More conversations like this!!! [clap, clap, clap] First of all Beth, you are the perfect person to host a conversation with such thoughtfulness, nuance and facts. Thank you. Second, loved the amount he was able to share and just clearly communicate to us all here on Iran. I am encouraged there are thoughtful people in Congress (because that really doesn't come through from many people in either party to me), and that he thinks there *may* be some accountability yet for this admin. Thank you Rep Landsman for coming on and for taking your job seriously.
This was an excellent interview, Beth, thank you for talking with Rep. Landsman! I agree with others who wrote below that this interview didn't persuade them of Rep. Landsman's perspective but did give some nuance to the whole thing. I'm glad he is willing to publicly state what he truly believes, especially when it's an opinion that opposes where most of his party is.
Having heard the rationale for the war from Rep. Landsman, I find it really confusing that the Trump administration has not given a clear articulation of the goals of the war. I can't tell if it's incompetence/lack of discipline, or if they're being purposefully vague so that they can declare victory regardless of how things progress, or if there's some other reason. But it does feel like the American public is owed a clear explanation, and it's extremely frustrating and concerning that we aren't getting one.
My other thought is that I, like a lot of people here, really struggle with the concept of war, and of attacking another country that hasn't first attacked us. But I'm not tasked with securing the safety of 300,000,000+ people, and I can see how I might approach this issue differently were I a government leader, and perhaps if I was privy to the information the government has.
Something that's been rolling around in my brain for awhile, and began to crystallize while I was listening to this episode, is this: so many of the justifications being used to bomb Iran also apply to us, the U.S.
- A leader who believes he was divinely appointed, who is influenced by a cabinet/staff full of extremist religious views and figures
- A segment of leadership who believes in racial and ideological purity
- Leadership that desires to expand our territory (Greenland)
- Nuclear capability
- Hostility and violence toward our own citizens
- Undermining of election integrity and democratic principles
I could go on and on and on. I'm not saying Iran and the U.S. are exactly the same, and the level of violence committed by Iran against its citizens recently isn't comparable. It's just that if another country wanted to use our own justifications against us, they surely could. I don't have a point, necessarily, just that I'm trying to find words for my struggle with this hypocrisy. The U.S. has had an idea of itself as the arbiter of truth and freedom and democracy since WWII that just isn't real. I don't pretend to know what the right thing is regarding Iran, but something inside me (my values, my bias against Trump, my intuition, whatever) is pinging all over the place that this is a bad idea and we're really straining our relationships and standing with the rest of the world in a way I haven't seen before in my lifetime.
Recognizing that I have a true bias towards rules and process, everything happening under this administration reinforces the importance of rules and process!
Thank you for this interview Beth. It was interesting to hear another viewpoint from inside. I agree with other people that he sometimes appeared all over the place (just like the administration), but his inside information did give a small amount of comfort that the generals might actually have a plan, however, the lack of coherent conversation and talking points from the administration seems like they think that war is a video game. Keep up the great work!
I heard Rep Landsman say that attacking Iran was necessary because we can’t take the chance that they might build a nuclear weapon. Then I heard him say that N Korea already has a nuclear weapon, but he is not concerned about that. I feel angry because I feel he’s telling me that the attack on Iran was obvious common sense, but N Korea is a situation that requires nuance.
I was surprised about North Korea, too. This morning I saw reporting that China is trying to re-assert itself in North Korea. Definitely something to keep an eye on. I wish that we would put maximal diplomatic effort into non-proliferation treaties.
This was an interesting conversation but I was disappointed with Rep Landsman’s statements about uranium and the threat that the Iranians pose. I don’t buy it, just as I didn’t buy the threat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The President’s behaviour to his allies has been appalling. I am no fan of Prime Minister Starmer, but I am 100% behind him in not getting involved. British opinion is on Starmer’s side. No one wants us to get involved.
If this administration hasn't even bothered to make the case for military action to US citizens, I'm CONFIDENT it hasn't made the case to our international allies (especially since this administration routinely offends and underminds our allies)
This conversation with Congressman Landsman was very interesting. I appreciate someone with a differing viewpoint being willing to explain his perspective and choices.
Full disclosure, I am an anti-war person. I do not see how the US-Israeli war with Iran and others is doing much other than inflicting more pain and suffering upon mostly civilians. It does appear many high-ranking leaders have been killed and different military resources have been destroyed, but my concern is always that this will lead to more hatred and hardline views for years to come.
