What does the United States think it's

going to gain from decapitating the

Iranian leadership?

>> Well, that that's kind of obvious based

on what the president has said. It's

that

>> on what the president has said.

>> I'm I'm just saying based on what the

president says.

>> You can't trust anything that you're

hearing right now. You can't trust

anything that you're reading right now.

Two to multiply.

>> It's not paranoid. Absolutely. It is

paranoid to suggest that everything is

misinformation. Iran doesn't have a

nuclear weapon. So, it's not a nuclear

threat.

>> You speak a different nuclear language

than I do. This regime is at its lowest

lowest point. Why not strike it now?

>> I mean, I can give lots of reasons why

you wouldn't strike it. The ability to

create their own.

>> What are you concerned about? And what

are the unintended consequences that

you're foreseeing?

>> There is a domino effect that happens

with every decision that the United

States makes. So

>> guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you.

We're approaching a significant

subscriber milestone on this show and

roughly 69% of you that listen and love

this show haven't yet subscribed for

whatever reason. If there was ever a

time for you to do us a favor, if we've

ever done anything for you, given you

value in any way, it is simply hitting

that subscribe button. And it means so

much to myself, but also to my team

because when we hit these milestones, we

go away as a team and celebrate. And

it's the thing, the simple, free, easy

thing you can do to help make this show

a little bit better every single week.

So that's a favor I would ask you. And

um if you do hit the subscribe button, I

won't let you down. And we'll continue

to find small ways to make this whole

production better. Thank you so much for

being part of this journey. Means the

world. And uh yeah, let's do this.

Benjamin, Annie, Andrew, first and

foremost, thank you for being here

today. I I have to start with the

question that's been on my mind as

somebody that doesn't know a huge amount

about geopolitics, which is what the

hell is going on? And I and I say that

because that's exactly what I mean. What

is going on and what context do I need

to understand this sort of historical

context of the actions we're seeing in

Iran with this war right now? Benjamin,

I know you've got a a personal

connection to Iran because your family

fled Iran, I believe.

>> Yeah, I was uh I was 2 years old when we

left in March of 1979. Um uh a few

months after the sha had left and uh

just after Hani had arrived.

>> What is the sha and what is hermeni?

Yeah, sorry. The sha uh the former

monarch of Iran um the Pathfi dynasty

which came into power in the 1930s

deposing a previous dynasty that had

been around for a couple hundred years

and um the he his father brought in that

dynasty and then it was eventually he

was deposed by the British and the

Americans who felt he was getting too

close to the Nazis during World War II

concerned about supply routes for the

Nazis, oil and his son was installed on

the throne at a very young age, I

believe 18 or 19 and Um he ruled Iran

from uh from that period 1941

1942 around that time all the way

through 79 a great ally of the United

States over over time eventually um and

uh was depos was um overthrown on a

revolution and uh by Kumeni who was a

senior cleric who had been a thorn in

the Shaw side since the 60s was exiled

first to Turkey then Iraq then

ultimately to France right outside Paris

actually from there he basically led the

revolution ution that led to the sha's

uh removal um after 79.

>> And how was Iran different when the sha

was in power versus when her was in

power?

>> That depends on who you ask. Um it was a

constitutional monarchy. The sha had

powers that exceeded beyond what we

think a constitutional monarchy has

today like in Great Britain. Um he was

he ruled with an iron fist when he

needed to. He was an authoritarian, but

he also was one that was rapidly

modernizing Iranian society, wanted to

make it more like the West, using Iran's

immense oil resources and wealth to

really accelerate development, building

of social institutions, healthcare, uh,

literacy, modernization, all of those

things. That was his focus. Make Iran

more like the West. And, uh, in that

sense, he succeeded, but it came at the

expense often times of civil liberties

for many people. It came at the expense

of freedom for those who wanted to

essentially practice religion, Islam,

Shia, Islam in their own way. The Sha

was not hostile to religion, but he he

his policies were inconsistent with

where the traditional religious Iranians

wanted to go. And it sort of created a

schism in society. And you also had um a

wealth gap, an income disparity.

