Global Tantrum! with Steve Palley and Prof. Galen Jackson

On April 7, Scott Bessent and Jerome Powell pulled the CEOs of the biggest U.S. banks into Treasury for an urgent, closed-door briefing — not about rates, not about liquidity, but about an AI model. Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview is apparently an order of magnitude better than anything currently public at finding software vulnerabilities. Rather than release it, Anthropic built a consortium called Project Glasswing and gave the major platform companies early access to patch before the capability proliferates. The warning shot landed loud: Mozilla used Mythos to find and fix 271 previously unknown vulnerabilities in Firefox 150. On the prior version, Anthropic’s best publicly available model had surfaced 22.That’s a one-version jump from a couple dozen to several hundred. When a process improves by an order of magnitude overnight, you pay attention. The reason policymakers are rattled isn’t that Mythos will suddenly own your bank account tomorrow — Anthropic is keeping the model caged, and non-state actors can’t train their own. The fear is the gap period: a stretch of months where a Mythos-class capability exists, hasn’t been fully used for defense yet, and could be replicated by a nation-state adversary with the means and the motive. China can probably build one. Iran and Russia probably can’t — yet. Whichever side gets through the world’s legacy open-source libraries first owns the window.The underappreciated story is that this round of the offense-defense arms race may actually tip toward the defense. Mythos didn’t find bugs an elite human researcher couldn’t have caught; it just did it at machine speed and machine scale. Applied to new code, that points at a future where shipped software arrives without the kind of rotten foundations that made Equifax, NotPetya, and every critical-infrastructure nightmare possible. The catch is that the patching has to get done before the capability gets out. Glasswing is supposed to run through the summer. That’s the runway. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

The ceasefire’s held for over a week. The rockets, drones, and fighter-bombers are all taking a breather. The Strait of Hormuz might be opening (except to Iranian traffic, perhaps). The Gulf Arab states are expressing (very) cautious optimism. Israel might be holding its fire in Lebanon during its own separate, but linked, conflict with Hizbullah. And the Trump Administration may be on its way to back to Islamabad to try to secure a deal before the ceasefire formally lapses next week.This is all good news… but does it really mean the war’s over? And even if it is, will it result in a lasting peace? Many issues remain unresolved, including the status of Iran’s nuclear program; its missile arsenal and regional proxy forces; and, of course, who will control the Strait of Hormuz on an ongoing basis. Plenty of claims on these points are coming out of the Trump Administration; Iran, for the time being, is mostly silent.Increased American pressure, applied to Iranian intransigence, could result in outcomes ranging from a grand bargain to a redoubling of hostilities. The global economy, the U.S. midterm elections, and the longterm future of the fossil fuel system all hang in the balance.This week, we’ve invited friend of the show Prof. Andrew Leber back on, and complemented him with our grad school buddy Prof. Paasha Mahdavi of UCSB—an expert on the politics of energy—to help us make sense of this increasingly confounding situation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

On April 7th, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, brokered by Pakistan, with negotiations now opening in Islamabad. Hegseth called it a “historic and overwhelming victory” and claimed every US objective was met. Iran called it a historic win of its own. Only one of those can be true.Our read: Iran has the whip hand. Not because it beat the US in any conventional sense, but because it didn’t lose. It absorbed the punishment, closed the Strait of Hormuz on demand, and walked into ceasefire talks with its nuclear ambitions more justified and its coercive leverage validated. The US achieved bombing campaigns. It did not achieve regime change, did not fully protect its allies, did not denuclearize Iran, and did not destroy Tehran’s ability to hold the Strait hostage.The Gulf monarchies, meanwhile, are stuck without great options, as guest host Prof. Andrew Leber drops in to tell us. They pushed hard in various directions — Saudi welcoming the off-ramp, UAE wanting more pressure — and are now watching an Iran that has proven asymmetric coercion works against a superpower. China, meanwhile, walked away with an 80–20 outcome: still the dominant buyer of Iranian oil, now visibly a broker of Middle East ceasefires, with Wang Yi on the phones and rare-earth leverage in reserve.We discuss why this ceasefire is more likely to hold than you might think, why Iran now might be on its way to becoming a nuclear power, what “weaponized interdependence” looks like when it’s aimed back at Washington, and why the administration’s victory lap is a story the battlefield doesn’t support. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

The theory of the Iran War from the U.S. perspective, to the extent that one existed, hinged on getting in and out quickly: decapitate the leadership, do maximum military damage, hope that the Iranian people rise up and take over, and then go home in triumph either way. Two to three weeks, tops.So much for that happy idea. We are five weeks in to this military “excursion,” to use President Trump’s terminology. America just blew up the biggest bridge in Iran, F-15s are getting shot out of the sky, and explosives are raining down across the entire region. The president is tying himself in rhetorical knots, bouncing between claiming victory and threatening unlimited escalation, trying to jawbone the increasingly restive energy and stock markets all the while. Iranian hardliners are firmly in control of both their country and the all-important Strait of Hormuz. Contrary to Trump’s argument, we see little reason to think that they’ll allow tanker traffic to return to normal should the U.S. stop fighting.The economic pain has already arrived for the Gulf’s major energy customers in Asia. Europe and North America are next. And if there’s one thing we know about American politics, it’s that high energy prices and inflation can destroy any political career — even Teflon Don’s. And if Trump ends up going down, we see a possibility that he’ll take Netanyahu and potentially even the U.S. - Israel alliance down with him. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

The US-Iran war has entered its fourth week, and both sides are now talking — sort of. Iran is demanding transit tolls through the Strait of Hormuz and feels it is owed reparations. Washington responded with a fifteen-point plan that reads less like a negotiation and more like terms of surrender. The yawning gap between those two positions is where this war lives now.Oil is hovering around $105 a barrel. Parts of Asia are rationing fuel. The ground invasion debate is heating up in Washington, and the historical echoes — Gulf War, Eagle Claw — aren’t reassuring.We get into what both sides actually want, why the economic pain cuts in directions nobody expected, and whether there’s a best-case scenario that doesn’t leave everyone worse off. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Three weeks into the Iran war and there are no good options left on the table. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, oil is spiking, the Gulf monarchies are being blasted, Lebanon’s on fire. A disaster of truly global proportions looms.The strategic picture has shifted. Trump asked NATO and even China for help reopening the strait and got a flat no. A new Foreign Affairs analysis makes the case that air power alone won’t cut it — clearing the waterway would require boots on the ground along Iran’s coastline, and no one is signing up for that mission. Yet.Inside Iran, the picture is murkier than ever. Israeli strikes have taken out key figures, including Ali Larijani, one of the few pragmatists with a track record of negotiating with the West. The smart bombs are still falling, the regime is under pressure, and the people who might have been partners for an eventual off-ramp are disappearing from the board.Welcoming once again Prof. Andrew Leber (who has a new article out for the Carnegie Endowment) to the show, we break down the three big questions driving the conflict — who controls Iran, what happens in the Strait, and whether the US can protect its allies — and why the JCPOA crowd is feeling pretty vindicated right about now. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