It is difficult for me to see how one nation perceived as “good” is allowed to bully another nation who is perceived as “bad” or a bully. I mean, isn’t that how wars and invasions often begin? “I am good, and my way of life and religion is good. I must stop this military from stockpiling their weapons and save these other people from their ways.” Every group involved could say this as reason to attack the next. Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. But you see how the distrust and hatred gets embedded.
I was struck by the conversation around Hezbollah and Lebanon. Is the goal actually to make Lebanon a more free and safe place?
“Israeli forces are currently conducting more airstrikes on a daily basis across a wider area of the country and inside of Beirut itself than they had done on a monthly basis over the past year. At the same time, the Israeli army continues to expand its territorial occupation in southern Lebanon. As always, the brunt of the war is felt most heavily by civilians.”
(Regarding displaced people in Lebanon:)
“Of those 700,000 displaced people, over 200,000 are children. Between March 2nd and March 9th, at least 83 children have been killed in Lebanon, according to Unicef.
It is estimated that nearly 300 children have been killed across the region since the US-Israeli war began with Iran on February 28th. Nearly all of those children were Iranian or Lebanese.
It is not difficult to imagine what the international response would be if those same numbers of children were killed in a different country. In reality, the numbers of those killed and displaced is growing daily. According to another estimate from the UN Refugee Agency, over 33,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon have crossed back into Syria as a result of this ongoing war, along with at least 3,000 Lebanese refugees.”
From Saint Martin's Cloak: SMC - Ep. 4 - Voices from the Ground - Lebanon, Mar 10, 2026
Beth, I really appreciate your patience and ability to push Congressman Landsman on his points throughout this conversation. You asked good questions and I'm glad he had this opportunity to be pushed. I'm really struggling with the sense that he thinks the US can differentiate itself from Israel as this conflict moves forward and Israel continues to act on different motives that what the US objectives are (if we even know what our objectives are - I remain skeptical). Also, thinking back to your episode a week ago about the future of war, it seems to me that the Congressman is viewing this conflict through the lens of war as we understood it 50 or 100 years ago, not the reality we see today. After the past 20-30 years, shouldn't we be well past the idea that we can do some targeted strikes and then move on without dire ongoing consequences?? It is deeply unnerving to me that our Congresspeople are this naive, after decades of Middle East conflict and a decade of Donald Trump.
I really appreciated a member of Congress being willing to invest the time in a conversation like this and responding to my pushback with respect. It's unusual. I share the concern that we risk repeating past mistakes here, especially given the personnel in this administration. I heard Rep. Landsman not as advocating for military control of our foreign policy but as advocating for military leadership of operations and tactics. I should have pressed that point with a clarifying question.
I also was left wanting about what we do now regarding this connection to Israel
No way is the region going to distinguish our bombs
And he seemed clear Israel’s aims are more widespread than ours. What do we do with that- why do we keep moving forward if the country we are doing it with has goals so out of alignment with our own. And I really appreciated his articulation of why this is happening AND I agree with the comments if the people actually in charge don’t seem to be aware of why they are doing it- it seems like it’s colluding with the idea that the generals have it covered and it doesn’t really matter what the President says and I think that’s dangerous…
Beth: on your Oura ring endorsement-I assume you find success by way of the data feedback making you recommit to the habits you know you need to embrace for good sleep?
This discussion really stretched me. I appreciated hearing Congressman Landsman’s points, made in good faith it seems, and I then “tried on” his perspective even as the seeming counter reality is in quite stark contrast from my limited view. (But I’m paying attention so I’m not totally discounting myself!)
I think the Congressman is an example of a Dem willing to find some agreement where he can even if I can’t quite see it fully with him.
In any case it was a good exercise for me personally. And I want to echo cheers for Beth’s interviewing skills, everywhere she asked a question or pushed in closer I also had those questions. And of course in some cases I didn’t have the question or thought until Beth asked it and I learned a lot. All around a helpful if challenging episode.
Beth, you asked great questions and brought up excellent points. I am really incensed by the Representative's responses on so many levels. My overall confusion is I do not understand why a Democrat feels the need to portray the war (and it is a war even if the hostilities only last a short time) in methodical, logical terms when the Commander in Chief has refused to do so. The generals do not have military objectives beyond those set forth by the president, with the assistance of the Sec of Defense. Congress should not authorize a dime until these objectives are spelled out by the individuals who are actually in charge. If the generals are the ones in charge, then we have an entirely different crisis on our hands.
I understand the frustration, truly! I also can imagine a sitting member of Congress feeling an enormous sense of responsibility to troops in the region that influences how I might think and talk about this. It's hard. I took Rep. Landsman's comments about the military objectives as meaning that the administration should be guided by military leaders on tactics and operations, not on overall strategy. I should have asked a clarifying question about that.