Immense wealth poured into the country,

but it didn't trickle its way downward

into the sort of the village and rural

poor. And so there was a lot of

frustration, a lot of disenchantment

with his policies. And that led to sort

of this populist backlash of wanting

something that was more democratic, more

accountable, uh more like the West uh

ironically. And uh and that sort of was

the beginning of of where that cycle

led.

>> And so how did Hani take power of Iran?

He led a movement, a mass populist

movement, not a religious one, but meant

to um go across multiple socio-economic

and political divides and unified the

opposition under this idea of removing

the monarchy, removing dependence on the

west. He specifically said Iran uh the

United States was to large part to blame

for Iran being in the state that it was,

for people not having the the the the

things they needed to live, the

freedoms, the liberties. He blamed the

Shaw's um use of the secret police and

torture methods on the United States and

on Israel who he claimed, you know,

taught the secret police how to do these

things. Um there's a complicated sort of

history to that. And he basically

promised them salvation from a what he

did what he portrayed as a puppet tyrant

of the United States and the masses

bought into this. But both the left and

the right really the right consisted of

the the black the Islamists. So you had

the red which were sort of the the

Marxist socialist uh followers. You had

the black and then you had sort of that

middle in between and they all coalesed

around this one charismatic religious

figure very um austere man um one who

didn't really have a lot of luxuries

himself led a simple life but was

consistent with his opposition to what

he saw uh tyranny and despatism and

people bought into it

>> and the Americans didn't like this. The

Americans didn't know what to make of

it. And there was a failure, and I think

Andrew can talk about this as well, over

a failure by the State Department, the

CIA in the 70s to see where the threat

was. They saw the threat coming from the

Soviet Union. They they were still

afraid of Soviet encroachment in the

Middle East, particularly through Iran.

Their concerns were with the Marxists,

the Communist parties. They did not

carefully look at the black. They didn't

look at the Islamists. They didn't see

them as a threat until it was too late.

The Shaw himself blocked or really

didn't give the CIA full access to Iran.

There was limited information that was

coming out. He relied on his own u

intelligence which fed him information

he wanted to hear which is that

everything is going great. The country

is doing well. The people love you.

They're all happy until the discontent

and the the protest became they reached

a threshold and it was too late to do

anything about it.

>> Yeah. The United States was kind of at

their peak period of meddling in foreign

governments at the time. Um kind of uh

in a strange way that we've come full

circle. This idea of of controlling an

entire country by controlling the

figurehead of the country. That's where

we were in the uh late '7s at the kind

of brink of the Cold War, right? Nobody

knew that the Berlin Wall was going to

fall. We were all concerned with the

spread of communism. Nobody was paying

attention to the Islamist threat. Nobody

was paying attention to really any other

kind of threat at all. was very much the

the

unfettered, uncontrolled,

unsupervised CIA running around with no

oversight and with very deep pockets.

>> And that changed at some point.

>> That changed in 2001 when uh al-Qaeda

successfully carried out the 911 attacks

in New York. And all of a sudden, the

threat that we had all been ignoring was

on our doorstep and had grown so wealthy

and had spread so vast across the world

that Islamic extremism became almost

overnight a household term. Now, there's

still a difference between al-Qaeda,

Islamic Shia extremism, and what is

practiced in the Shia faith and with the

outcomes that the Shia militants are

trying to pursue uh in support of Iran.

But it's hard to differentiate that in

the United States where we don't

understand the difference between Sunni

and Shia.

>> Annie, what do you think this war is

really about?

>> Very interesting what you both said and

I think what I would add to that to that

which very much speaks to today is that

the CIA in fact had many ups and downs

over the decades from its creation right

after World War II until this moment in

time and then on 911. And so it's been

like an accordion experience of power

being taken away from the CIA and then

being grabbed back because the CIA has

always historically been the president's

hidden hand. It has been the way in

which the White House can execute

executive power without having to follow

the laws of war that the military does.