The U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Ayatollah Khamenei on February 28th were supposed to be the decisive blow. Instead, two weeks later, Iran has a new Supreme Leader, Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, installed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and roughly 10-15% percent of global oil is off the market. The IEA just authorized the largest emergency stockpile release in history. The old boss is gone, but the regime is still standing.This was supposed to be the Trump doctrine at work: overwhelming force, maximum leverage, quick resolution. But Iran did its homework. The regime prepared for exactly this scenario with decentralized command, asymmetric responses, and the one card that changes everything: choking off the world’s most critical energy chokepoint.Israel is escalating on its own, hitting oil facilities around Tehran and turning the sky black. The White House isn’t thrilled. Meanwhile, the race is on. The simultaneous dumping of 400 million barrels of strategic reserves sounds like a lot until you realize global consumption will burn through that in a matter of weeks. Futures markets are betting the Strait reopens soon. If they’re wrong, we’re in for a very different kind of crisis.We discuss whether Iran’s new leadership can hold together, why air power alone has never broken a determined regime, what Israel’s unilateral strikes mean for the coalition, and whether the economic clock runs out before the military one does. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Please see our full post for the video version. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

On February 22nd, Mexican security forces killed Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known as El Mencho, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Within hours, CJNG retaliated with over 250 roadblocks across 20 Mexican states and set fires in Puerto Vallarta. The message was clear: the cartel’s reach extends far beyond any single leader.But this isn’t just a story about one dead kingpin. Mexican cartels collectively control an estimated 35% of the country’s territory. They function as states within a state, providing goods and services in areas where the central government can’t or won’t. CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel dominate, but the problem is structural, not personal.The U.S. has been fighting the war on drugs since 1971, and the fentanyl crisis has only raised the stakes. There’s growing talk in Washington about military action on Mexican soil, but Mexico remembers that much of the American Southwest used to be theirs. Sending in troops would jeopardize decades of intelligence and law enforcement cooperation for what looks like a problem without a military solution.We discuss the history from El Chapo to El Mencho, why cartels look eerily similar to failed-state militias in the Middle East, and whether there’s any realistic path forward that doesn’t make things worse. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

This week we’re talking about one of the big ideas that shaped the world after 1945: liberal internationalism. Free trade, international institutions, and democracy promotion were the three pillars meant to keep the peace and spread prosperity. For decades, they might have (depending on who you ask, of course). But something has clearly shifted, and we wanted to dig into what exactly that something is.We frame the conversation around two competing views. John Ikenberry argues that the liberal order was a genuine institutional achievement: a system of rules and norms that even the hegemon agreed to be bound by. Marc Trachtenberg sees it differently: what looked like international cooperation was really just American power dressed up in multilateral clothing. That tension ran through the last 80 years or so of the international system, and it’s running through our discussion, too.The reason this matters now is pretty obvious. The institutions that were built to sustain the liberal order — the UN, NATO, the WTO — are under more strain than at any point since the Cold War. The question isn’t really whether the order is, at an absolute minimum, in deep trouble. It’s whether it was ever what its defenders claimed it was in the first place, and whether anything coherent is replacing it.We get into all of it! Realism versus liberalism, the Iraq War as a turning point, what the rise of China actually means for these debates, and why the post-Cold War moment of American unipolarity might have been the exception rather than the rule. Give it a listen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

The Trump administration has begun loosening semiconductor export controls on China, allowing Nvidia to sell advanced AI chips like the H20 to Chinese buyers in exchange for a cut of the revenue. It’s a sharp reversal from the Biden-era strategy of choking off China’s access to cutting-edge technology entirely, and it raises a question that has no clean answer: is it better to sell your adversary the weapons of the future, or to force them to build their own?The semiconductor supply chain is the most strategically consequential chokepoint in the global economy. Virtually all of the world’s most advanced chips are fabricated by a single company, TSMC, on an island that China claims as its own. The United States doesn’t make the chips, but it controls the tools and software needed to design and manufacture them. That leverage is real, but it’s not unlimited, and how aggressively to use it is the central debate.The hawkish case for tight export controls is straightforward: deny China the technology it needs to build next-generation AI and weapons systems. But China isn’t standing still. Chinese firms are innovating around the restrictions. And the tighter the controls, the more reason Beijing has to pour resources into building a fully independent supply chain, which is exactly what Washington says it wants to prevent.We discuss the Cold War precedent of CoCom, why the lessons of export controls are less encouraging than you’d think, how Taiwan became the most important island in the world, and whether the real chip war is one the United States is fighting with itself. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

On this week’s episode, we ask an urgent question: what happens to European security when American nuclear deterrence becomes optional? The New START treaty is lapsing, Russia is deploying exotic new capabilities like the Poseidon drone, and Trump is pitching a Golden Dome missile defense system that may or may not work. The old Cold War certainties are cracking.The episode hinges on a credibility problem that nobody really wants to talk about. France and Britain have nuclear weapons. But would they actually use them to defend Poland? But if geography matters—if standing next to your enemy with your own bomb is more convincing than relying on Washington’s promise to incinerate Moscow—then maybe European deterrence isn’t as crazy as it sounds. That’s the tension we’re exploring: does proximity create credibility, or is it just a dangerous illusion? And even more, do the British and French consider themselves “European” enough to launch on behalf of their neighbors, with whom they share major historical enmities? The history matters here. NATO tried something called the Multilateral Force back in the 1960s, a half-baked scheme to give Europeans a say in nuclear weapons without actually giving them the bomb. It failed. Now we’re asking whether Germany could “borrow” nuclear weapons without blowing up the NPT, whether Britain’s arsenal is big enough to scare Russia, and whether France would really risk Paris for Tallinn.We discuss the military realities, the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements that quietly persist today, and why the credibility of European deterrence might actually hinge on whether Trump really believes in the American nuclear umbrella anymore. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode, we dive into President Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland from Denmark. What started as a seemingly absurd proposal in 2019 has now become a serious geopolitical flashpoint, with Trump threatening tariffs on European allies and making aggressive statements at the World Economic Forum in Davos.Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with its capital in Nuuk, has been a source of fascination for American presidents for decades. Trump first floated the idea back in 2019, calling it “essentially a large real estate deal.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded by calling the proposal “absurd,” prompting Trump to cancel his planned state visit to Denmark.Fast forward to January 2026, and Trump is back at it. At Davos, he walked a fine line—threatening that the U.S. would be “unstoppable” if it used force, while ultimately stating he wouldn’t use military action. He did, however, threaten tariffs on Denmark and other European nations if they didn’t cooperate. After meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced a vague “framework” for a future deal, though details remain scarce.The whole saga raises fundamental questions about international norms, the rights of the Greenlandic people, and America’s role in the world. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted at Davos, “We now live in a world defined by raw power.” Whether that’s the new normal or a passing phase remains to be seen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