Couldn’t agree more. He also never adequately addressed how we are being made less safe by how this war is being waged. Appreciate Beth pushing back. The only thing I agreed with the Rep on is the need for more AI accountability and leadership.
Thanks for the thoughtful interview and pushing back. Two things really stood out…
- the number of times he said “hope” and “wish”. Good policy isn’t made by hope.
- He kept talking about how he wished Trump would follow the generals. But that’s not the system we have. The generals are supposed to follow the civilian leadership, and it’s dangerous to suggest otherwise (even if in this case, the generals are far wiser…)
I took those comments to mean that he should follow the military on tactics and operations, not strategy, and that perhaps he should follow the example of military leader's communications discipline. But I definitely should have asked a follow-up question about that.
Anyone else notice his description of the late ayatollah as an apocalyptic religious fanatic could also be applied to far too many people in the current administration as well?
I think this is so tricky because on one hand, yes -- I think there are many people in this administration who at least cosplay as religious to manipulate portions of public opinion. I'm really concerned about the complaints from service members that their up-the-chain leaders are casting this war in "holy" rhetoric. On the other hand, there is truly no comparison between our experiences in the US and the daily repression that the Iranian people endure. I was listening to a reporter from ABC News talk this morning on Start Here about how dangerous it is for her sources inside Iran to contact her at all, how they have to wait for a maybe-10-minute window of internet service to reach out to her, and how they have to do it secretly and she has to shield their identities. I read this morning that the government is stating that they're waiting with "fingers on the trigger" for any anti-regime protests. We have a problem here, no doubt. But it is and has been so, so extreme in Iran.
Yes, his statement about this was my aha moment. We also have a leader who believes he's chosen by god. Maybe he'll uphold democratic norms and transition power peacefully at the end of his term, maybe not. To me, the fact that we don't know for sure makes him closer to a supreme leader than a president.
More conversations like this!!! [clap, clap, clap] First of all Beth, you are the perfect person to host a conversation with such thoughtfulness, nuance and facts. Thank you. Second, loved the amount he was able to share and just clearly communicate to us all here on Iran. I am encouraged there are thoughtful people in Congress (because that really doesn't come through from many people in either party to me), and that he thinks there *may* be some accountability yet for this admin. Thank you Rep Landsman for coming on and for taking your job seriously.
This calmed my nervous system a little bit. Thank you❤️
This was an excellent interview, Beth, thank you for talking with Rep. Landsman! I agree with others who wrote below that this interview didn't persuade them of Rep. Landsman's perspective but did give some nuance to the whole thing. I'm glad he is willing to publicly state what he truly believes, especially when it's an opinion that opposes where most of his party is.
Having heard the rationale for the war from Rep. Landsman, I find it really confusing that the Trump administration has not given a clear articulation of the goals of the war. I can't tell if it's incompetence/lack of discipline, or if they're being purposefully vague so that they can declare victory regardless of how things progress, or if there's some other reason. But it does feel like the American public is owed a clear explanation, and it's extremely frustrating and concerning that we aren't getting one.
My other thought is that I, like a lot of people here, really struggle with the concept of war, and of attacking another country that hasn't first attacked us. But I'm not tasked with securing the safety of 300,000,000+ people, and I can see how I might approach this issue differently were I a government leader, and perhaps if I was privy to the information the government has.
Something that's been rolling around in my brain for awhile, and began to crystallize while I was listening to this episode, is this: so many of the justifications being used to bomb Iran also apply to us, the U.S.
- A leader who believes he was divinely appointed, who is influenced by a cabinet/staff full of extremist religious views and figures
- A segment of leadership who believes in racial and ideological purity
- Leadership that desires to expand our territory (Greenland)
- Nuclear capability
- Hostility and violence toward our own citizens
- Undermining of election integrity and democratic principles
I could go on and on and on. I'm not saying Iran and the U.S. are exactly the same, and the level of violence committed by Iran against its citizens recently isn't comparable. It's just that if another country wanted to use our own justifications against us, they surely could. I don't have a point, necessarily, just that I'm trying to find words for my struggle with this hypocrisy. The U.S. has had an idea of itself as the arbiter of truth and freedom and democracy since WWII that just isn't real. I don't pretend to know what the right thing is regarding Iran, but something inside me (my values, my bias against Trump, my intuition, whatever) is pinging all over the place that this is a bad idea and we're really straining our relationships and standing with the rest of the world in a way I haven't seen before in my lifetime.
Recognizing that I have a true bias towards rules and process, everything happening under this administration reinforces the importance of rules and process!
