Michael: Alright Kevin, before we dive in, if Mike Pompeo’s memoir, Never Give an Inch, were a movie, what would its tagline be? Kevin: Ooh, that's easy. 'The World is a Nail, and I'm a Hammer.' Or maybe, 'Diplomacy is for people who haven't tried yelling louder.' Michael: That's not far off! Today we're diving into Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love by Mike Pompeo. And it's a fascinating read because Pompeo has a unique perspective—he was the only person in the Trump administration to serve all four years in a top national security role, first as CIA Director and then as Secretary of State. Kevin: And it's been a really polarizing book. Supporters praise it as a candid, patriotic look at 'America First' in action, while critics often label it as self-serving. So there's a lot to unpack. Michael: That polarization is exactly what makes it interesting. And nothing captures the book's core philosophy better than his 'Pipehitter' doctrine. Kevin: 'Pipehitter'? That sounds like something out of a 1980s action movie. What on earth does that mean in the context of foreign policy? Michael: It's a term he uses for people who get their hands dirty, who aren't afraid of conflict, and who are relentlessly focused on winning. He says he wanted to fill the CIA and the State Department with them. For Pompeo, the world isn't a global community of partners; it's a 'mean, nasty world,' as he puts it, and you need tough people to navigate it. Kevin: Okay, so it’s a mindset. It’s about being proactive, maybe even aggressive, instead of reactive. Michael: Exactly. It’s the core of his first major principle: confrontation over appeasement. And there's no better example of this in action than the story of the strike against Qasem Soleimani.

Kevin: Right, the Iranian general. I remember the world holding its breath when that happened. It felt like we were moments away from all-out war. Michael: And that’s the common perception. But Pompeo frames it completely differently in the book. He paints a picture of escalating aggression from Iran throughout 2019. Iran-backed militias were launching rocket attacks on American facilities in Iraq, culminating in a strike in late December that killed an American contractor and wounded several service members. Kevin: I remember the images of the US embassy in Baghdad being stormed. It felt like a flashback to other moments in history. Michael: It was. And for Pompeo, that was the breaking point. The book details how he, along with Secretary of Defense Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Milley, were tracking Soleimani, who they believed was in the region orchestrating a new, larger wave of attacks against American diplomats and soldiers. Deterrence was failing. Kevin: So their argument was that doing nothing was the more dangerous option? Michael: Precisely. Pompeo describes flying to Mar-a-Lago to present the options to President Trump. He writes that they made the case that Soleimani was a legitimate military target and that failing to act would shatter American credibility. The message was clear: if we don't draw a hard line here, the attacks will only get worse. Kevin: Okay, but this is the ultimate 'never give an inch' moment. To the outside world, this looked like a massive escalation. How does Pompeo justify this as de-escalation? That sounds like a complete contradiction. Michael: His logic is that true escalation would be allowing Iran to continue its attacks unchecked, leading to more American deaths and a potential large-scale conflict down the line. The strike, in his view, was a shocking, decisive action designed to re-establish deterrence. It was about sending an unmistakable message: 'We know what you're doing, and we will hold you personally accountable.' He argues it was a calculated risk to prevent a much greater one. Kevin: It’s a high-stakes poker game, then. He’s essentially saying, ‘I’m raising the bet so high that you’ll have to fold.’ But what if they had called his bluff? Iran did retaliate with missile strikes on a US base. Michael: They did, and the book addresses that. After the Iranian missile strike, which miraculously caused no American casualties, Iran sent a message through the Swiss saying that was the totality of their response. For Pompeo, this was proof the strategy worked. He had called their bluff, they made a face-saving gesture, and the immediate crisis was over. He believes it sent a shockwave not just through Tehran, but to adversaries in Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang. Kevin: It’s a bold, almost frighteningly confident worldview. The idea that you can control the chaos by introducing an even bigger, more targeted piece of chaos. It’s the definition of a 'pipehitter' move. Michael: It is. And it’s a philosophy that extends beyond just military action. It’s about drawing lines everywhere and defending them relentlessly, whether with allies, enemies, or international organizations. Kevin: That idea of making a hard, controversial choice for a strategic gain brings us to another really thorny issue in the book: the relationship with Saudi Arabia, especially after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Michael: Yes, this is where the 'principled realism' of the 'America First' doctrine gets really tested. The Khashoggi affair was a global firestorm. A journalist, and a critic of