Tucker vs. Ted: Foreign Policy Round 2 Begins

Douglas Murray:

There are moments when a nation must reckon not only with its enemies abroad—but with the ideas it clings to at home.

In this so-called “Round Two,” we witness the return of two powerful minds—Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz—clashing once again on the battlefield of American foreign policy. But this is no mere rematch of egos. It’s a reckoning of visions: one rooted in restraint and realism, the other in strength and strategic resolve.

The past two decades have left a long trail of unanswered questions: What did we gain in Iraq? What did we lose in Afghanistan? Who decides when wars end—and who profits when they don't?

Tonight, those questions take center stage—not in the halls of Congress, but in this imagined forum where truth has no party and pretense has no shelter. They’re joined by thinkers across the spectrum: moralists, generals, realists, skeptics. Each challenges the orthodoxy in their own way, and each reminds us of this chilling truth:

It is possible to be endlessly at war without ever knowing why.

So sit back—not for comfort, but for confrontation. For in this foreign policy reckoning, what’s truly on trial is not just American power—but American purpose.

 (Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)

Topic 1: What Is America’s National Interest?

Participants:

• Tucker Carlson
• Ted Cruz
• John Mearsheimer (realist political scientist)
• Kori Schake (foreign policy expert, conservative strategist)
• Tulsi Gabbard (former Congresswoman, anti-interventionist voice)

Tucker Carlson (Moderator):
Let’s start simple but essential—how do each of you define America’s national interest in a world that constantly shifts? What’s the bedrock principle that should guide our decisions?

Kori Schake:
The national interest begins with securing the American people—defending our territory, our economy, and the values that sustain our constitutional system. But it also includes shaping a world that supports stability and trade. If hostile regimes dominate international norms, our prosperity and security suffer too.

Tulsi Gabbard:
I think we’ve gone far off course. National interest should never be about abstract global dominance or defending “norms” at the cost of lives. It should be clear and concrete: protect the safety, freedom, and prosperity of the American people. That’s it. No more wars that serve contractors instead of citizens.

Ted Cruz:
For me, America’s national interest means ensuring Americans are safer, freer, and more prosperous tomorrow than they were yesterday. It’s not about policing the world. It’s about making sure the Ayatollah doesn’t nuke New York and that the CCP can’t shut down American cities with cyberweapons.

John Mearsheimer:
National interest is about survival in an anarchic world. That means maintaining military primacy in our hemisphere, avoiding entanglements in distant regions, and balancing against peer competitors. What it doesn’t mean is spreading democracy with bullets.

Tucker Carlson:
What scares me is how vague “national interest” has become. It’s a slogan used to justify everything—from toppling Saddam to funding Ukrainian pensions. I think the interest is simple: keep our people safe, our economy strong, and our freedoms intact. That’s it. If you can’t draw a straight line from an action to those things, we shouldn’t be doing it.

Tucker Carlson:
Let me shift to the second point—when we say we’re acting in America’s interest, who actually gets to decide that? The president? Congress? The people? Or lobbyists, donors, and unelected experts?

John Mearsheimer:
It’s supposed to be the elected government, but in practice it’s a mix of elites. Think tanks, defense contractors, and interest groups have massive sway. The Iraq War wasn’t a populist movement—it was engineered by a narrow class of ideologues and lobbyists.

Ted Cruz:
In theory, the Constitution gives war powers to Congress. In practice, too many members outsource that responsibility to the executive and hide when things go bad. But I’ll say this: the people do have power. When they speak loudly enough, even the most captured institutions can be forced to back down.

Tulsi Gabbard:
The American people should decide. They’re the ones sending their kids to fight and die. But they're constantly manipulated—by corporate media, corrupt politicians, and military-industrial interests who profit off chaos. That’s why we need sunlight. It’s the best disinfectant.

Kori Schake:
Democratic accountability is essential. But let’s not pretend public opinion is always strategic. Sometimes a leader needs to persuade the people of a hard truth. The problem isn’t elites per se—it’s unaccountable, untested ones who never face the consequences of failure.

Tucker Carlson:
That’s the issue. The people who said Iraq would be easy still have jobs. The ones who warned against it were ridiculed. So we need to ask: is the system incentivizing good decisions or just punishing dissent?

Tucker Carlson:
Last question—what’s one concrete thing you would do to realign U.S. foreign policy more closely with the true national interest?

