Former CIA officer John Sipher sits down for the latest Sentinel podcast with David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and one of the nation’s most respected political journalists. They dive deep into the explosive schisms within MAGA world triggered by the Iran war, from Tucker Carlson accusing Trump of being the anti‑Christ to escalating feuds between figures like Megyn Kelly and Mark Levin.

Corn explains why the FBI under Kash Patel has been gutted of counterterrorism expertise, how a reportedly Kremlin‑connected propagandist gave Patel $25,000, and why career national security officials are now terrified to speak with reporters. The conversation also covers RFK Jr.’s dangerous tenure at HHS, Tulsi Gabbard’s politicization of intelligence, and the media’s struggle to cover an administration that lies as a strategy. Corn offers a sobering assessment of American democracy’s fragility—and where he still finds hope.

David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones and a longtime national security and political journalist. He has covered presidents, scandals, and the rise of the modern right for more than three decades. He is the author of several books, including Russian Roulette (with Michael Isikoff) and the forthcoming How Russia Won. His newsletter, R‑Land, is available at davidcorn.com. You can find him on Bluesky at @davidcorn and on Signal at DavidCorn99.

View the transcript and watch the full podcast below:

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

War does not suspend the law—the principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, and humanity are not optional, and abandoning them carries real strategic and moral consequences.

In the several weeks since the United States and Israel attacked Iran, the President and Secretary of Defense have announced on a number of occasions that we are winning the war even as the air campaign continues. The President and the Secretary of Defense have identified bombing Iran “back to the Stone Age” as a strategic goal. The Secretary has talked about “giving no quarter” to the enemy and denigrated the need for Rules of Engagement and the requirements of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is in this context that a brief discussion of IHL, also referred to as the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), might help frame the conversation.

AI Generated Graphic

The core principles of IHL clearly apply to the war in Iran, as all three parties to the conflict are legally bound to follow IHL. The four basic principles of IHL (distinction, military necessity, proportionality and humanity) are established in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977. These principles seek to provide a legal framework under which armed forces will strive to focus on military targets and limit collateral damage to both people and property to the greatest extent possible.

The implementation of IHL in practice involves difficult and controversial judgments that weigh military necessity against likely collateral damage, to include civilian deaths. Unlike much of our war experience since 9/11 against terrorist and insurgent groups in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, our war with Iran is much more of a traditional conflict against a state actor. Iran is likewise bound by IHL, and any violation of IHL by either side is a potential war crime.

Distinction.

The principle of distinction, added to the Geneva Conventions by the 1977 Additional Protocols, requires parties to a conflict to always distinguish between civilians and combatants, and direct operations only against military targets. Distinction is the most humanitarian of the basic principles, in that it requires military forces at all times to distinguish between military and non-military personnel and military and non-military targets

The principle of distinction covers not only people, but also places. Certain areas, including hospitals and schools, are presumed to be protected from military attack. Protected sites may lose their protected status if they are used for military purposes. Other sites, such as bridges, are of both civilian and military use. In such cases, the burden is on the side making the attack to make the military case for the strike.

Military Necessity

Military Necessity allows all measures necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose so long as these measures are not otherwise prohibited by IHL. It is a legitimate military purpose to defeat the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, but military necessity does not allow disproportionate or indiscriminate targeting, nor does it allow activities whose purpose is to spread terror among a civilian population. As stated in Rule 54 of the Additional Protocols, an attacking force is not permitted to destroy “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” Heated rhetoric directed at making Iran uninhabitable calls into question the underlying purpose of continuing air attacks and only invites similar retaliation from Iran.

Proportionality

Proportionality recognizes that incidental harm will occur to civilians during military operations. As with the principle of distinction, proportionality as a concept asks the question of whether anticipated harm to the civilian population is “excessive” relative to the military advantage that is anticipated from the military action. In general, proportionality requires judging each attack on its own merits. In a campaign as massive as the current US and Israel bombing campaign, proportionality judgments must be made countless times each day, highlighting the importance of Rules of Engagement. Because proportionality assumes collateral damage, an objective assessment of whether projected military advantage outweighs anticipated damage to civilian life and infrastructure is a difficult but necessary decision.

Humanity.

The fourth IHL principle is humanity, found at Article 35, which has two major provisions. The first prohibits the use of weapons intended to cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” The second prohibits employing methods intended or likely to cause widespread and long-term severe damage to the natural environment. The harsh environment of the Middle East means that populations require desalinization plants to meet water needs and electricity to power air conditioning as a matter of survival for much of the region’s population. In this way, the principle of humanity is related to military necessity.