On January 3rd, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a meticulously planned operation. The lights went out across Venezuela—a demonstration of American cyber capabilities—while Russian air defenses proved useless. The old boss is gone.But this wasn’t regime change. Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s deputy, now runs the government—under Washington’s direction. Trump has made it explicit: cooperate or face worse. Another term for it could be “tyrant change.”Why did we do this? It’s not about democracy or drugs. It’s about oil, leverage over China, cutting off Cuba’s energy lifeline, and neutralizing Maduro’s territorial threats toward oil-rich Guyana.So far it’s working. But two weeks of success proves nothing about the long term. We discuss the strategic logic, the historical parallels to Panama and Iraq, and why the last chapter of this story is far from written. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In a recent statement, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi argued that a Chinese attack or blockade of Taiwan would constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan. That phrasing matters. Under Japan’s postwar legal framework, it is the specific language that allows Tokyo to participate in collective military defense alongside the United States.This is not abstract signaling. It is a quiet but meaningful shift in Japanese security policy.China reacted forcefully. Trade restrictions. Cultural retaliation. Increased gray-zone pressure around disputed islands. Diplomatic outreach to Europe and Washington. The response was coordinated and familiar—what’s often described as “wolf warrior” diplomacy. Beijing took the comment seriously because it changes the strategic equation.Why?First, Japan is not a minor player. Even after decades of self-imposed restraint, it remains a $4–5 trillion economy with world-class industrial and technological capacity. As defense spending rises toward 2% of GDP, Japan is acquiring advanced U.S. strike systems, fortifying its southwestern islands, and preparing explicitly for scenarios involving Taiwan. Small percentage changes translate into very real military power.Second, history looms large. Japan’s imperial expansion and wartime atrocities in China remain deeply unresolved issues. Chinese leaders interpret Japanese nationalism not as domestic politics but as a warning sign. Takaichi’s ideological lineage and rhetoric land squarely in that historical context.From Japan’s perspective, the logic is straightforward. Japan imports most of its energy, much of it transiting waters near Taiwan. Chinese control of Taiwan would put Japan’s economic lifelines—and parts of its territory—at risk. Whatever ambiguity exists in U.S. policy, Tokyo’s interests are not ambiguous at all.Public opinion inside Japan is more divided. Support for involvement in a Taiwan conflict depends heavily on U.S. participation. Without Washington, Japan is unlikely to act alone. With Washington, support exists—but narrowly. That makes American credibility the central variable.Which brings us to the uncomfortable bottom line: the Taiwan Strait is probably the most dangerous place in the world right now.China may prefer a blockade over an invasion, forcing the allies to decide whether and how to respond. Japan’s statement raises the stakes of that choice. The status quo is already eroding, and every actor involved understands that the next move—especially from Beijing—could reshape the regional order for decades. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

More on the 2025 National Security StrategyGreat-power realism, MAGA internationalism, and the contradictions at the heart of Trump’s worldviewSTEVE PALLEYNOV 2025Last episode, we walked through the opening logic of Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy: its populist tone, its rejection of post–Cold War overextension, and its attempt to reframe U.S. grand strategy around sovereignty, restraint, and balance-of-power politics. This week, having actually read the full document, we go deeper—and the picture gets stranger.At its best, the strategy gestures toward something serious. It rejects global primacy, emphasizes great-power competition over moral crusades, and repeatedly insists that American power should be concentrated, not diffused. Those are not fringe ideas. They echo long-standing realist critiques of U.S. foreign policy since the 1990s, and in places—especially on China—the document sounds more pragmatic than Trump’s first-term strategy.But layered on top of that realism is something else entirely: an illiberal ideological project that sits uneasily with the document’s stated goals. Again and again, the strategy claims to oppose interference in other nations’ domestic affairs—while simultaneously endorsing the active reshaping of allied democracies along MAGA lines. The contradiction is not subtle.Nowhere is this clearer than in the Europe section. On the surface, the strategy calls for familiar things: more European defense spending, an end to the war in Ukraine, and a stable long-term relationship with Russia. Reasonable people can debate all of that. But then the text veers sharply into civilizational language—warning that Europe is losing its identity, condemning migration, and pledging to “cultivate resistance” to Europe’s current political trajectory from within. That is not realism. It is ideological intervention, and it amounts to an explicit endorsement of nationalist, illiberal movements across the continent.Asia, by contrast, is treated with surprising restraint. China is framed less as an existential enemy than as a durable competitor with whom the United States must find a workable equilibrium. The document emphasizes deterrence over confrontation, economic competition over military escalation, and alliance burden-sharing over unilateral dominance. There are few details and many unanswered questions—but the tone reflects a grudging recognition that China is here to stay, and that coexistence, however tense, may be unavoidable.The Western Hemisphere reveals the same tension in a different form. The so-called “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine blends traditional hemispheric priorities—migration control, drug trafficking, regional stability—with blunt economic coercion and performative dominance. In practice, tariffs and pressure campaigns against countries like Brazil and Canada risk alienating precisely the partners the strategy claims to “enlist and expand.” What reads as strategic focus often looks, in execution, like punitive instinct.Elsewhere, the gaps are telling. Africa is reduced to a footnote: no aid, minimal engagement, vague concern about terrorism. The Middle East is treated as a problem the United States would prefer to stop thinking about—an attitude every recent administration has shared, with mixed results. Energy policy dismisses climate change outright while doubling down on fossil fuels, even as technological competition in renewables accelerates abroad.Taken together, the 2025 National Security Strategy is not incoherent—but it is internally conflicted. It combines classical balance-of-power thinking with a populist, nationalist ideology that actively undermines its own realist premises. Realism traditionally seeks to drain ideology from foreign policy. This document replaces one ideology with another.The result is a strategy that wants restraint without reciprocity, sovereignty without pluralism, and stability without tolerance. Whether that combination can produce durable order—or simply new forms of backlash—remains the open question at the heart of Trump’s vision for America’s role in the world. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Every few years, a U.S. administration publishes its National Security Strategy—a grand, self-congratulatory mission statement that tells the world what Washington thinks it stands for. Most are boring, bureaucratic, and easy to ignore. The 2025 version under Trump is not one of those.This document reads less like a policy white paper and more like a manifesto. It’s part ideological declaration, part foreign policy blueprint, and part campaign ad. From the opening pages—where Trump boasts of “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear facilities and “settling eight raging conflicts”—the tone is unmistakable: America is back, the elites are out, and the era of global restraint is over.What’s striking isn’t the chest-thumping. It’s the reordering of priorities. The document opens with an “America First” premise so absolute that even earlier nationalist playbooks look tame. The top strategic priority is not China, Russia, or the Middle East—it’s the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s team even coins a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: the U.S. will use force to prevent mass migration, keep out “hostile foreign ownership,” and assert total dominance across the Americas. It’s a throwback to the early 20th century—part Roosevelt, part Reagan, all Trump.The rest of the strategy cascades from that worldview. The Indo-Pacific comes second, framed not as a defense of democracy but as a fight to “halt and reverse the damage foreign actors inflict on the American economy.” Europe appears third, with a pointed promise to “restore Europe’s civilizational self-confidence”—a polite way of saying Washington intends to bankroll nationalist governments over Brussels technocrats. The Middle East gets one line about avoiding “forever wars,” and then comes the fifth “region”: technology. AI, quantum, biotech—treated here as battlefields on par with geography itself.At home, the strategy’s language tilts even harder toward cultural revolution. Trump calls for a “restoration of America’s spiritual and cultural health” and “strong traditional families that raise healthy children.” It’s the first time an NSS has explicitly fused domestic identity politics with national defense—turning family policy, immigration, and even birth rates into instruments of security.Read together, the 2025 NSS is less about managing threats than about remaking the idea of what America is for. It marks the formal arrival of a populist, nationalist grand strategy—one that sees foreign policy, economics, and culture as part of a single struggle against decline. Whether it endures beyond this administration will depend on whether Americans come to see it as strategy—or simply as ideology dressed in statecraft. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