Tulsi Gabbard:
Pass a War Powers Restoration Act with real teeth. No military operation without a congressional declaration—period. No more blank checks. And if Congress votes yes, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

Kori Schake:
I’d reestablish a grand strategy document vetted by both the executive and Congress, updated annually, and published publicly. Force the branches to agree on what the actual threats and goals are—and let the people see that discussion.

Ted Cruz:
Cripple Iran’s oil revenue with ironclad secondary sanctions and cut off their terror funding at the knees. That’s a move in our interest. But I’d pair it with a push for energy independence—no more begging Venezuela or the Saudis.

John Mearsheimer:
Withdraw U.S. forces from Europe. NATO is obsolete as a defensive tool. Let Europe defend itself. America should focus on balancing China and protecting the Western Hemisphere.

Tucker Carlson:
I’d start with full audit transparency. Every defense budget line item made public. Every lobbying dollar traced. Let Americans see where the money goes. Foreign policy should be made in daylight, not in Davos.

Closing Thoughts from Tucker:
It sounds like we have different starting points, but one unifying thread—America can’t serve its people if it’s always serving someone else’s interests first. And if we don’t define the national interest clearly, someone else—somewhere far from the ballot box—will define it for us.

Topic 2: Should America Be the World's Policeman—or a Fortress?

Participants:

• Tucker Carlson
• Ted Cruz
• Barry Posen (MIT professor, restraint advocate)
• Victor Davis Hanson (military historian, pro-hegemony)
• Elbridge Colby (former Pentagon official, realist strategist)

Tucker Carlson (Moderator):
Let’s not dodge this anymore: Should America act as the world’s policeman—constantly intervening, stabilizing, shaping—or retreat into a fortress model focused entirely on our borders, economy, and people?

Victor Davis Hanson:
History teaches us that great powers who retreat invite chaos. The Romans learned that, so did the British. If America doesn’t shape the global order, China, Russia, or Iran will. And they won't build a world safe for free societies.

Barry Posen:
We’ve tried hegemony for 30 years—and what do we have? Endless wars, bloated budgets, and a hollowed-out middle class. Fortress America doesn’t mean isolation—it means prudence. Defend ourselves, our hemisphere, and avoid entangling disasters.

Ted Cruz:
I reject both extremes. We don’t need to be global hall monitors, but we can't be blind to threats. China wants to dominate tech, Taiwan, and space. Iran chants “Death to America.” We can’t retreat into fantasy. We need peace through strength—but without overreach.

Elbridge Colby:
America should prioritize the Indo-Pacific. That’s where our economic future is. Policing the globe dilutes our power and distracts us from China, the real threat. We need a focused, disciplined grand strategy—not global whack-a-mole.

Tucker Carlson:
I’ll just say it: “World policeman” is a euphemism for bleeding out in places we can’t spell, for people who hate us, under slogans that mean nothing. Fortress America isn’t a retreat—it’s survival. We’re broke, and we’re tired.

Tucker Carlson:
Second—what are the real-world costs of playing global cop that Americans don’t see until it’s too late?

Barry Posen:
Opportunity cost. Every dollar spent garrisoning the Gulf is a dollar not spent rebuilding bridges in Ohio. Every dead soldier in Kandahar is one fewer firefighter in Kansas. The trade-offs are invisible but deadly.

Victor Davis Hanson:
The bigger cost is what happens when we don’t act. Think 1938. Appeasement of threats creates bigger wars later. If we had drawn firmer lines, maybe Putin never invades, maybe the Taliban doesn’t get a do-over.

Elbridge Colby:
We are bleeding money and prestige. Allies free-ride. Enemies test us. We intervene in places like Syria or Libya and end up with worse outcomes. It's not just money—it’s strategic distraction.

Ted Cruz:
Look, I live in Texas. I’ve seen fentanyl cross the border and Chinese spies in our universities. Every general who wants troops in the Baltics should first explain why our southern border looks like a war zone. Global power starts at home.

Tucker Carlson:
And the human cost? The funerals. The trauma. The VA clinics. These are not policy abstractions—they’re lives shattered. The people who suffer most from American adventurism don’t work at think tanks.

Tucker Carlson:
Let’s wrap with this: What should be the clear red lines—militarily, diplomatically—that define when America should act?

Victor Davis Hanson:
If an adversary threatens a vital ally—Japan, South Korea, Israel—or disrupts global trade routes, we must act. Energy chokepoints, nuclear threats, or genocide—we can't ignore those without consequences.