Thank you for this interview Beth. It was interesting to hear another viewpoint from inside. I agree with other people that he sometimes appeared all over the place (just like the administration), but his inside information did give a small amount of comfort that the generals might actually have a plan, however, the lack of coherent conversation and talking points from the administration seems like they think that war is a video game. Keep up the great work!
I appreciated having my own views challenged by someone I know is thinking hard about this and trying to do what he believes is right
I heard Rep Landsman say that attacking Iran was necessary because we can’t take the chance that they might build a nuclear weapon. Then I heard him say that N Korea already has a nuclear weapon, but he is not concerned about that. I feel angry because I feel he’s telling me that the attack on Iran was obvious common sense, but N Korea is a situation that requires nuance.
I was surprised about North Korea, too. This morning I saw reporting that China is trying to re-assert itself in North Korea. Definitely something to keep an eye on. I wish that we would put maximal diplomatic effort into non-proliferation treaties.
This was an interesting conversation but I was disappointed with Rep Landsman’s statements about uranium and the threat that the Iranians pose. I don’t buy it, just as I didn’t buy the threat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The President’s behaviour to his allies has been appalling. I am no fan of Prime Minister Starmer, but I am 100% behind him in not getting involved. British opinion is on Starmer’s side. No one wants us to get involved.
If this administration hasn't even bothered to make the case for military action to US citizens, I'm CONFIDENT it hasn't made the case to our international allies (especially since this administration routinely offends and underminds our allies)
This conversation with Congressman Landsman was very interesting. I appreciate someone with a differing viewpoint being willing to explain his perspective and choices.
Full disclosure, I am an anti-war person. I do not see how the US-Israeli war with Iran and others is doing much other than inflicting more pain and suffering upon mostly civilians. It does appear many high-ranking leaders have been killed and different military resources have been destroyed, but my concern is always that this will lead to more hatred and hardline views for years to come.
It is difficult for me to see how one nation perceived as “good” is allowed to bully another nation who is perceived as “bad” or a bully. I mean, isn’t that how wars and invasions often begin? “I am good, and my way of life and religion is good. I must stop this military from stockpiling their weapons and save these other people from their ways.” Every group involved could say this as reason to attack the next. Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. But you see how the distrust and hatred gets embedded.
I was struck by the conversation around Hezbollah and Lebanon. Is the goal actually to make Lebanon a more free and safe place?
“Israeli forces are currently conducting more airstrikes on a daily basis across a wider area of the country and inside of Beirut itself than they had done on a monthly basis over the past year. At the same time, the Israeli army continues to expand its territorial occupation in southern Lebanon. As always, the brunt of the war is felt most heavily by civilians.”
(Regarding displaced people in Lebanon:)
“Of those 700,000 displaced people, over 200,000 are children. Between March 2nd and March 9th, at least 83 children have been killed in Lebanon, according to Unicef.
It is estimated that nearly 300 children have been killed across the region since the US-Israeli war began with Iran on February 28th. Nearly all of those children were Iranian or Lebanese.
It is not difficult to imagine what the international response would be if those same numbers of children were killed in a different country. In reality, the numbers of those killed and displaced is growing daily. According to another estimate from the UN Refugee Agency, over 33,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon have crossed back into Syria as a result of this ongoing war, along with at least 3,000 Lebanese refugees.”
From Saint Martin's Cloak: SMC - Ep. 4 - Voices from the Ground - Lebanon, Mar 10, 2026
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/saint-martins-cloak/id1880014643?i=1000754427944
I'm also extremely concerned about displacing people in this conflict
I really appreciated this conversation- I don’t think it changed my mind but it does help me hold more nuance.
YES
Beth, I really appreciate your patience and ability to push Congressman Landsman on his points throughout this conversation. You asked good questions and I'm glad he had this opportunity to be pushed. I'm really struggling with the sense that he thinks the US can differentiate itself from Israel as this conflict moves forward and Israel continues to act on different motives that what the US objectives are (if we even know what our objectives are - I remain skeptical). Also, thinking back to your episode a week ago about the future of war, it seems to me that the Congressman is viewing this conflict through the lens of war as we understood it 50 or 100 years ago, not the reality we see today. After the past 20-30 years, shouldn't we be well past the idea that we can do some targeted strikes and then move on without dire ongoing consequences?? It is deeply unnerving to me that our Congresspeople are this naive, after decades of Middle East conflict and a decade of Donald Trump.