IHL provides a legal framework under which nations have agreed to conduct military action. The US military has always taken IHL requirements seriously, even as other nations (e.g. Russia) do not. The US military has always prided itself on respecting IHL as a means of effective and honorable warfare. We can only hope that the inappropriate rhetoric emanating from the White House and the Pentagon does not alter the conduct of our uniformed men and women who are fighting this war.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career, at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

By Guest Author (Name Withheld)

When a country starts treating belonging as conditional and dissent as dangerous, it’s no longer deciding who gets to stay, but whether democracy itself will endure.

I came to America in the summer of 2016. I was twelve years old. My family and I landed at Newark Liberty International Airport, and though I didn’t fully understand what it meant to be in “the land of milk and honey,” I could see the hope in my parents’ eyes, and in the eyes of everyone we left behind. Everything felt new: the sounds, the smells, the vastness of the place. I was overwhelmed, but more than anything, I was excited. We had arrived.

My parents had not come for themselves alone; they foresaw a place where we could all have real stability. Not the precarious kind they had known. For them, being here meant a good American education for my siblings and me, endless job opportunities and the chance to dream, and expand on those dreams. They saw themselves earning enough not just to raise a family, but to have something they had rarely experienced: a full life, not one consumed entirely by the worry of making ends meet. They aimed to send money back home to relatives, paying for my cousins’ school fees, covering medical bills. And, most of all, they saw peace of mind. The idea that if they found good jobs and worked hard, they would be able to provide for their children and set us up for better, more stable futures: Higher education, help for people back home and everything they had not been able to have growing up.

The months that followed were not easy. My parents left before dawn and returned late at night, working jobs that wore them down. My mother struggled to adjust to new tastes, new attitudes, new people. I was the new girl in school, and as the oldest child, I had to help my parents navigate a system we barely understood. Still, we were building something.

Ten years later, I am a U.S. citizen. As a college student, I conduct research. I have found my academic path, and I have finally grown comfortable identifying as American. My parents have bought their first house in a quiet suburban neighborhood and can work sensible hours. They feel like they belong. For the first time since we arrived, the American dream has begun to feel real.

And Donald Trump was elected again.

Almost immediately, the administration rolled out policies that made our hard‑won stability feel fragile. Expedited removal was expanded, allowing deportation without a court hearing for anyone who could not prove they had been in the country for more than two years. An executive order attempted to end birthright citizenship, directly challenging the 14th Amendment. Sanctuary cities were threatened with the loss of federal funding. The IRS, Social Security Administration, and other agencies were ordered to share data with ICE, turning routine government functions into deportation infrastructure. A new nationwide registration system required non‑citizens, including children as young as fourteen, to submit fingerprints and personal information or face detention. Family detention was relaunched, and the task force reuniting families separated during the first term was disbanded.

These were not abstract policies. They created real fear. Now I find myself asking questions that never occurred to me before: Should I carry my passport everywhere I go? Does it even matter, or could I still end up in a detention center?

But the targeting has not stopped at immigration. Federal agents have been used to suppress protests, sometimes with tear gas. Student activists, including foreign students, have had their visas revoked for participating in campus demonstrations. The White House has pressured agencies to purge documents containing terms like “diversity,” “equality,” and “gender.” Broadcast licenses have been threatened for news outlets that produce critical reporting, which the president has labeled “enemies of the people.” The Department of Justice has been weaponized to investigate and prosecute political critics.

Then there are the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Two white American citizens, speaking for their rights, ended up dead. If two citizens can face that fate while exercising their freedoms, what does that say about where I, a Black immigrant, could end up if I encounter the same forces? This goes beyond race. It goes beyond citizenship status. It becomes a question of humanity, of democracy, of whether the little person can still be heard. It becomes a question of whether this country still cares more about its people than about political retribution and authoritarian consolidation.

This nation was built to be a home, a safe haven, a place for second chances, a place to start over. My family and I found that version of America, at least for a while. But under the second Trump administration, that America feels like a memory we can barely hold onto.

The American dream, the one my parents carried with them through the doors of Newark Liberty, has been cheapened. The values this country was built on are being stripped away. And what is replacing them is not strength, but fear, not democracy, but authoritarianism dressed in executive orders.

Guest Author (Name Withheld) is an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. at age twelve, the author is now a citizen, college student, and researcher. Having witnessed the first of Donald Trump’s terms, and currently living through the second, they remain grateful for what America has offered while feeling a deep responsibility to speak out and work for what it could yet become.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence, was also the first Secretary of State. Like George Washington, he wanted to avoid ‘entangling alliances,’ but also wanted to stress foreign commerce.

