anatol Lieven, Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, discusses how the international politics of the Ukraine war have changed since Trump’s election win, how to move towards negotiations to end the war, and the various issues - from territory to NATO membership - to be resolved in any peace deal. Show NotesAnatol Lieven, “Three Conditions for a US-Backed Peace Agreement in Ukraine,” UnHerd, November 30, 2024.Anatol Lieven, George Beebe, “The Diplomatic Path to a Secure Ukraine,” Quincy Paper #13, February 16, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University, discusses the foreign policy implications of Trump’s victory, the extent to which it represents a rejection of “Liberal Hegemony,” and why Trump failed in his first term to set U.S. foreign policy on a new course. He also discusses the bureaucratic challenges of reforming foreign policy, what to expect from Trump in the second term, and the potentially beneficial constraints of “American decline,” among other topics. Show NotesStephen M. Walt, “The 10 Foreign Policy Implications of the 2024 Election,” Foreign Policy, November 8, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, discusses America’s new regime of high protective tariffs under the Trump and Biden administrations and assesses what may be to come on trade policy under a future Trump or Harris administration. He discusses the overly expansive authorities presidents have to impose tariffs, the weakness of commonly employed national security justifications for them, and the economics of why tariffs fail, among other topics.Show NotesClark Packard and Scott Lincicome, "Presidential Tariff Powers and the Need for Reform," Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 179, October 9, 2024Scott Lincicome, "Six-Plus Years of Incoherent, Ineffective China Policy," The Dispatch, October 2, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dov Levin, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Hong Kong, examines the effects of whataboutism - essentially, charges of U.S. hypocrisy - on Americans’ foreign policy views. He explains his survey experiments to test the effectiveness of whatbaoutism on US public opinion and how it might shape policy. He also discusses his work on U.S. foreign election interference, the academic literature on hypocrisy costs, U.S. foreign policy activism, and avenues for future research on whataboutism.Show NotesWilfred Chow and Dov Levin, “The Diplomacy of Whataboutism and US Foreign Policy Attitudes,” International Organization Volume 78, Issue 1, Winter 2024, pp. 103-133. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities discuss the latest iteration of the Axis of Evil threat, this time in reference to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and argue their relationship is misconstrued and overhyped. They discuss threat inflation, the relationship dynamics among these four powers, including China and Russia’s relationship and how US posture has pushed them together, the state of the Russia-Ukraine war, China’s role in the Middle East, the problem of prioritizing threats and interests under primacy, and how to constructively think about core US national interests, among other issues.Show NotesDaniel DePetris and Jennifer Kavanagh, “The ‘Axis of Evil’ is Overhyped,” Foreign Policy, August 14, 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.