#356 Joe Kent - Susie Wiles, Stephen Miller, Midterms and the AIPAC Problem

The Strategic Objectives Behind the Iran Conflict

Joe Kent and Shawn Ryan discuss how the current war with Iran results from decades of Israeli strategic objectives and lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. Israel’s final objective in the region is regime change in Iran, viewed as the last strong regional power that opposes Israeli regional dominance. Kent explains that Israelis have wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily in a series of neighboring countries—removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria, Gaddafi in Libya—with an eye toward weakening or fragmenting regimes that could challenge Israel militarily or politically.

Kent describes the Israeli “mowing the grass” strategy, involving periodic military interventions or assassinations that keep neighboring polities in chaos, never allowing them to grow strong enough to threaten Israel. This preference for constant instability sharply contrasts with American objectives that typically prefer eventual peace and stability. Kent notes that the Israeli public and political leadership, exemplified by leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, openly advocate permanent conflict as a norm, rather than seeking comprehensive settlements.

He further explains that AIPAC, the prominent pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., played a decisive role in influencing U.S. policy by installing key national security officials sympathetic to Israel’s objectives. According to Kent, AIPAC's preferences led to the appointment of officials like CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary Marco Rubio, and Advisor Mike Waltz, all of whom supported aggressive postures toward Iran and pushed for deepening U.S. military involvement.

Public Opposition and Electoral Consequences

Kent details a strong backlash among the American public, especially Trump’s voter base. Trump campaigned in 2016 on a promise to avoid further entanglement in the Middle East, but reversed his position by launching major operations against Iran. Many of his supporters felt acutely betrayed, leading to significant protest votes against Republicans during the 2024 midterms. Kent notes that betrayal is among the strongest of human emotions, especially when it is someone voters trusted or “loved.” Exit polls and widespread sentiment at the pump confirmed causality in voters’ minds: the Iran war quickly closed the Strait of Hormuz, causing oil shipping disruptions that drove diesel and gasoline prices above $6 per gallon. The economic pain extended to household budgets and grocery bills, intensifying resentment and a spite-vote for Democrats, not out of support but in protest of broken promises.

Kent argues that this electoral backlash was a direct response to the administration’s military actions and policy reversals, and not a genuine embrace of Democratic leadership.

The Intelligence Failure and Misleading Briefings

Kent describes a profound intelligence failure that led to U.S. involvement in the Iran war. According to his account, much of the intelligence presented to President Trump came directly from Israeli sources but was briefed as verified, fact-based information without proper caveat or context. There was little to no unilateral U.S. intelligence to corroborate Israeli claims, yet these reports were given high credibility in critical national security briefings, facilitated by officials installed at the urging of AIPAC.

Kent recounts a personal attempt to inform the President about the source and reliability of uncorroborated Israeli intelligence—an intervention that resulted in his exclusion from subsequent intelligence briefings. He also notes the CIA director’s suppression of skeptical analyses and the selective use of intelligence to justify war.

Trump, Kent says, was falsely promised a quick, decisive strike—led to believe the war would be as easy as previous interventions like Venezuela. In reality, the conflict dragged on far longer, revealing the flawed premises and manipulation behind the decision to go to war ...

The Gatekeeping Role of Susie Wiles

Joe Kent describes Susie Wiles, Trump’s Chief of Staff, as the primary gatekeeper who controlled access to President Trump, particularly for key donors and lobbyists. Kent notes she prioritized wealthy donors over intelligence or national security professionals by facilitating their access while managing the national security portfolio herself. Wiles’ actions fostered a culture where only voices aligned with donor interests or positive feedback were welcomed, creating an internal echo chamber that excluded dissenting perspectives, especially those critical of donor-driven and pro-war policy directions.

Additionally, Susie Wiles’ background includes previous work for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, and her connections with Ballard Partners, a firm representing both government and corporate interests. These ties allowed her to facilitate an environment where policies could be shaped both by foreign political interests and American corporate donors.

Funding Mechanisms and Influence Networks

Kent reveals that AIPAC and pro-Israel donors, notably Miriam Adelson, were instrumental in funneling large sums—over $100 million—into Trump’s campaign. This financial influence translated directly into policy and personnel decisions, with AIPAC and its network reportedly selecting nominees for crucial national security positions such as CIA Director (John Ratcliffe), Secretary of State (Marco Rubio), and National Security Advisor (Mike Waltz). The selection prioritized donor preferences and pro-war stances over expertise, independence, or presidential agendas.

Kent argues that this donor-driven system led to a national security team selected primarily for their loyalty to donor interests, often at the expense of public health concerns, reform-minded initiatives, or the president’s stated agenda. He cites the current bellicose stance against Iran, with repeated calls for strikes and poisoned negotiations, as resulting directly from these priorities. The entire process, as Kent recounted, was confirmed by statements from AIPAC’s own leadership, highlighting how donor money and lobbying shaped the administration.