I really appreciated a member of Congress being willing to invest the time in a conversation like this and responding to my pushback with respect. It's unusual. I share the concern that we risk repeating past mistakes here, especially given the personnel in this administration. I heard Rep. Landsman not as advocating for military control of our foreign policy but as advocating for military leadership of operations and tactics. I should have pressed that point with a clarifying question.
I also was left wanting about what we do now regarding this connection to Israel
No way is the region going to distinguish our bombs
And he seemed clear Israel’s aims are more widespread than ours. What do we do with that- why do we keep moving forward if the country we are doing it with has goals so out of alignment with our own. And I really appreciated his articulation of why this is happening AND I agree with the comments if the people actually in charge don’t seem to be aware of why they are doing it- it seems like it’s colluding with the idea that the generals have it covered and it doesn’t really matter what the President says and I think that’s dangerous…
Beth: on your Oura ring endorsement-I assume you find success by way of the data feedback making you recommit to the habits you know you need to embrace for good sleep?
Yes, and the data helps me identify patterns that I wouldn't otherwise.
This discussion really stretched me. I appreciated hearing Congressman Landsman’s points, made in good faith it seems, and I then “tried on” his perspective even as the seeming counter reality is in quite stark contrast from my limited view. (But I’m paying attention so I’m not totally discounting myself!)
I think the Congressman is an example of a Dem willing to find some agreement where he can even if I can’t quite see it fully with him.
In any case it was a good exercise for me personally. And I want to echo cheers for Beth’s interviewing skills, everywhere she asked a question or pushed in closer I also had those questions. And of course in some cases I didn’t have the question or thought until Beth asked it and I learned a lot. All around a helpful if challenging episode.
It's truly the hardest thing to disagree with your friends.
This is such a great, thoughtful conversation.
Beth, you asked great questions and brought up excellent points. I am really incensed by the Representative's responses on so many levels. My overall confusion is I do not understand why a Democrat feels the need to portray the war (and it is a war even if the hostilities only last a short time) in methodical, logical terms when the Commander in Chief has refused to do so. The generals do not have military objectives beyond those set forth by the president, with the assistance of the Sec of Defense. Congress should not authorize a dime until these objectives are spelled out by the individuals who are actually in charge. If the generals are the ones in charge, then we have an entirely different crisis on our hands.
I understand the frustration, truly! I also can imagine a sitting member of Congress feeling an enormous sense of responsibility to troops in the region that influences how I might think and talk about this. It's hard. I took Rep. Landsman's comments about the military objectives as meaning that the administration should be guided by military leaders on tactics and operations, not on overall strategy. I should have asked a clarifying question about that.
Couldn’t agree more. He also never adequately addressed how we are being made less safe by how this war is being waged. Appreciate Beth pushing back. The only thing I agreed with the Rep on is the need for more AI accountability and leadership.
I also really appreciated his thoughts on AI and would very much like to see a Department of AI.
Thanks for the thoughtful interview and pushing back. Two things really stood out…
- the number of times he said “hope” and “wish”. Good policy isn’t made by hope.
- He kept talking about how he wished Trump would follow the generals. But that’s not the system we have. The generals are supposed to follow the civilian leadership, and it’s dangerous to suggest otherwise (even if in this case, the generals are far wiser…)
I took those comments to mean that he should follow the military on tactics and operations, not strategy, and that perhaps he should follow the example of military leader's communications discipline. But I definitely should have asked a follow-up question about that.
Anyone else notice his description of the late ayatollah as an apocalyptic religious fanatic could also be applied to far too many people in the current administration as well?
I think this is so tricky because on one hand, yes -- I think there are many people in this administration who at least cosplay as religious to manipulate portions of public opinion. I'm really concerned about the complaints from service members that their up-the-chain leaders are casting this war in "holy" rhetoric. On the other hand, there is truly no comparison between our experiences in the US and the daily repression that the Iranian people endure. I was listening to a reporter from ABC News talk this morning on Start Here about how dangerous it is for her sources inside Iran to contact her at all, how they have to wait for a maybe-10-minute window of internet service to reach out to her, and how they have to do it secretly and she has to shield their identities. I read this morning that the government is stating that they're waiting with "fingers on the trigger" for any anti-regime protests. We have a problem here, no doubt. But it is and has been so, so extreme in Iran.
Yes, his statement about this was my aha moment. We also have a leader who believes he's chosen by god. Maybe he'll uphold democratic norms and transition power peacefully at the end of his term, maybe not. To me, the fact that we don't know for sure makes him closer to a supreme leader than a president.
Yesssss my first thought. Why is it ok here?! Hmmmm
One thousand percent!!
Also the bully talk.
Exactly what I was thinking and coming to comment on!