For the first time in nearly four years of war, the U.S. has taken direct aim at the beating heart of Russia’s economy: its oil exports.The Trump administration’s new sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two biggest energy companies, block both American and foreign firms from doing business with them. In practical terms, that means any bank or corporation that wants access to U.S. markets now has to choose—us or them.It’s a major escalation. With these measures, over 75% of Russia’s oil exports are now under Western sanctions. The move comes after months of stalled diplomacy, as Trump reportedly grew frustrated with Putin’s refusal to strike a peace deal in Ukraine. After trying the carrot, he’s finally reached for the stick.The timing matters. Russia’s finances are starting to buckle. Its once-strong energy revenues are down sharply, its budget deficit is ballooning, and its vaunted “rainy day” sovereign wealth fund has dwindled from hundreds of billions to around $50 billion. The war has turned into a treadmill of attrition—territorially, militarily, and financially—and Moscow is running out of runway.Unlike the Iraq or Iran sanctions of past decades, these aren’t meant to destroy an economy overnight. They’re designed to bleed it slowly. Russia can still sell oil—to China, India, and a few others—but only at steep discounts and in currencies it doesn’t want, like yuan and rupees. The dollar system, centered on SWIFT and U.S. clearinghouses, still rules global trade. For now.That’s the hidden risk. Every time Washington uses the dollar as a weapon, it gives the rest of the world another reason to find a way around it. De-dollarization is still a distant prospect, but a real one. The dollar’s share of global reserves has slipped below 60% for the first time in decades. Too much pressure, and countries will start building parallel systems—China already is.So the new sanctions are both a warning shot and a test. For Putin, it’s a countdown: he has maybe a year before his war chest runs dry. For the United States, it’s a question of restraint: how much can you weaponize a financial empire before you start eroding the very power that makes it work? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

A few days ago, half the internet went dark.A single botched DNS update inside Amazon Web Services—one bad line of code—took down everything from Slack and Starbucks to Roblox, Zoom, and Venmo. For most of a day, billions of dollars of global commerce and communication froze because a single server cluster in Northern Virginia couldn’t talk to the rest of the world.This wasn’t a cyber attack. It was a self-inflicted wound. But as we discuss in this episode, it showed how fragile the internet really is. The global network that was designed to survive nuclear war now depends on a handful of private data centers and three American companies. The architecture of resilience has quietly turned into one of concentration.From there, we zoom out. If AWS going down for twelve hours can paralyze the world economy, what could a deliberate cyber strike do? We talk through Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, North Korea’s Lazarus Group, China’s massive data theft operations, and the long shadow of the U.S.-Israeli Stuxnet worm that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.So far, the effects of cyber war have looked less like World War III and more like chaos at scale—costly, disorienting, but survivable. Even Russia’s most destructive attack, NotPetya, caused billions in damage but didn’t change the political balance in Ukraine. As Galen puts it, cyber remains an intelligence game: useful for spying and disruption, but not yet for victory.Still, the tools keep getting sharper. AI systems can now find vulnerabilities faster than humans can patch them. Quantum computing, if it delivers on its promise, could one day shatter encryption altogether. When that happens, the line between security failure and strategic collapse could get very thin.For now, the internet is still running. But the outage was a warning. Complexity breeds fragility. And in a world where code runs everything, a single update can turn Monday into the day the lights go out. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

After two years of catastrophic war in Gaza, the guns are finally—maybe—falling silent.This week, Trump announced what he’s calling a historic ceasefire between Israel and Hamas: a 20-point plan featuring hostage exchanges, Israeli withdrawals from parts of Gaza, and an “international peace board” led by Trump himself and Tony Blair. Yes, that Tony Blair.If it holds, it will be the first sustained pause in fighting since 2023. But as we break down in this episode, almost every piece of the deal looks fragile. Israel’s cabinet barely approved it. Hamas has no intention of disarming. And the details of who actually governs Gaza—Arab peacekeepers, Israeli forces, or the Trump-Blair board—are a blur.Beneath the headlines lies a deeper question: what comes next?* If Hamas keeps its weapons, Israel won’t withdraw.* If Israel stays, the fighting resumes.* If Gaza falls under an “international mandate,” whose interests will it serve?Even if the ceasefire holds, both hosts argue the long-term political picture is grim. Israel’s leadership and population seem uninterested in a viable peace process. The Palestinian factions are divided and decimated. And the United States—the only power capable of imposing a real settlement (maybe)—appears unwilling to try.As Galen puts it, “This isn’t a peace deal. It’s a timeout.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