Barry Posen:
We defend our borders, our citizens, and our economic arteries. That’s it. No more “credibility” nonsense. No more NATO expansions. If it doesn’t hit home, don’t hit back.

Ted Cruz:
Any threat that could lead to mass American casualties—cyberattacks, EMPs, nuclear proliferation—we must preempt. But we need a cost-benefit mindset. Every bullet fired should make Americans safer—not serve as PR for democracy.

Elbridge Colby:
China taking Taiwan—that’s a red line. Not because of Taiwan’s freedom alone, but because of semiconductors and Pacific dominance. We fight where losing means losing our future.

Tucker Carlson:
No red line matters if the American people no longer believe the system is worth defending. Our leadership crisis is moral before it’s military. Until that’s solved, we better be damn cautious about war.

Closing Thoughts from Tucker:
The real question isn’t whether we can be the world’s policeman. It’s whether we should be—when our own house is falling apart. America first means starting at home. Not stopping there. But starting.

Topic 3: Can You Be Morally Right and Strategically Wrong?

Participants:

• Tucker Carlson
• Ted Cruz
• Cornel West (moral philosopher, progressive voice)
• Henry Kissinger (realpolitik architect, hypothetical inclusion)
• Ben Shapiro (conservative commentator, moral absolutist)

Tucker Carlson (Moderator):
Let’s dive in—can a foreign policy decision feel morally right but end up being a strategic disaster? Is there a gap between doing what feels “just” and doing what’s actually smart?

Ben Shapiro:
Yes—but that doesn’t mean you ignore morality. Morality and strategy should work together. Take WWII—moral clarity and strategic strength aligned. But moral posturing without power projection? That’s weakness dressed as virtue.

Cornel West:
Brother Tucker, morality is not a side dish—it’s the whole meal. If strategy ignores suffering, it’s not strategy—it’s cruelty. We failed morally in Iraq and strategically. The two aren’t at odds unless your values are hollow.

Ted Cruz:
I agree with Ben and Cornel more than they might expect. You can’t separate morality from U.S. policy—but you can’t lead with feelings. Liberals said Libya was a humanitarian intervention. What did we get? Benghazi and open slave markets.

Henry Kissinger:
The pursuit of moral clarity often leads nations into moral catastrophe. Strategy requires cold calculation. States do not have souls. They have interests. Morality must be filtered through the lens of national survival.

Tucker Carlson:
And that’s the crux, isn’t it? How often are we sold war as a moral duty—when in reality, it’s a cover for elite agendas? We’ve been lied to with moral slogans. The wreckage is everywhere.

Tucker Carlson:
Second point—when has the U.S. acted with moral intention but created strategic blowback? What are the cautionary tales?

Henry Kissinger:
Vietnam. Idealists believed in defending democracy in Southeast Asia. But the region was not strategically vital. We lost blood and treasure chasing an abstraction—and eroded trust at home.

Ted Cruz:
Afghanistan. We went in for just cause—9/11. But then mission creep set in. We weren’t there to kill al-Qaeda anymore—we were building girls’ schools in provinces we couldn’t spell. Twenty years later, we ran, and the Taliban cheered.

Cornel West:
Iraq was a lie from day one. No WMDs. No moral high ground. Just empire dressed in rhetoric. And the people—American and Iraqi alike—paid the price. That’s the tragic result of moral arrogance without accountability.

Ben Shapiro:
Libya’s another. We said we were preventing genocide. Then we left a power vacuum and let jihadists flood in. If your moral aim creates more evil, it wasn’t really moral—or smart.

Tucker Carlson:
Our leaders keep mistaking slogans for strategy. Freedom. Democracy. Stability. But if your strategy is chaos, the banner you wave doesn’t matter. Iraq is now a proxy zone for Iran. That’s not moral. That’s dumb.

Tucker Carlson:
Last question—how do we build a foreign policy that honors both morality and strategic interest, without falling into naïve idealism or coldhearted cynicism?

Ben Shapiro:
We begin with a clear moral framework: human dignity, national sovereignty, and protection of innocents. Then we ask: does this action preserve or threaten those? Intentions don’t matter if outcomes destroy lives.

Henry Kissinger:
Morality must inform prudence, not override it. Let states pursue moral outcomes only when aligned with achievable goals. Never extend beyond the limits of national will or power.