Paid Propaganda and Information Manipulation

Joe Kent and Shawn Ryan detail a coordinated effort within the administration to hire influencers who would promote pro-war messages and attack critics of the Iran conflict. Figures like Laura Loomer were compensated by outside entities with special interests in escalating U.S. involvement against Iran. These influencers aggressively targeted both internal dissenters and external critics, echoing administration talking points a ...

The Nature of the Electoral Shift

Joe Kent describes a striking turnaround in the 2024 elections: many voters who once supported Trump, some still proudly owning MAGA hats and previously attending his rallies, did not simply withdraw from the political process or stay home. Instead, they participated actively by voting Democratic, not out of allegiance to Democratic candidates but out of a desire to punish what they saw as betrayal from their own party’s leadership. Kent emphasizes that these voters, despite disliking the Democrats, cast their ballots to send a message and hold their own party accountable for broken promises. He notes that this “spite voting” was driven by a sense of having been lied to and hurt, leading them to enthusiastically vote against the very administration they had helped elect.

Exit polls and voter sentiments highlight the main drivers of this shift: disillusionment with the Iran war, frustration with energy-driven economic hardship, and anger over unkept promises about non-interventionist foreign policy. This electoral reaction was less about the Democrats winning over voters and more about Republicans losing them due to perceived betrayals. Kent points out that some victorious Democrats, like Al Syed in Michigan and John Ossoff in Georgia, adopted rhetoric closely aligned with the economic populism and non-interventionism that once defined Trump’s campaign, making it apparent that there was a strong demand for America-first, anti-war leadership.

Kent and Shawn Ryan both suggest that if Republicans had truly prioritized the interests of the American people—delivering on campaign promises, protecting American workers, and staying out of new foreign interventions—the party would retain its base easily. Instead, the wave of voters switching sides in 2024 was a direct rebuke to leadership’s failure to deliver, with many seeing ending the Iran war as a crucial issue for winning back lost trust.

Systemic Disconnection From Constituent Concerns

Kent details a systemic problem inside Washington’s political culture, especially under the Trump administration. Leadership became insulated within a “Washington bubble,” focusing more on satisfying lobbyists, funding sources, and political insiders than on the needs and desires of their base. This disconnect grew as politicians began to rely on money from special interests to drive voter turnout, assuming loyalty could be bought with campaign expenditures rather than earned by keeping promises.

According to Kent, the administration also fell into a cycle of only seeking positive media coverage and approval from mainstream outlets like The New York Times, despite having campaigned against “fake news.” While the campaign had previously used podcasts and alternative media to reach and energize broader audiences—including younger voters—once in power, decision-makers reverted to courting legacy media and listening to lobbyists over real constituents.

Even though the administration had unprecedented access to media creators, social influencers, and direct channels to gauge voter sentiment, authentic feedback was often filtered or ignored in favor of paid, selective influencers. This gatekeeping ensured the leadership remained shielded from grassroots discontent, preventing genuine sentiment from reaching those in power and perpetuating the echo chamber.

The Broader Pattern of Betrayed Expectations

The conseque ...

The Destruction of Regional Military Capacity

The Iran war has exposed fundamental weaknesses in U.S. military power and strategic commitments in the Middle East. Iranian use of drones and ballistic missiles has effectively dismantled U.S. military bases in the region, rendering them indefensible in the face of modern missile and drone warfare. As Joe Kent describes, not only are the bases exposed during conflict, but once hostilities break out, reoccupying or holding these bases becomes both impractical and strategically indefensible, especially without a massive ground commitment that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to sustain.

Kent notes that Iranian strikes not only targeted U.S. installations but also punished Gulf states' energy infrastructure—ostensibly U.S. allies protected under the American security umbrella. The inability of the U.S. to defend its Gulf allies from these strikes exposed a major weakness in American regional commitment and cast doubt on the value of hosting American military installations. This exposure has led Gulf countries to question the presence of U.S. bases, with nations like Saudi Arabia rejecting U.S. use of key airfields and considering American bases as liabilities rather than assets. The American reputation as a reliable security guarantor in the region has been fundamentally undermined, leaving former allies seeking alternatives and hedging their bets with regional power brokers like Iran.

The Breakdown of the Petrodollar Arrangement

Since World War II, the foundation of the petrodollar system was a simple bargain: U.S. military protection for Gulf oil states in exchange for selling oil in U.S. dollars. This arrangement underpinned the U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency and endowed tremendous financial leverage to Washington.

However, the instability unleashed by the war with Iran—coupled with the closure or threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz—has fractured this oil-for-protection pact. Gulf states, recognizing the limitations of U.S. power and reliability in a crisis, have begun making side deals with Iran to secure their oil exports. The fear of further Iranian retaliation and destruction of critical infrastructure has prompted active diplomatic engagement with Tehran, signaling a weakening of exclusive U.S.-led security guarantees.