What if the 20th century’s three great struggles—World War I, World War II, and the Cold War—were all really about the same thing?That’s the argument in Hal Brands’ new book The Eurasian Century, which we dig into this week. Brands traces the warnings of early geopoliticians like Halford Mackinder and Alfred Thayer Mahan: never let a single power dominate Eurasia. History, he argues, proved them right. Germany tried twice. The Soviet Union tried once. Each time, the United States eventually intervened—and each time, the global balance of power was at stake.Today, in this book, Brands warns of a “second Eurasian century”, with China rising, Russia aligned, and the U.S. at risk of pulling back just as the stakes are highest. He frames the coming decades as Cold War II, and argues that containment, primacy, and forward defense are the only viable American responses.We push back on some of this. Was German hegemony ever really possible in World War I? Could the Soviets have rolled Western Europe? And is it really impossible for the U.S. to strike political accommodations with autocracies? History suggests otherwise.Still, the book is a sharp reminder that geography, power, and politics don’t go away. Whether Washington chooses confrontation, accommodation, or hemispheric defense, the consequences will shape the 21st century—just as they did the last one. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Remember when Barack Obama stood in Prague in 2009 and called for a world without nuclear weapons? That feels like another planet.Today, the United States faces an aggressive nuclear peer in Russia, with another antagonist racing towards full peer status in China—while North Korea and others expand their arsenals on the margins. The assumptions that guided policy for decades—stable deterrence, manageable arms control, a world where nukes fade into the background—no longer hold.We sat down with Brendan Green, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati and author of The Revolution That Failed: Nuclear Competition, Arms Control, and the Cold War, to unpack what this means.Some highlights:* China’s buildup: Beijing is no longer content with a “minimum deterrent.” It’s building a triad to match the U.S. and Russia.* Russia’s unraveling: Relations are at rock bottom, arms control is dead, and Moscow is leaning on nuclear threats to manage its conventional weakness.* MAD under pressure: Mutually assured destruction once promised stability. But advances in counterforce, missile defense, and command-and-control raise doubts about whether MAD still holds.* Allies on edge: If Washington can’t credibly guarantee protection, partners like South Korea, Japan, and Germany may rethink their own nuclear options.The upshot: nuclear weapons are back at the center of world politics. The U.S. may not need to double its arsenal, but “relatively modest adjustments” in posture—new theater options, modernized warheads, and credible damage-limiting capabilities—could decide whether deterrence holds in the coming decade.As Green puts it, arms racing isn’t just about warheads. It’s about politics, reassurance, and the credibility of America’s commitments. And in this “new nuclear age,” credibility is what counts. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Nineteen Russian drones crossed into Polish territory this week, triggering a scramble of jets, the shutdown of airspace over the country’s east, and one drone crashing through the roof of a civilian home. No casualties, no explosions—but Warsaw was rattled enough to invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, calling for urgent alliance consultations. That’s only the eighth such invocation in NATO’s 75-year history.Moscow insists the drones were misdirected by Ukrainian jamming. Poland and its neighbors aren’t buying it. They see a deliberate probe: gray zone tactics, the kind designed to test NATO’s “every inch” security guarantee without tripping Article 5.Why now? Several possible signals overlap:* To NATO: your defenses are thin, and your promises aren’t ironclad.* To Belarus: don’t get ideas about cutting a deal with the West.* To Trump: Russia retains escalation cards outside Ukraine, and can play them at will.The immediate NATO response looks modest—some European jets and ships, not much more. Without U.S. weight, the symbolism is greater than the military effect. But that symbolism cuts both ways. If Russia can steadily erode NATO’s credibility with low-cost drones, credibility itself is what’s in play.It won’t spark World War III. But history suggests that the real danger is not in the provocation, but in the miscalculation that might follow. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

We’ve seen enough to believe that the Xi Jinping - Vladimir Putin bromance has staying power. Heads of state (even neighboring ones like Russia and China) simply don’t officially visit with one another with the frequency these two have since Xi rose to power in 2012. Further, strongmen tend to eschew friends, much preferring toadies, supplicants and sycophants. The relationship must be real. The dictators — recently seen side by side at China’s 80th Victory Day parade celebrating Allied victory in WW2 — have bonded over a shared affinity for absolute personal power, as well as a burning hatred of how the United States has managed the world since the end of the Cold War. To that end, they declared a “No Limits” partnership in early 2022, just a few weeks before Russia turned global security (and Chinese foreign policy) inside-out by invading Ukraine. It’s not clear that Putin warned Xi beforehand, but that’s all water under the bridge: China is underwriting Russia’s war and keeping its economy afloat, hoping to keep the West pinned down there to gain a freer hand in Asia.The relationship, which appears to be going swimmingly, is more troubled than it seems, however. These two countries have been at odds far longer than they’ve cooperated. Without a mutual enemy in the form of the U.S., those old cracks could resurface in a hurry… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Why, exactly, has the Trump Administration dispatched 2200 Marines, several guided missile destroyers, and at least one nuclear attack sub(!) towards the northern coast of Venezuela?Ostensibly to interdict drug traffickers based in Venezuela on their way to the United States… except that explanation makes no sense. The Coast Guard can do that. So what’s really going on?We don’t know for sure, but we can make some educated guesses, based on the history of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of Latin America, the (odious) nature of the Maduro regime, Venezuela’s autocratic allies, the various foreign and domestic priorities of the second Trump Administration… among other factors. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Long one of the largest, most populated and most powerful states in the Middle East, Iran is a natural potential hegemon for the region, and indeed has enjoyed that title for centuries on end over its 2500-year-plus history.Its most recent attempts have come under the revolutionary banner of the Islamic Republic, established in 1979. The theocratic regime has grown brittle over time, but retains every bit of the anti-American and anti-Western virulence upon which it was founded.Prior to that, though, Iran was first a constitutional and then an absolute monarchy under the Pahlavi Dynasty. For about 25 years, with the Cold War in full swing, the Shah adopted a very aggressive and highly authoritarian pro-U.S. approach.In some ways, then, the Shah and the Ayatollahs were two sides of the same coin, with their attitudes towards America being Iran’s fulcrum. How and why did the coin flip? And can it ever flip back again in the foreseeable future?Thumbnail photo by Akbar Nemati on Unsplash This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Unassuming, colorless, charisma-free, a cipher, a bureaucrat: early in his career, first at the KGB and then working for the city government of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin was deceptively easy to ignore… even as he was climbing the ladder of post-Soviet chaos at lightning speed.It was this ephemeral quality that led the oligarchs that really controlled Russia to make him the second President of the Russian Federation in 2000, under the assumption that he would be unable to act independently… until he turned on, dispossessed and disposed of them.And now, after a quarter-century in control of Russia, Putin has grown into one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and least constrained rulers on Earth. Putin is synonymous with Russia, and for the the costs he has incurred in Ukraine and elsewhere, there is no ignoring either the man or his country now. Setting aside the optics and wisdom of inviting Putin to Alaska unconditionally, as President Trump did yesterday, peace in Europe stands no chance without him. But what kind of peace is Putin after, exactly? Can we find any clues over the course of his long career? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Profs. Brett Goldstein and Brett Benson, political scientists who are also members of Vanderbilt’s Wicked Problems Lab (yes, this is a real thing!), recently wrote in the New York Times about a Chinese company called GoLaxy that could be the next Cambridge Analytica… only an order of magnitude more powerful.That’s because this CCP-linked consultancy is deploying sophisticated generative AI techniques (including humanlike chatbots and deepfakes) in influence campaigns against China’s enemies, including in Hong Kong in 2020, and again in Taiwan prior to the 2024 elections. And the researchers have discovered that GoLaxy is starting to compile data on notable American political figures and voters, too.Is the United States ready to deal with a new, potentially super-intelligent frontier in information warfare? Is it still capable of defending itself through regulation, legislation, and clandestine cyber operations? And can it hope to strike back against its enemies in kind, given that those autocracies already strictly control their own internets and social media? We discuss! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Ah, the humble quadcopter: breaker of parkland reveries, disturber of neighborhood peace, deliverer of Amazon sundries… and destroyer of Russian invaders in eastern Ukraine.In a development absolutely nobody saw coming, Ukraine is now producing 2.5 million cheap, disposable drones a year to sub in for its dwindling manpower and beat back the Russians — who, for their own part, are ramping up their own assembly lines to pummel Ukrainian cities with wave after wave of suicide drones. Both sides are rapidly innovating countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, too, ranging from fiberoptic tethers to laser turrets to fully autonomous hunter-killer machines. And the whole world is watching, because this technical and operational revolution has implications from Iran and Israel to the Taiwan Strait to the Baltic Sea. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