Ted Cruz:
Start with a doctrine of realism with teeth. America doesn’t fight wars to feel good—we fight when our people are at risk. And we fight to win, not to virtue signal.

Cornel West:
I say this with love: no foreign policy will succeed without moral humility. That means listening to the oppressed, not just dictating from drones. Our values must mean something—or we’re just another empire.

Tucker Carlson:
We need moral seriousness, not moral theater. That means telling the truth—to ourselves and to the world. If we want to lead with values, we must start by embodying them—especially at home.

Closing Thoughts from Tucker:
If morality and strategy are always clashing, maybe the problem isn’t the world—it’s the people choosing the policies. Until we elect leaders who understand both, we’ll keep getting wars that feel noble—and end in ashes.

Topic 4: Is There an Endgame—Or Just Perpetual War?

Participants:

• Tucker Carlson
• Ted Cruz
• Gen. David Petraeus (former U.S. Commander, Iraq & Afghanistan)
• Seymour Hersh (investigative journalist)
• Stephen Walt (foreign policy scholar, realist critic)

Tucker Carlson (Moderator):
Let’s go straight to the heart of it: When we launch military interventions, do we actually have an endgame—a vision of victory, exit, peace—or are we just drifting into perpetual war?

Stephen Walt:
Too often, we have slogans instead of strategies—“freedom,” “security,” “stability.” But no one can explain what victory actually looks like. We stumble in, escalate when it falters, and stay because leaving would embarrass someone.

Ted Cruz:
Some wars do need a finish line. Afghanistan should have ended after bin Laden. But I’ll admit: Washington's idea of “mission accomplished” has become meaningless. That’s why we need clear, measurable objectives before we commit troops.

Seymour Hersh:
Perpetual war is the business model. The goal is often not to win, but to sustain. Look at defense contracts, base expansions, intelligence ops. The machine feeds on open-ended conflict—especially ones the public doesn’t fully grasp.

Gen. David Petraeus:
Military strategy does define endstates: degrade threats, support governance, exit with stability. But politics often undermines the military’s clarity. We need strategic patience—but also political honesty. You can’t surge your way to nation-building.

Tucker Carlson:
The truth is, if you can’t answer “how does this end?” at the start, you shouldn’t be starting. If your war plan has no brakes or off-ramp, it’s not a strategy—it’s a trap.

Tucker Carlson:
So what keeps us trapped in these endless cycles? Is it fear, pride, corruption—or just inertia?

Seymour Hersh:
All of the above. Bureaucrats cover failure, presidents fear looking weak, and journalists stop asking hard questions. So the war mutates—it rebrands, shifts goals, moves continents—but never ends.

Ted Cruz:
Inertia is real, but so is strategic drift. Politicians outsource decisions to generals, and generals are incentivized to escalate. Everyone kicks the can. We’ve turned war into a bipartisan bad habit.

Stephen Walt:
Add to that the sunk-cost fallacy: “We’ve sacrificed so much—we can’t stop now.” That logic has cost us trillions and thousands of lives. Refusing to admit error keeps us locked in failure.

Gen. Petraeus:
No commander wants endless war. But drawdowns create vacuums. Look at ISIS after leaving Iraq too soon. A disciplined strategy requires knowing when to stay—and when to get out. Not just reacting to headlines.

Tucker Carlson:
Let’s be honest: even the phrase “forever war” used to be unthinkable. Now it’s shrugged off like weather. We don’t even flinch. That’s moral exhaustion—and strategic bankruptcy.

Tucker Carlson:
So here’s the final question—what changes tomorrow morning if we’re serious about ending endless wars?

Stephen Walt:
Congress reclaims its war powers. No more blank checks. If we fight, the public must debate and vote. Force accountability at the ballot box—where it belongs.

Ted Cruz:
The Pentagon gets a leash. No more ghost budgets or multi-decade commitments. We audit everything—troop presence, mission creep, procurement. And we get allies to pull their weight.

Gen. Petraeus:
We redefine victory. It’s not about planting flags—it’s about protecting interests efficiently. That means realistic timelines, multilateral pressure, and above all, clarity from day one.

Seymour Hersh:
Transparency. Every drone strike. Every casualty. Every backroom deal. Put it in front of the people. If war can't survive public light, it shouldn't be happening.

Tucker Carlson:
Here’s my test: if the architects of war can’t explain it in 30 seconds to a factory worker in Ohio, they’re not ready to wage it. Simplicity isn’t weakness—it’s proof of moral and strategic coherence.