So military is a code called title 10.

CIA is a code called Title 50. And while

that may sound a bit wonkish, it is

important to understand because Title 50

essentially, as Andrew can speak to,

gives the president authority under

classified presidential directive to

change any rule he wants that suits him

for an operation at hand, which gets us

precisely to where we are today.

>> So, as far as I understand, there was

the Sha, the sort of royal leader who

was in power. He was overthrown in the

late 1970s by Hermeni. Hermeni

galvanized people to believe in his way

and he's been in power ever since.

>> It gets complicated because homi with an

O was the original leader of the

revolution and was later replaced by Hy

with an A. Okay, there's two and but no

that's that is

>> the supreme leader the you know and this

speaks to the revolutionary nature of

Iran which has been you know taking

place since 1979 you know in the news

today people hear the um IR you know the

Iranian revolutionary guard and it's so

important to understand that word

revolution because and you can speak to

this better than any of us but Iran has

been holding on to this idea uh that or

rather the regime has that we are the

revolutionary force against America.

That is why the chant is always death to

America. The wound of 19 of pre-1975,

the wound of America meddling and having

the shaw as its puppet is as inflamed or

was as inflamed two days ago as it was

the day after the revolution in 1979.

>> I think that's probably important

context. we m missed which was the US

got involved in the sha and how he

governed Iran.

>> It's a fascinating period in 1951. So

basically under the Iranian constitution

the sha the king has the authority to

select the prime minister with the

consent of parliament. The consent part

is really nominal and so Mosad who is a

senior member of parliament and also a

member of the previous royal dynasty is

distantly related. this um elderly

statesman who the sha out of sort of

courtesy after having gone through a

successive list of prime ministers says

okay I'm going to appoint him prime

minister so he wasn't democratically

elected he was the he was elected to

parliament but from there the sha

selected him to be prime minister

mosadak nationalized the oil company the

Anglo-American oil company which was

owned primarily by the British this

angered the British who in turn

blockaded Iran's ports and basically

shut down its oil um industry and

creating a national crisis. Um, and

Mosatk was sort of amassing additional

powers within himself uh for himself

basically overstepping the authority

that he had even though he had the

support of a good deal of the public as

it became obvious that this was a a bad

move especially in the eyes of um Iran's

international trading partners and it

was causing Iran to be um isolated.

There was push back towards him and then

he was removed. The British had wanted

MI6 had wanted to overthrow him,

basically get him removed and they um

try to recruit the United States to

help. Um President Truman refused to

engage in this earlier. Eisenhower comes

in is more receptive under CIA CIA

director Alan Dulles to actually engage

in this called operation TP Ajax led by

Kermit Roosevelt who is the CIA agent uh

officer tasked with this. And then the

Americans and the British basically help

ferment a crowd that is a part of the

movement that removes mosatk. Now

whether it's a common I think a

misconception that the US CIA was behind

it. The British had a bigger role in in

this. The um Americans were more of the

junior partner but they became sort of

the public face of it.

>> But Moad was not this overwhelmingly

popular democratically elected figure

either. The history is more complicated.

And regardless um there have been many

prime min there were many prime

ministers after him. Um and so he was

known as a nationalist because he

believed that Iran's oil should be

nationalized and not really beholden to

British interests and that created a lot

of u resentment and animosity. But that

began the US Iranian relationship really

solidified when the sha returned. He

didn't leave really he just sort of took

himself out of the country for a bit but

he never stepped down. Um and while this

was all being resolved then he comes

back and then the the US Iranian

relationship continues all the way

through 79.

>> So the UK and the US have been meddling

in Iran for a long time and kind of you

know exerting their will.

>> The UK since the 19th century by far the

UK has been the dominant colonial force

in in modern Iranian history.

>> And they lose that power in the sort of

1980s early 1980s because the Hani comes

in. The British lose that power with the

fall of pretty much the fall of the

empire in the 1940s after World War II

and the United States in 79. Exactly.