This week, Steve and Galen are joined by Andrew Leber, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, to discuss the shifting geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. The discussion kicks off with an analysis of the Israel-Iran conflict and how Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are navigating their foreign policy in light of recent developments. They take a deep dive into Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, assessing its impact on the nation's social reforms, economic strategies, and the role of oil in its future. The conversation also covers the future of US-Saudi relations, particularly in the context of regional stability and economic diversification.For more information on Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 policy, read Prof. Leber’s recent analysis for the Carnegie Endowment.And Prof. Leber’s even more recent piece on the Gulf States’ response to the Israel-Iran War, also for the Carnegie Endowment.Book Corner:* Nuclear War: A Scenario* Our Dollar, Your ProblemChapters:00:00 Special Guest Introduction03:19 Saudi Arabia and Iran: A Shifting Relationship11:05 Saudi-Israeli Normalization: Prospects and Challenges20:12 Public Opinion and the Arab Street34:28 Strategic Investments and Economic Diversification42:57 Comparing Saudi Arabia and UAE50:00 Repression and Media Freedom55:39 Saudi Foreign Policy and US Relations01:01:33 Book Corner: Discussing Recent Reads This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Over the last few days, the Trump Administration ordered a pause on some military aid to Ukraine, including vital air defense materials, while Putin’s Russia conducted its largest bombardment of that country yet. And the backdrop for all of this was a NATO summit where NATO’s non-European members finally pledged to up their military spending past a long-agreed (but classically ignored) minimum of 2% of GDP.Clearly, NATO’s European members are getting the message that the U.S. may not be around to protect them from Russia for much longer. But it’s one thing for Europe to finally get itself in gear, and quite another for it to defend itself against a large and highly aggressive autocracy. Can Europe’s “strategy cacophony” straighten out and coordinate without its traditional American conductor, or is the NATO alliance destined to fall apart amongst infighting, domestic political troubles and Russian intrigue? We have thoughts!00:00 Introduction02:30 NATO and Military Budgeting03:01 US Military Aid Pause and NATO Summit22:50 Guns vs. Butter: The Political Dilemma23:10 Right-Wing Parties and Russia24:54 Russia's Military and Economic State25:32 US and European Perspectives on Russia31:59 NATO's Strategic Adjustments37:40 Future of European Security This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

That was a perfect time to take two weeks off from podcasting! Not that we think there’s a cause-effect situation at play here, but it is remarkable how a big Israel-Iran-U.S. air war kicked off the day after we weren’t available to talk about it. Yes, the strikes were quick, and the whole thing died down in under two weeks… but in no way do we think this is over. For one thing, Iran still retains 900 pounds of almost bomb-grade uranium; for another, there’s a mysterious new nuclear facility that would be impervious further conventional bombing from either the U.S. or Israel. Note carefully the word “conventional” in that sentence.To summarize: we have a pissed-off Iran with less incentive than ever to make a new nuclear deal with the U.S., a militarily ascendent Israel that will be willing to do practically anything to secure or destroy that stockpile of missing uranium, and a distracted U.S. led by a President who’s hunting for his Nobel. What could possibly go wrong from here?Chapters and time stamps: 00:43 Escalation in the Middle East04:11 Details of the Airstrikes10:38 Speculations and Future Implications30:08 Iran's Domestic Opposition and Potential Uprising31:51 Historical Context and Challenges of Regime Change35:13 Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Regional Dynamics50:38 Book Corner: Economic Insights and Predictions This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum, we’re indulging our love of sports metaphors once again by conducting a Great Power Draft. We rank countries based on various metrics such as demographics, military capacity, technological prowess, and economic strength. We agree that the United States and China are 1-2 — no big surprise — but the consensus breaks down from there, because measuring power is very much in the eye of the beholder!00:00 Introduction and Current Events01:40 Great Power Draft: Concept and Approach05:40 Analyzing the Top Great Powers22:14 Debating the Next Tier of Great Powers44:17 Debating South Korea's Power and Future46:45 Germany's Strengths and Weaknesses53:08 Comparing France and the UK57:44 Final Rankings and Honorable Mentions This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum, Steve Palley and Professor Galen Jackson dive deep into the big-picture debate over unipolarity and US hegemony. Is the United States still the world's sole superpower, or are we entering a new era of bipolarity or multipolarity?Join us as we discuss:* What unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity mean in international relations* Whether the US still qualifies as the global hegemon* The impact of US debt, economic strength, and technological edge* How global challengers like China, Russia, and regional powers are shifting the balance* The domestic and international consequences of America's changing role* Lessons from history, policy missteps, and what the future might holdLet us know your thoughts in the comments: Is the US in decline, or does it still have what it takes to lead the world?Timestamps/Chapters below!00:00 - Introduction & Setting the Stage 01:12 - What is Unipolarity? Defining the Debate 03:26 - Why Does Unipolarity Matter? 05:38 - US Debt, Economic Power & Hegemony 10:17 - Is US Power Waning? Global Challengers 18:17 - Iran As Test Case20:27 - Does USA Still Have The Tech Edge?30:31 - What Will The American People Choose?38:32 - Nobody’s Scared Of US Any More40:07 - America’s Fiscal Problems50:00 - Credit And Credibility54:33 - Multipolar, Bipolar or Unipolar?59:12 - Book Corner & Final Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Last week, Ukraine and Russia entered direct talks for the first time since the early part of the war in 2022. A minor prisoner exchange has ensued, which is great — except that Russia hasn’t stopped punishment strikes against Ukraine’s cities. Meanwhile, the United States under Trump could wash its hands of the conflict at any time, leaving Ukraine in extremis with the unready Europeans holding the bag. What’s Putin after in this whole thing? Is he willing to keep sinking resources into a potential quagmire, or merely trying to get everyone to believe he is? And most importantly, is there a deal that all sides would accept… including the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their national life? We discuss!01:57 Prisoner Exchanges and Diplomacy04:27 US and European Involvement10:33 European Military Capacity16:40 Russia’s Progress & Resolve20:05 EU vs Russia23:05 Ukrainian Insurgency?26:15 What Does Putin Want?32:19 Comparing Russian and Ukrainian Resolve38:24 How Fast Will Europe Mobilize?45:00 Is There A Deal To Be Made? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