As these alliances shift, Gulf nations are reevaluating the need for a U.S. military presence. Questions abound as to why they would want American bases, given these have become vectors for destruction and invite Iranian attacks. The process of moving away from the petrodollar is gradual but has begun, with apparent direct transactions between Gulf states and Iran outside of the dollar system.

Meanwhile, China has stepped decisively into the power vacuum. Rather than pursuing overt military expansion, China offers port-building deals and settles some oil transactions in yuan. Their approach is economic and diplomatic—offering security, investment, and mediation in regional disputes, sometimes even providing alternatives to the global dollar system. This has given China an entry point to further embed itself as a central actor in Gulf security and trade arrangements, threatening the continued viability of the petrodollar.

Geopolitical Consequences and Strategic Realignment

The credibility gap and subsequent strategic realignment are cascading through global energy and financial systems. Gulf states and other oil producers are increasingly skeptical of petrodollar reliance given U.S. strategic unreliability. They are making deals with regional adversaries and exploring alternative security arrangements—sometimes with China in a leading role.

China’s response to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz highlights a strategic difference: rather than scramble for oil in the open market during crises, China drew on its own strategic reserves, helping stabilize prices for itself while the U.S. remained caught in short-term military maneuvers. This long-term planning further exposed the unsustainability of America’s approach and its declining hegemony.

As American regional dominance fades, its role as the global stabilizer and enforcer of security for critical waterways diminishes. The world witnesses the collapse of U.S. regional hegemony and a broader decline of e ...

Shawn Ryan and Joe Kent discuss the deep and growing distrust Americans feel toward their government, tracing its causes, consequences, and possible paths to reform. Their discussion reveals widespread cynicism, especially among younger generations, and a belief that restoring faith requires fundamental changes to how politics is financed and how leaders are held accountable.

The Pervasive Loss of Faith in Institutions

Shawn Ryan expresses a profound cynicism about politicians and institutions, stating, "That guy doesn't give a shit about anything but... the next election," and affirming, "I have zero trust in any institution." Joe Kent agrees, noting that he, too, has "no trust," especially after working within these institutions. They describe a political environment where citizens no longer view government corruption as an aberration but as a fundamental characteristic due to consistent failures across multiple administrations.

Kent argues that young people, particularly those in their 20s, have grown up watching institutional failures and public betrayals play out, especially during the Trump administration. The result is a widespread assumption that all American institutions are corrupt and broken. If nothing is done to restore trust, Kent warns, many young people will simply stop participating in civic life, with devastating consequences for society.

The hosts see these accumulated betrayals as debilitating political loyalty itself. Voters now increasingly "punish, not support" politicians: as Kent observes, recent elections proved that the public is furious about issues such as the Iran war and are willing to "spite vote" against politicians who break their promises. He sees this transactional attitude as positive, arguing that voters should view politicians like employees—if they do not deliver, they should be fired and replaced, regardless of party loyalty.

Campaign Finance and Lobby Reform as Central Requirements

Ryan and Kent identify the influence of money—particularly that coming from AIPAC, corporate PACs, and the Israel lobby—as a root cause of institutional corruption. Kent emphasizes the need to make acceptance of such funding "so toxic for politicians to take" that they must run on their own ideas rather than donor money. He believes public exposure is key, crediting online researchers and independent investigators with surfacing details on which politicians are funded by these interests.

Kent cites provisions in federal legislation—Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Section 266 of the Intelligence Authorization Act—that grant Israel broad access to sensitive U.S. programs, from quantum research to intelligence operations. He warns that changes in direct U.S. aid to Israel will be offset by even larger gains for Israel through participation in high-value research and intelligence sharing. He urges citizens to pressure their senators and representatives to oppose these provisions and calls on political leaders to make stripping such sections a priority, warning failure will have political ramifications.

Their vision for effective reform is simple but demanding: campaign finance, PAC money, AIPAC contributions, and lobbying funds must become liabilities rather than assets for politicians. Once this is achieved, Kent argues, donor money will become "not even worth taking," and actual public service can return to the center of political life.

The Role of Media, Accountability, and Engagement

Both hosts see independent media, long-form podcasts, and direct engagement with voters as drivers of accountability. Kent suggests that politicians should regularly appear in unscripted interviews so their stances and promises are recorded and subject to public scrutiny. He believes traditional media and staged public appearances have allowed politicians to evade responsibility, whereas podcasts and social media allow for deeper "pulse checks" with constituents.

Ryan and Kent lament the current administration’s tendency to insulate itself, favoring influencers paid to reinforce desired messages and shutting out critical voices. Kent argues that more frequent, open engagement with independent media and constituents would have improved messaging, allowed for early feedback, and likely prevented some missteps and betrayals.

They assert t ...