Closing Thoughts from Tucker:
We talk about endgames, but for too long war has been the game. The players change, the flags change, but the blood stays the same. We need leaders who don't just know when to fight—they know when to stop.

Topic 5: Who Benefits from America’s Foreign Policy?

Participants:

• Tucker Carlson
• Ted Cruz
• Glenn Greenwald (investigative journalist)
• Condoleezza Rice (former U.S. Secretary of State)
• Andrew Bacevich (retired Army Colonel, foreign policy critic)

Tucker Carlson (Moderator):
Let’s get real. If foreign policy is supposed to serve Americans, then who’s actually benefiting from it? Because it sure doesn’t look like the average citizen is getting anything out of these endless wars and global entanglements.

Glenn Greenwald:
It’s not the people. It’s the defense contractors, lobbyists, and the media industrial complex. They profit from fear. Every time there’s talk of escalation, stocks for Raytheon go up. Foreign policy has become a business—not a duty.

Ted Cruz:
There’s truth to that. I’ve fought to expose the cozy relationships between bureaucrats and contractors. But we also benefit when the world respects our strength. A stable world does help the American economy—but only if it’s pursued with discipline, not waste.

Andrew Bacevich:
The primary beneficiaries are the elites who never send their children to war. America’s global footprint is less about democracy and more about maintaining empire—military, economic, cultural. That empire serves a class, not a country.

Condoleezza Rice:
I won’t deny that some interests benefit more than others. But foreign policy isn’t charity—it’s realism. We stabilize regions not just for altruism, but because instability spreads. When others collapse, we eventually pay.

Tucker Carlson:
Sure, but at what point does “preventing instability” become permanent occupation? The public doesn’t want more war—they want roads that work and groceries they can afford. So again, who really benefits?

Tucker Carlson:
Let’s drill deeper—why is it so hard to shift U.S. foreign policy, even when the public clearly wants change?

Andrew Bacevich:
Because the system is designed to be insulated from democracy. The foreign policy “blob” is unelected, ideologically aligned, and largely unaccountable. New presidents, same wars. The inertia is baked in.

Ted Cruz:
Some of it is ideological capture. The same think tanks and staffers circulate across every administration. We need a full generational turnover in the foreign policy class—and we need outsiders in the room.

Condoleezza Rice:
Institutional memory matters, but you’re right about stagnation. We need innovation. However, don’t underestimate how hard it is to pivot a superpower. Allies rely on us. Enemies watch us. Rapid changes can trigger global chaos.

Glenn Greenwald:
It’s not “hard”—it’s designed not to change. The intelligence community and defense industry have deep hooks in both parties. That’s not a conspiracy—it’s basic incentive structure. If peace doesn’t pay, it won’t happen.

Tucker Carlson:
The “experts” are never fired, no matter how wrong they are. That’s the red flag. No accountability means no change. We’re governed by a permanent foreign policy class immune to public will.

Tucker Carlson:
Final round: If you had the power to redesign U.S. foreign policy from scratch—one principle, one reform—what’s your first move?

Glenn Greenwald:
Transparency first. Force every military and intelligence program into daylight. Classified war-making has killed democracy.

Ted Cruz:
Reassert Article I. Congress must reclaim the power to declare war. If you’re going to send someone’s son or daughter into harm’s way, you should have to look them in the eye and vote for it.

Condoleezza Rice:
Refocus diplomacy. Build global coalitions and invest in human capital abroad. We don’t always need boots—we need better brains at the table. Foreign policy isn’t just guns; it’s persuasion.

Andrew Bacevich:
Close half of our overseas bases. America can’t be the landlord of the planet. Rebalance our posture to reflect a republic, not an empire.

Tucker Carlson:
Start with a new moral framework: No war unless it makes life better for the average American. If you can’t make that case, you don’t get the keys to the tanks.

Closing Thoughts from Tucker:
If foreign policy keeps serving the same people—no matter who's in power—it’s not policy anymore. It’s a racket. We need fewer careerists and more citizens asking one question: who pays, and who profits?

Final Thoughts by Douglas Murray

What have we learned?

That even among those who wear the same flag, the meaning of patriotism can wildly differ. For Tucker Carlson, it lies in defending the homeland, avoiding entanglements, and exposing the illusions of empire. For Ted Cruz, it is about projecting strength, deterring evil, and wielding power before others do.