the Saudi regime, was brutally murdered inside a consulate. The outcry was immense, and the pressure on the Trump administration to punish Saudi Arabia, and specifically Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, was enormous. Kevin: And rightly so. It was a horrific act. So how does Pompeo defend maintaining a close relationship with them after that? This is where many critics say the book feels like a justification of morally questionable choices. Michael: Pompeo doesn't shy away from that criticism. He confronts it head-on. His argument is purely strategic. He says, yes, the murder was heinous, but the alliance with Saudi Arabia was absolutely indispensable for achieving larger American goals in the Middle East. Kevin: What goals specifically? Michael: Primarily, countering Iran. Pompeo saw Iran as the central destabilizing force in the region. The Saudis were the key counterweight. He argues that without a strong US-Saudi partnership, the maximum pressure campaign on Iran would have failed. Furthermore, he credits that partnership with paving the way for the Abraham Accords, the historic peace deals between Israel and several Arab nations. Kevin: So it's like a geopolitical version of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' You hold your nose and partner with someone you find morally repulsive because they are your best defense against an even bigger threat? Michael: That's a perfect way to put it. He quotes Alexander Hamilton, arguing that a leader's primary duty is to their own nation's interests, not to universal 'kindness or humanity' at the expense of their people. For him, abandoning the Saudis would have empowered Iran, endangered Israel, and ultimately made America less safe. It was a cold, hard calculation. Kevin: But this is where critics say 'America First' becomes a blank check for human rights abuses. Where do you draw the line? Pompeo seems to draw it very, very far out. He even recounts a story where he gets into a shouting match at a Georgetown dinner party, defending the decision. Michael: He does, and he's completely unapologetic about it. He essentially tells the other guests they should be thanking him for protecting them from radical Islamists. It’s a raw, unfiltered moment in the book. For him, the line is clear: does this action, however distasteful, ultimately protect American sovereignty and security? If the answer is yes, he's willing to take the political heat. Kevin: It’s a consistent philosophy, I’ll give him that. It applies to more than just Saudi Arabia. He talks about pulling out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord or the UN Human Rights Council for the same reason. Michael: Exactly. He saw many of these multilateral bodies as places where American sovereignty was being eroded. He describes a meeting of the Arctic Council where other nations tried to force climate change language into a joint statement. He refused, and the meeting ended without a consensus statement. For him, that was a victory. It was America refusing to be bound by a global consensus that he felt didn't serve its interests. Kevin: It’s a worldview that sees international relations not as a cooperative project, but as a constant power struggle. You either assert your interests, or other nations will assert theirs over you. Michael: That's the essence of it. It’s about rejecting the idea that globalism is an end in itself. He argues that for decades, America made bad deals—letting China into the WTO, the Iran nuclear deal—out of a misplaced faith in the international system. His mission was to stop making what he calls 'bad deals.'

Kevin: So when you put it all together, you get this incredibly stark picture of the world. It’s a dangerous arena, and you need to be the strongest, toughest player in it. Michael: That's right. You have these two pillars of Pompeo's worldview. First, the 'Pipehitter' doctrine: a belief that you must meet threats with overwhelming strength to establish deterrence. This is the Soleimani strike. It’s about going on offense. Kevin: And second, this cold-blooded realism about alliances and sovereignty. This is the Saudi relationship after Khashoggi. It’s about making pragmatic, even morally difficult, choices to protect what you define as your core national interest. Michael: And he argues these two ideas are deeply rooted in American tradition, even if they seem radical today. He sees it as a return to the principles of the Founders, who he believes were clear-eyed realists about human nature and power. Kevin: It really forces you to ask a fundamental question about foreign policy: Should it be a reflection of our highest ideals, or a pragmatic tool to protect our interests in a world that doesn't share those ideals? Pompeo clearly lands on the latter. Michael: He does, and he makes no apologies for it. He quotes Alexander Hamilton, saying rulers are 'trustees for the happiness and interest of their nation' and can't follow 'kindness or humanity toward others, to the prejudice of their constituents.' It's a stark, unapologetic view of leadership. Kevin: It’s a tough pill to swallow for many. And it’s a debate that’s far from over. We’d love to hear what you think. Does this kind of hard-nosed realism make sense, or does it compromise too much? Let us know your thoughts on our socials. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.