Through forced exits, ideological enforcement, and institutional neglect, the State Department is being transformed into a tool of loyalty rather than a source of expertise.

On the first day of Donald Trump’s first term in office, he fired every American ambassador appointed by his predecessor, demanding that they leave their offices by noon on January 20, without exception. Some 80 ambassadors for countries, international organizations, and agencies, and issues were summarily dismissed, with no replacements named. Departing from tradition, the dismissals also included career government personnel serving as ambassadors, who ordinarily would be allowed to serve out their terms before being replaced. From that point on, he showed a preference for appointing friends or relatives to deal with foreign affairs, sidelining the Department of State, and often referring to it as the ‘Deep’ State. His first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and Tillerson’s successor, Mike Pompeo, resisted some of Trump’s more egregious actions, despite his blatant disdain for the personnel responsible for conducting American diplomacy.

Fast forward to Trump 2.0, and the guardrails providing a modicum of protection for America’s career diplomats have been, to use one of Trump’s favorite terms, “completely obliterated,” with the appointment of Marco Rubio. Rubio, the former US Senator from Florida, has demonstrated nothing but fealty to Trump’s efforts to complete the dismantling of anything resembling professional American diplomacy.

The administration’s actions to destroy American diplomacy have been blatant and deliberate, but unprecedented only in their scope and cruelty.

American political leaders have always had a jaundiced view of diplomats, beginning with America’s first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a March 1800 statement:

“The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants”

Thomas’s quote has often been truncated to “America only needs commercial counselors, not diplomats.” That is greatly overstating it, but this country’s leaders have, from the very beginning, been uncomfortable with ‘traditional’ diplomacy, often preferring personal envoys to solve specific problems, and interpreting ‘disentanglement’ from the affairs of other nations as a call for isolationism. Before 1893, for instance, the U.S. appointed senior representatives as Ministers rather than Ambassadors. There were no career American diplomats until the creation of the U.S. Foreign Service by The Foreign Service Act of 1924, which combined the diplomatic service and consular service into one organization whose employees were chosen on merit rather than by the spoils system.

What we’ve seen since January 2025, however, is a full-throated return, not just to the pre-1924 spoils system, but a perversion of Washington and Jefferson’s ‘avoid foreign entanglements’ caution in ways that neither of the Founding Fathers would be likely to recognize.

During the first year of his second term in office, Trump has engaged in transactional diplomacy, gunboat diplomacy, and scattershot, unpredictable diplomacy, all without career diplomats. To ensure that our diplomatic missions abroad adhere to his ‘America First’ policy, he abruptly pulled 30 career ambassadors and other senior career diplomats from their overseas posts. The recalled personnel were ordered to ‘find other jobs,’ or resign. The posts they vacated have remained vacant. According to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), as of April 2026, Trump has appointed only 6 career diplomats to ambassadorial or senior foreign service positions of the 76 total appointments. In the first seven months of his second term, he forced nearly 10 percent of the federal workforce from their jobs, which included a one-day layoff of 1,300 State Department employees. The layoffs were conducted without consultation with AFSA, as it usually would, and without providing a logical justification for individual cuts, leaving embassies and offices in Washington bereft of experienced employees to address multiple global crises.

Within the State Department, in addition to forcing out many senior, experienced people, which deprives the nation of centuries of institutional memory, all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, rules, individuals, and organizations were banned; employees were forbidden to engage in employee union activities on duty time, and the only affinity group that was recognized by Rubio’s State Department was the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, an organization of conservative-leaning department personnel. America First principles have also been instituted in the State Department’s National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NAFTC) curriculum and in the administration of the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT), imposing Trump’s ideology and personal loyalty requirements on the selection and indoctrination of America’s diplomats for decades to come.

We can see in real time the damage that Trump’s erratic, unpredictable, chaotic, transactional worldview is doing to American diplomacy and the world order that the United States helped create in the aftermath of World War II. Sudden cuts in foreign aid programs have led to thousands of preventable deaths in the world’s poorer countries, and undercut trust in the U.S. around the world. While loyalty to the decisions and policies of the elected leadership has always been a requirement of the career diplomatic service, there was also a duty to advise on problematic decisions and to push back against directives that violated the Constitution. In this administration, that is no longer the case. Employees are either afraid to speak out or have been selected based on their personal loyalty and choose not to.

Over time, this new reality can become the new normal. This mindset will have infected the institution from top to bottom. The trust that has been broken will not be easily restored. In the meantime, American diplomacy will be but a ghost of its former self. Where American diplomats were, even in countries where our policies were not liked, they were viewed with a modicum of respect; we will be ignored or vilified. We will have gone from being the antithesis of the autocratic societies we stood against to being ‘just another jackboot dictatorship.’