>> And then since then, the UK and the US

haven't been able to sort of exert

control and their will over Iran and

>> zero zero. There's not even an embassy

there because of course they took our

embassy or they took over the embassy. I

mean, it's been it's been like ground

zero of nothing for the CIA's power, for

any American power, really for any

Western power.

>> You call it a black box.

>> It's a rogue nation. It's a black box of

information. A rogue nation is a is one

of a handful of countries around the

world that follow no international

norms. Um, North Korea is a rogue

nation. Uh, Bellarus is a rogue nation.

Cuba is a rogue nation. Venezuela was a

rogue nation. These countries that

completely stand separate from the the

norms of an international society. And

in Iran's case, it also became this

black box where it did not allow

foreigners in, especially not

Westerners. It closed down its embassy.

the traditional methods for collecting

intelligence were very difficult and

geographically it's so far away and so

far outside of the the sphere of

influence for the United States that in

terms of intelligence and military

prioritization it just fell to the

bottom of the list

>> and yet look exactly where it is it's

right in the middle of the east and to

Benjamin's point oil it's always about

oil there's always a component of oil

>> and there are so many other oil options

in that region besides Iran right? Saudi

Arabia, UAE, uh Bahrain, Qatar, they

they've they've got the United States

could partner with other Arab countries

to get what they wanted without having

to deal with Iran.

>> So, explain to me in simple terms why

Trump right now has decided that this is

the best time to attack Iran. I want to

start with you, Andrew. What's your

point of view on that? The full picture

of what his motivations. I think the

question that you just asked is the most

preient question that we will talk about

today. Why? Why now? Why is it being

communicated the way it's being

communicated? Why was it executed the

way it was executed? So why is now the

very the best of all times? I frankly

don't think it is. I think that's the

narrative that's being communicated to

the world and to the public. Um, what

Donald Trump did in attacking Iran goes

against what the ODNI report assessed

for the big the most likely threats

against the United States in her 2000 in

the ODNI's 2005 threat assessment. It

goes against the uh Department of Wars

2026 national defense strategy and it

goes against the White House's national

security strategy. These massive

doctrinal

>> annual assessments for how the United

States will will protect national

security. The attack against Iran goes

contrary to all three of those in terms

of priority and action. So why now? Why

the way that we've done it? I can't

answer it in any kind of logical way.

>> What's the non-logical answer?

>> It's a distraction. It's international

pressure with Israel. It's a cheap win

after a series of losses.

It's uh a lastditch effort before he

understands he that Donald Trump and and

his party will lose control of the House

in the midterms this year.

>> I have a little bit of a different take,

shall I?

>> Um

I believe the current administration is

led as a completely top-down situation.

In other words, like sole presidential

authority. this current president is

very enraptured with power and with um

prowess, with effectiveness. And on the

heels of Maduro and maybe even the

cartel leader in Mexico, I believe that

the current president saw a moment of of

intense weakness that had been building,

no doubt. And in waring in general, when

when looking at it theoretically like

someone like myself, the decapitation

strike is the ultimate strike. It's

literally like it sounds when you can it

comes from cut off the head of the

snake. And that is exactly what just

happened.

>> Why? Why though? Why? Why did he do

that?

>> Well, I cannot tell you why, but I can

tell you what what we all know that this

happened. So if you reverse engineer

what happened I think it become there's

only one conclusion which is that I

would think the current president had

wanted to do this and was waiting

till he had the intelligent the good the

intell and the intelligence part of it

is beyond remarkable like how they how

the CIA and NSA and you know probably

DIA and NGA all of these intelligence

agencies, of which there are many, not

just the CIA, were able to get that

information to the president in that

exact moment, and make that strike and

decapitate the leadership that has been

in power since 1979.