Both men believe they are protecting America. They simply disagree on how.

But what’s perhaps more disturbing is how rarely these questions are asked at all in the public square—about why we fight, when we stop, and who truly benefits when the bombs fall and the budgets grow.

We heard from soldiers and scholars, journalists and generals, and still we’re left circling the same uneasy truth:

America's wars may end on paper, but their consequences echo in broken cities, broken families, and broken trust.

It is tempting to believe that somewhere, there is a master plan. A wise hand at the helm. A coherent vision guiding every strike, every base, every trillion-dollar deal. But perhaps—just perhaps—there isn’t. Perhaps the machine hums not out of purpose, but out of habit.

If so, the only question that matters is:
Who will have the courage to stop it?

Let that be the charge—not just for the two men in this debate, but for all of us who live with the consequences of their decisions.

Short Bios:

Tucker Carlson
Political commentator and former Fox News host known for his nationalist, anti-interventionist views. He advocates for restrained foreign policy and questions America’s role in global conflicts.

Senator Ted Cruz
U.S. Senator from Texas and constitutional conservative. He supports strong national defense and a proactive stance against authoritarian regimes like China, Iran, and Russia.

Douglas Macgregor
Retired U.S. Army colonel and military strategist. A vocal critic of prolonged wars, he promotes decisive, limited military actions aligned with clear national interests.

Tulsi Gabbard
Former Congresswoman from Hawaii and Army Reserve officer. She opposes regime change wars and emphasizes diplomacy, non-intervention, and American sovereignty.

Stephen F. Cohen (in memoriam)
Distinguished historian and expert on U.S.–Russia relations. He advocated for de-escalation and was a critic of Cold War-style confrontation with Moscow.

John Mearsheimer
Political scientist and co-creator of offensive realism theory. He argues that great powers act in self-interest and that NATO expansion provoked conflict with Russia.

Robert Kagan
Historian and leading neoconservative voice. He champions American global leadership and military engagement to uphold liberal democratic values.

Condoleezza Rice
Former Secretary of State under George W. Bush. She believes in using American power to shape a stable international order and promote democracy.

Cornel West
Public intellectual and social critic. He opposes imperialism and emphasizes moral responsibility in foreign policy rooted in justice and human dignity.

Henry Kissinger
Former Secretary of State and architect of realpolitik. Known for prioritizing national interest over ideology, he is a controversial figure in U.S. diplomacy.

Ben Shapiro
Conservative political commentator. He supports strong defense policy and believes morality and strength are not mutually exclusive in foreign affairs.

David Petraeus
Retired U.S. Army General and former CIA Director. He led military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and emphasizes strategic clarity and long-term planning.

Seymour Hersh
Investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai Massacre and other government abuses. He is known for challenging official war narratives.

Stephen Walt
International relations theorist and co-author of The Israel Lobby. He advocates for realism and restraint in U.S. foreign policy.

Glenn Greenwald
Journalist and co-founder of The Intercept. A critic of the surveillance state and military-industrial complex, he supports anti-interventionist policies.

Andrew Bacevich
Historian and retired Army colonel. He critiques America’s overreliance on military power and the normalization of perpetual war.

Bernard Lewis (in memoriam)
Historian and Middle East scholar. He advised policymakers on Islamic extremism and supported U.S. efforts to reshape the region.

Noam Chomsky
Linguist and political critic. A fierce opponent of U.S. imperialism, he emphasizes ethical foreign policy and global justice.

Anne Applebaum
Historian and journalist. A staunch critic of authoritarianism, she supports firm U.S. responses to Russian and Chinese aggression.

Fareed Zakaria
Journalist and foreign policy analyst. He supports liberal internationalism and a pragmatic, multilateral approach to global challenges.

Victor Davis Hanson
Classicist and military historian. He defends the Western tradition and supports strong U.S. action against global threats to freedom.

Rand Paul
U.S. Senator and libertarian-leaning Republican. He calls for strict limits on foreign intervention and prioritizes national over global interests.

Richard Haass
President emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He supports a rules-based international order and calibrated U.S. engagement.

Eric Prince
Founder of Blackwater and military entrepreneur. He advocates for private-sector solutions in military operations and unconventional conflict zones.

Lawrence Wilkerson
Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell. A critic of the Iraq War and military overreach, he emphasizes constitutional responsibility in war-making.