A house can be burned down in minutes. This is something I know from personal experience. But that house takes months to rebuild. We’re watching the deconstruction of American diplomacy, and it’s not in slow motion. The foundation is still there, but for how long, and what will it take to rebuild?

These are questions that every American should be asking—and to which they should be demanding answers.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

By Guest Author: H.E. Emmett Imani

When pressure sounds like permission to target civilian lifelines, it stops deterring adversaries and starts inviting escalation—with consequences that won’t stay theoretical.

The current tone surrounding Donald Trump and Iran is not simply another episode of political pressure. It is moving into a territory where language itself begins to shape outcomes.

Recent remarks referencing the destruction of bridges and electrical generation systems deserve careful attention. These are not abstract targets. They’re parts of civilian life. Hospitals, water systems, communications, and food distribution are sustained by power grids. Bridges are not just transportation routes. They are arteries for civilian movement, evacuation, and economic continuity.

Under the framework of the Geneva Conventions, actions affecting civilian infrastructure are subject to longstanding international legal standards governing proportionality and distinction. Public statements that seem to endorse or normalize attacks on such systems without clearly defined military necessity could risk being interpreted as inconsistent with these obligations. Even when no action follows, the signaling itself carries weight.

This is where misinterpretation begins to expand beyond intent.

Other nations, particularly those already skeptical of U.S. strategic posture, may read such language not as conditional or tactical, but as permissive. A willingness to degrade civilian infrastructure can be interpreted as a lowering of thresholds. That perception does not remain contained. It travels through diplomatic channels, intelligence assessments, and alliance discussions. It shapes reactions.

The strategic consequences are immediate, even if they are not always visible.

Escalatory rhetoric increases regional risk. It raises the probability of miscalculation across the Gulf. It places pressure on already fragile balances involving energy transit routes, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, where even limited disruption has global economic implications. It complicates alliance cohesion, especially among partners who must publicly reconcile security cooperation with adherence to humanitarian norms.

At the same time, history suggests something more grounded, almost predictable. Broad threats against civilian systems rarely produce negotiation leverage. They tend to consolidate internal resistance. They narrow political space inside the targeted country. They make compromise look like surrender.

If the objective is to influence Iran’s leadership, this approach works against that goal.

There are alternatives, and they are not theoretical. They are practical, available, and consistent with both strategic and legal considerations.

First, recalibrate public language. Clarify that U.S. objectives remain limited and do not target civilian systems. Precision here is not cosmetic. It directly affects how messages are received and interpreted.

Second, signal conditional restraint. Pair any pressure with a visible boundary that reassures both allies and adversaries that escalation is not open-ended.

Third, open or reaffirm a diplomatic channel. Pressure without a pathway leads nowhere. Even adversarial engagement requires a defined exit ramp.

Fourth, reaffirm adherence to international humanitarian principles in both rhetoric and operational planning. This is not only a legal position. It is a strategic one. Credibility depends on consistency.

It is also important to acknowledge the reality facing leadership at this level. Decisions are not made in isolation. They are shaped by competing pressures, incomplete information, and urgency. That is understood. But it is precisely under those conditions that restraint becomes a strategic asset rather than a limitation.

As the Guardian of the House of Afshar, I emphasize that Iran is not reducible to its governing structure. It is a society with continuity, complexity, and a civilian population that cannot be abstracted into strategic targets. As an Ambassador of Peace, I emphasize that conflict prevention begins before conflict itself. It begins with language that does not unintentionally authorize escalation.

President Trump’s words, particularly regarding infrastructure, sit in a space where they can be understood in more than one way. That ambiguity is the risk. When references to disabling a nation’s lifelines enter public discourse without clear limitation, they begin to resemble, even if unintentionally, the language associated with prohibited conduct.

There remains a narrow window to recalibrate. To clarify intent. To restore precision in communication and preserve diplomatic options that have not yet fully closed

Because the question is no longer rhetorical.

When a leader speaks of dismantling the essential systems that sustain civilian life, even as a form of pressure, the world is left to decide how to interpret it. Whether as strategy, or as something closer to the edge of what international law was designed to prevent.

And once that line begins to blur, it does not stay theoretical for long.

Guest Author H.E. Emmett Imani is Guardian of the House of Afshar. Guardian of the House of Afshar, Ambassador of Peace, UNESCO Center for Peace. Founded by his descendants, [the House of Ashar] seeks to preserve, promote, and share the rich cultural, historical, and familial heritage of the Afshar dynasty, ensuring it is passed on to future generations. The House of Afshar stands as a symbol of unity, pride, and the enduring legacy of a remarkable history.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.