>> When they talk about the motives here,

Trump will often site nuclear weapons as

the motive, saying he didn't want uh

Iran to get nuclear weapons. Is is that

what's going on here in your point of

view? The 2025 National Threat

Assessment that was produced by the ODNI

in March, so less than a year old,

specifically says that Iran was unlikely

to pursue the development of nuclear

enrichment or nuclear weapons. That was

the assessment of the the ODNI and that

instead their primary concern was that

Iran was going to focus resources into

the research of biological and chemical

weapons. So the fact that in March of

2025 the ODNI the assessment of all

intelligence agencies said Iran is not

working on a nuclear weapon and then

after the strike in June of the same

year where we dropped bunker busters and

in Fordo further obliterating their

nuclear enrichment capability and

obliterating their program. We have two

documents that say they're not

developing it. We have another series of

attacks that says it's obliterated and

yet we're still saying that we need to

attack Iran because of WMD. We've heard

that story before. We've heard that WMD

is a just that the concern of WMD is a

just cause for war and that was when we

invaded Iraq in 1992.

>> So what do you think the real motivation

there is? Therefore is

>> it's very similar to what Annie is

saying that that we have a current

administration that is president down.

It's fascinating if you read the

official documentation because when you

read the department of wars national

security strategy what you hear more

than any other word is Donald Trump. Our

President Donald Trump is leading

America through our President Donald

Trump, the great Donald Trump. Like the

it's incredible when you hear the

speeches that come out of Marco Rubio's

mouth or Pete Hex's mouth. What do you

hear more than any other term? You hear

the name of the president. Usually you

hear we or the government or this

administration. It's not around a

personality. So, it's a very interesting

situation because it there's so much of

a person at stake here and everybody

surrounding the office of the president

is only there because they are

respecting kissing the ring of the

personality in the center

>> and I'm going to add to that further

just for a moment if I may because on

that point the button on that is that if

you I watch the president the current

president's speeches to sort of you know

discern things and you can often See,

get your answer right there. And in one

of the speeches either this morning or

yesterday, he mentioned that the

Ayatollah tried to kill him.

And it's to me it's like, oh, that's the

tit for tat, you know, again, top down

or you could say school boy sandbox. I

say that as the mother of two boys. you

know, this human behavior that is way

outside the norm of, you know,

intelligence reports and assessments and

these long monographs that may or may

not actually be effective. I mean, you

know, the biggest surprises of the past

40 years, the Berlin wall falling and

9/11 were completely unseen by any

intelligence report. So there is an

argument that those intelligence reports

are as good as a coin toss. So I want to

come to that point because the very fact

that we have an Islamic Republic is a

direct result of a failure of American

intelligence to see that threat as early

as 197677.

A failure to inform then President

Carter to do the necessary take the

necessary steps to support the Sha and

to neutralize that threat. So the United

States track record in Iran for the last

40 or 50 years is abysmal when it comes

to intelligence uh and when it comes to

statecraftraft. And so there's that

legacy, number one. Number two, October

7, 2023, the Hamas attack against Israel

changed the dynamic entirely. That

attack surprised Israeli intelligence.

It surprised Americans. It surprised

almost anybody watching. Nobody thought

Hamas was going to do that, when they

did it, and the means in which they did

it. So all of a sudden, that forced a

recalibration, a recalculation of what's

at stake, what could happen. If we wait

for an imminent threat till we see

actually the sign outside the door, it's

too late. So from the president's

perspective to answer your original

question, why now? Why do this? I

believe the October 7th attacks and it's

not at the behest of Israel necessarily.

It's the idea that Iran we know finances

Hamas, subsidizes Hamas, trains Hamas,

equips Hamas, provides um logistical

support of on on many levels so that

Hamas can be what it was. And Hezbollah

also. You have these destabilizing

non-state groups in the Middle East

wreaking havoc, destabilizing, causing

uh causing chaos. You're the United

States. You're also dealing with a

nuclear threshold state. So Iran may or

may not have a nuclear weapons program,

but they exceeded the 20% enrichment

that they were allowed to do under the

nonuclear non-proliferation treaty. They

they violated IAEA safeguards. They they

lied. So you take all of this together,

this is a regime that can't be trusted,

that chance death to America, which is

more than Saddam Hussein ever did, and

is funding groups that had a that up

until 911, Iran was behind more acts of

terror that cost American lives than any

other state or non-state group in the

world. 911 changed that, but up until

that, the Marine barracks bombing um in

in the 1980s, terrorist attacks

throughout Europe, South America, US

embassy, absolutely the USS Cole, right?