After recording our episode on the ongoing hostilities yesterday, we didn’t quite get around to editing and posting — but believe us when we say that nobody is happier than we are that this is the outcome! The talks took place directly between the two unhappy neighbors and were apparently brokered by the United States. It’s a good thing they stopped it here, because hostilities had reached a rolling boil, which we discuss at length in the episode. In this episode of Global Tantrum, Steve and Galen discuss the escalating conflict between India and Pakistan that began with a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The conflict has involved artillery exchanges, drone strikes, and economic measures like water weaponization, leading to rising tensions between the nuclear-armed states. They analyze the historical context, current military actions, and potential diplomatic solutions while expressing concern over the dangerous brinkmanship. Despite hopes for a de-escalation, the conflict continues to intensify, posing significant regional and international challenges. 00:00 Introduction and Host Greetings 05:40 International Involvement and Reactions 12:52 Water as a Weapon 16:15 Diplomatic Efforts and Challenges 21:29 Quid Pro Quo Plus: A Doctrine of Disproportionate Response 23:09 India's Frustration and Nationalist Sentiment 27:11 Nuclear Deterrence and Miscalculation Risks 28:52 Possible Resolutions and Diplomatic Efforts 33:52 Pakistan's Internal Challenges and Nuclear Security 36:33 Conclusion: Current State and Future Hopes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

This week, Steve and Galen discuss the escalating conflict between India and Pakistan. They discuss the recent terrorist attack in Kashmir, historical tensions, and the potential for dangerous nuclear escalation. The conversation touches on the political climates in both countries, the role of external powers like the United States and China, and the chilling concept of the stability-instability paradox. As tensions rise, the hosts provide insights and predictions on what might come next in this high-stakes situation. 00:00 Introduction and Catching Up02:33 Recent Terrorist Attack in Kashmir 04:42 Historical Context of India-Pakistan Relations 09:09 Nuclear Tensions and Military Strategies 14:52 Current Political Climate in India and Pakistan 31:56 India-Pakistan Conflict and De-escalation 34:36 China-Pakistan Relations and Belt and Road Initiative 39:49 Potential for US Mediation and Global Stakes 42:18 Internal Dynamics and Nationalist Rhetoric 49:39 Kashmir Autonomy and Separatist Sentiment 50:52 Predictions and Future Outlook This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum, Steve and Galen discuss the latest developments in Iran's nuclear situation, diving into an in-depth analysis of Iran's current nuclear and conventional capabilities and the geopolitical implications of U.S.-Iran negotiations. They discuss recent articles from the New York Times, Israel's stance on military action, and Iran's economic struggles under harsh sanctions. Learn about the potential outcomes of the negotiations and what it means for global security in this comprehensive episode.01:18 Iranian Denuclearization Developments06:43 Sanctions and Economic Impact on Iran14:10 Iran's Military Capabilities and Regional Influence23:43 Escalating Tensions: Israel and Iran's Military Strategies26:22 US Military Presence and Israeli Concerns28:59 Iran's Nuclear Program and International Reactions33:35 Potential Outcomes and Trump's Stance on War41:15 Book Corner: Insights on International Relations and Facebook45:23 Conclusion and Final Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum, Steve and Galen dive into the escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait. They discuss the recent military activities of the People's Liberation Army Navy around Taiwan, the historical context of the China-Taiwan conflict, and the strategic implications for the United States and its allies. They explore possible future scenarios, including Taiwan's nuclear options and potential US policy shifts, especially under the second Trump Administration. The episode also examines the broader geopolitical ramifications, including the responses from Japan and other regional players. 00:00 Introduction06:02 Historical Context of Taiwan-China Relations 11:37 China's Military Buildup and Taiwan's Defense 17:27 Potential US Policy Shifts and Global Implications 23:37 Taiwan's Strategic Importance and Future Scenarios 30:29 Japan's Strategic Dilemma 35:30 Historical Tensions in East Asia 40:40 Taiwan's Nuclear Program 44:40 US-China Relations and Taiwan 52:21 Japan's Potential Response This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In episode of Global Tantrum, Ryan Weldzius of Villanova University once again joins Steve and Galen to jump into the imposition of unprecedented tariffs by the Trump administration. The discussion covers the immediate global and domestic impacts, historical comparisons, and the potential for escalating trade wars and currency devaluations — the “Great Depression / WW2 Doom Loop,” if you will. They also explore the strategic logic, or lack thereof, behind these policy moves, and their broader implications for global economic order and US soft power. Tune in for an in-depth, critical analysis of what these tariffs mean for the future of international trade and economic stability. 00:00 Introduction 03:02 Trump's Trade Policies and Their Impact 10:29 Political Ramifications of Tariffs 17:03 Economic Uncertainty and Business Reactions 27:17 Global Trade Shifts and Strategic Implications 32:03 Trump's Escalating Tariffs on China 44:51 The Dollar's Position as Global Reserve Currency 52:48 Potential Cold War 2.0 and Soft Power Decline 55:11 Conclusion and Final Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum!, Steve and Galen welcome Assistant Professor Ryan Weldzius of Villanova to discuss the Trump Administration’s tariff plans. But before they do that, they have very little choice but to talk about Signalgate — a pure Global Tantrum! topic if ever there was one. After analyzing that dangerous piece of foolishness, they turn back to international political economy to explore how these tariffs are affecting international trade, inflation, the US dollar as a reserve currency, and the potential for reindustrialization in America. Throughout, they highlight the disconnect between the administration's policies and their stated goals, and consider potential paths forward amidst rising uncertainty. 00:00 Introduction and Hosts' Banter 02:39 Signal App Scandal 09:53 Impact of Tariffs on Consumers 19:53 Reciprocity and Reindustrialization 28:04 The Rise of Neoliberalism in the US 31:08 Trump and Sanders: Challenging Neoliberalism 40:19 Uncertainty in Trade Policy and Its Consequences 45:35 The Future of the US Dollar as a Reserve Currency 49:42 The Political and Economic Outlook This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

