The fastest way a “regional conflict” becomes a global problem is through chokepoints, and we spend this conversation mapping the ones that matter. Dave DeCamp joins me to explain why a US move toward direct intervention in Yemen could trigger the exact kind of escalation Washington says it wants to avoid, including threats to US commercial shipping through the Bab el Mandeb Strait. We also dig into the part most headlines skip: Yemen is not just a proxy story. It has its own timelines, its own internal power balance, and actors making decisions for local advantage, not simply on command.

From there we turn to the Strait of Hormuz and the sharp rise in attacks on commercial shipping. If the US is trying to avoid an energy shock ahead of elections, what does Iran gain by pushing the pressure now, and what does Washington’s muted response tell us about escalation risk? We talk through the signals, the “tanker for a tanker” talk that didn’t fully materialize, and why market psychology and politics often steer military choices more than officials admit.

We also get into the ugly reality of negotiation under fire. When leaders are targeted and senior officials are killed, it does not just make talks “harder” in theory, it wrecks trust and reshapes what any side is willing to sign. Finally, we pivot to Ukraine, where mixed messages about intelligence sharing, energy ceasefires, Starlink issues, and headline-grabbing “deals” raise a familiar question: is this coherent policy, election-cycle positioning, or improvised crisis control?

If you found this useful, subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review. What part of this puzzle do you think is most likely to explode next?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download