So this is a we've we've been at war

from the president's perspective with

Iran since they took our hostages for

which they've never atoned for. They've

never been held to account for. So if

you take that calculus and then now

we're in a post October 7th world with a

nuclear threshold state what happened

that changed was last year's 6 day a

12-day war in June created an

opportunity weakened Iran enough and its

proxies Hezbollah Hamas weakened. If

there's an opportunity to finally

address this 47year-old conflict, this

was the window to do it. That is why I

believe rightly or wrongly the president

took the action when he did.

>> That doesn't make it the best window.

And that's what we're being told is that

it was the last best window.

>> I don't think it was the last best

window, but it was a window or at least

from their perspective, it was it was a

window. You've got everyone weakened.

You've got the the regime less popular

than it's ever been. I mean, we saw the

protest in January that led to the the,

you know, the the blood bath that, you

know, upwards of 30,000 people killed on

January 8th and 9th. This was, you know,

this this regime is at its lowest lowest

point both in terms of domestic

credibility and soft power and ability

to to use proxies to carry out its will.

Why not strike it now would be the

logic.

>> I mean, I can give lots of reasons why

you wouldn't strike it. It's it's it's

violating international law. It sets a

dangerous precedent. It creates

instability. There are Americans dead,

Maradis dead, uh Saudis dead for what?

For for for something that was already

on the precipice of dying itself.

>> It's been dying for 40 years.

>> So why not let it run its course?

>> Because because what more damage is it

going to do? What more October 7th can

we see?

>> Arguably less than anything that's

already been done. So, it's like taking

action on it's like putting down the

dead dog after it's done all of its

>> Well, you I don't think that you could

say to the families of the 30,000 some

people who were murdered by the regime

just earlier, you know, in January that

it's a dead dog. I don't I think they

would disagree.

>> That's it's their country. It's their

people. It's their it's their decision.

It's their right to self-determination.

>> I'm not saying it's correct what was

done. I'm I'm just simply telling saying

the facts of that which I agree with you

know unilaterally that that the weakened

situation was perceived by this

administration as the moment to strike

and what is done is done.

>> Agreed.

>> And so I think what's more interesting

to me is you know observing how America

is dealing with this. I mean we are in

our own crisis America our own serious

crisis and there are crises around the

world particularly in this area and

without having a crystal ball none of us

know and I think that what will happen

in the next two weeks will be profoundly

telling interestingly people will say

this was a good move or this will was a

bad move which in and of itself is a

bizarre theater because your point is

correct you've got you America taking

action in a place that's not its not its

sovereign country.

>> Yes. And to your point, you've got, you

know, decades of a menace that is now

off the table.

>> I would disagree with that. Exactly. We

don't know. And and the worst part is

that in the leadup to this, Iran's

relationship with the with Russia and

China and and other countries that are

successfully countering American

influence worldwide had grown closer

than ever before. I think they're fair

weather friends that just turn on them

in a second.

>> What are you concerned about, aren't

you?

>> So, so there's a number of things here.

So, first of all, with the removal of

Maduro in Venezuela, which happened less

than 60 days ago, and now the killing,

the assassination of a of a leader,

>> the decapitation of the regime,

>> which was the same thing you did here

when you rendered Maduro, right? It's a

decapitation of a regime.

>> That's different. I I would say if

you're going to, you know, extract

someone, you haven't killed them. So,

that's not decapitation. basically

swapping out the CEO. This is completely

reforming the company or

>> I agree with that because because they

were different countries. They operated

in different ways. But when you attack

the leadership,

>> when you attack the head of state,

>> that is protected under international

law because because when you do that,

you open the gates for everyone.