In this episode of Global Tantrum, Steve and Galen delve into an in-depth analysis of grand strategy: from George Washington's isolationism to America's role as a global power post-World War II and post-Cold War primacy. The hosts explore how these strategies have influenced recent presidents, especially contrasting Donald Trump’s distinct shift towards disengagement and spheres of influence. They consider the implications for global stability, allied relationships, and internal American politics, concluding with speculation on the future trajectory of U.S. grand strategy under Trump’s renewed leadership.00:00 Introduction and Catching Up04:47 Book Corner: Our Reading List10:36 Understanding Grand Strategy]18:51 Post-Cold War US Foreign Policy26:19 Obama's Foreign Policy and Drone Warfare=32:13 Current Debates on US Foreign Policy37:16 Restraint vs. Isolationism42:35 Trump's Second Term and Global Implications48:58 China, Russia, and Spheres of Influence59:06 Congressional Dynamics and Tariffs01:03:31 Conclusion and Final Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Steve and Galen dive into the wild world of extended nuclear deterrence on this episode of Global Tantrum! They tackle South Korea's recent statements about nuclear armament, the concept of extended deterrence, and the unpredictable twists and turns of US foreign policy. Will South Korea build the bomb? How would Japan and Taiwan react? And what about the infamous Age of Chaos? Tune in and find out—and sleep well, everyone!**************EXCERPT: Tripwires and Nuclear Strategy************************Galen: The famous quote, I think it was Henry Kissinger said, great powers do not commit suicide on behalf of their allies. Right. And that's essentially the problem that extended deterrence confronts. You just mentioned the idea of a tripwire. This is a good illustration of the sorts of things you can try to do with nuclear strategy to make this incredible threat seem credible.So the canonical example was during the Cold War, the United States wanted to defend West Berlin. West Berlin was located something like 100 miles inside East German territory. There was no way it could possibly be defended with conventional weapons. So the only way for the US to provide for the city's defense was through nuclear weapons. That was an especially incredible threat because West Berlin was of zero strategic value. It was purely a value in symbolic terms and what it represented for the credibility of US extended deterrence commitments elsewhere.As Steve said, the U.S. keeps 30,000 troops in South Korea today. During the Cold War, it kept 7,000 troops in West Berlin. And what they could do, they could die, to quote Thomas Schelling, the father of, or wrote kind of the Bible of nuclear strategy. Another example prior to World War I, my colleague James McAllister likes this example. The British asked the French, how many of our troops do you want stationed in France before in case of war? And the French famously said, we just want one and we'll make sure he dies right away so that you're automatically committed.Steve: And we publicize it. Yes. Exactly.Galen: But what you're trying to do is nuclear strategies have said is if you think of this as a game of chicken with two cars heading toward one another, what you want to do is make sure you don't have a steering wheel in the car so that you cannot be the one that swerves.Steve: Yeah, you have to make the other side believe that you will be fully committed if these people die. Another sort of trick that we've played during the Cold War, mostly during the Cold War in Europe, was we had shared command of nuclear weapons, supposedly shared command and way more about this than I do. We also stationed nukes on the territory of various allies, including South Korea, for a long time. You want to speak to that a little bit?Galen: Okay. I believe it was 1958 that the United States first put tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. In other words, nuclear weapons that are not meant to be city buster weapons. We're not talking about hydrogen bombs with megaton yields or even sizable strategic nukes with kiloton yields. We're talking about weapons that are supposed to be used for battlefield purposes.Steve: Artillery shells, for instance, nuclear artillery shells. And we produced a shit ton of these things during the Cold War.Galen: During the Cold War in Europe, the U.S. had as many as 7,000 of those stationed on the continent.Steve: And I think we had like suitcase bombs. We had all kinds of crazy shit.Galen: A nuclear bazooka, the Davy Crockett, which I believe was a sub-kiloton nuclear weapon. These things are controversial for a few reasons. One, they're considered more usable, which means...Steve: Yes, the threat to use them is more credible. On the other hand- Do you really want to use them and have it potentially escalate out of control?Galen: Correct. I would argue that's the even bigger point is there's debates about this because knock on wood, we've never had to run the experiment and I hope we never do, but can a nuclear war stay limited? Can you have decision makers in various capitals, coolly making calculations about whether to escalate or back down once tactical nuclear weapons start flying.*************************************************************************************************00:00 Introduction02:41 Extended Nuclear Deterrence06:53 Challenges of Extended Deterrence09:43 Nuclear Strategy and Credibility15:41 Proliferation and Security Guarantees21:00 South Korea's Nuclear Ambitions32:33 Trump's Argument and Regional Nuclear Proliferation35:15 Global Non-Proliferation Concerns38:49 Accidents and Misunderstandings with Nuclear Weapons43:23 North Korea's Nuclear Program Development56:01 South Korea's Nuclear Ambitions59:23 Japan and Taiwan's Potential Nuclear Response01:00:37 Conclusion: Regional Stability and Future Prospects This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

Germany in Crisis: Re-Arming for a New World Order? | Global Tantrum Welcome back to another thrilling episode of Global Tantrum! This week, Steve and Galen dive deep into the recent political shake-up in Germany post-federal election. They unravel the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AFD) and Germany's place in a potential new world order. They also speculate about Germany's re-armament, its complex historical legacy, and the potential implications for European and global security. All this and some unexpected snow complaints. Don't miss the wild ride! 00:00 Introduction04:46 Germany's Political Landscape: A Historical Perspective 11:12 Germany's Economic Challenges and Military Needs 24:06 The Rise of the AfD and Its Potential Impact 36:57 Challenges in European Defense Integration 44:14 The Role of the United States and Russia 47:33 Germany's Leadership and Nuclear Considerations 54:21 Historical Context and Modern Implications 01:03:35 The Future of European Unity This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com

This week, Steve and Galen discuss Iran's nuclear program and its implications for global security, starting with Iran's progress towards obtaining bomb-grade uranium and the potential for rapid weaponization. The hosts discuss Israel's increasing focus on Iran following its recent military engagements in the Middle East. They debate the feasibility and risks of Israeli or U.S.-led strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, exploring historical precedents and potential geopolitical fallout. The conversation touches on Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, regional power dynamics, and the challenges of enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. They also examine the possibility of U.S. involvement and the broader consequences for international relations and security. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit globaltantrum.substack.com