>> Of course.

>> What is it? What is at the heart of your

concern? Because it sounds like you're

saying that this wasn't the right time

to do this and and so what are the

unintended consequences that you're

foreseeing? So there is a domino effect

that happens with every decision that

the United States makes. And now that we

have essentially taken this military

action against a sovereign country, it

opens the door for all sorts of other

countries to just unilaterally choose

when they're going to take action

against another sovereign independ. We

have created more opportunity for more

rogue nations which is a greater

abandonment of an international

community which destabilizes our global

trade, our economics, our sense of

personal security. The Americans are

less secure now than they were 4 days

ago. They are targeted now more than

they were 4 days ago. And if we if we

are coming to the conclusion that we

need to make things worse before we can

make things better, that's a

conversation I guess we can have. the

debate we can have. But with with the

crisis that we have here at home, with

the concerns that exist, with the stated

priorities,

>> crisis here at home,

>> we have an economic crisis here at home,

an immigration crisis here at home. We

have a crisis of politics here at home.

Like the United States is

>> I would just say it's tribal warfare

here at home. I mean, I watch it and

it's just very, very, very dangerous.

Keep going.

>> No, no, no. It's just now we have just

exacerbated that even more. And we've

exacerbated that more with an ally in

the Middle East that just got done

carrying out one of the most destructive

attacks in history against Gaza.

>> You you brought up something. You talk

about sovereignty. Um with regards to

the January 8th um

the violence committed against the

protesters. You said that that basically

it's their own people's

self-determination. How do how does the

international community deal with acts

of state violence against its own

people?

>> That's so we have a a word for that and

it's called intrastate conflicts. Okay.

Conflict inside of a state, a civil war,

>> right?

>> Mhm.

>> The international community has no

responsibility for stepping into a civil

war.

>> So that was this is a great point. This

is the debate that the uh that the four

allied powers had at the end of World

War II when they were convening the

Nermberg trials. You had this idea that

we don't have laws to account for how a

country or state treats people within

its own sovereign borders. The idea is

that Germany could do what Germany did

within Germany proper. Forget about

occupied Germany. Within its own

borders, it can mistreat anybody because

that was German law. And the push was

that that's not the world we want to

live in anymore. We want to live in a

world where basically nations cannot do

that to people. And that's where the

basis of the Nuremberg tribunals came.

And that's where we got international

law of war crimes, crimes of aggression,

genocide, so on and so forth. So the

idea is that just because Iran is

sovereign, we we sit back and allow them

to do that. It's it wasn't a civil war

because one side was fighting with with

with knives, machetes, assault rifles.

The other side had spoons, wooden sp,

you know, I mean, that kind of thing,

right? It was so lopsided. It was such

an abuse and a asymmetric battle.

>> Under the Clinton administration, we

chose to not be part of the

International Criminal Court. We pulled

ourselves out of the very same

conclusion that you're talking about.

>> Yeah. But Nuremberg was not but but

there's also the ICJ. There is a UN

framework that's independent from the

ICC and the Rome treaty. So all I'm

saying is we do have international law

that addresses what nations can do to

their own people.

>> And we violated international law by by

running by attacking a head of state. So

what what is the there's no continuity.

There's no consistency. We choose to do

what we choose to do. We choose to

support what we choose to support. and

we choose to abandon what we choose to

abandon. And how how do you make sense

in a world like that? How do you predict

the future? How do you manage even

raising a family? How do you know where

you can travel? How do you decide on

investments? How do you you can't that

is a great point and I think that's the

that's a you know that's a point to be

made here is that there's an absence of

the enforcement of law internationally

and it's victor's justice and the

dominant will essentially exercise

whatever will they want. The law be

damned. Do you think this is part of

Trump's what his motivations are linked

to his personal legacy? And I say this a

lot because I think sometimes you got to

kind of follow the incentive structure,

especially of a president that can't be

reelected, who has talked a lot about

wanting to win the Nobel Peace Prize,

although he's probably never said it

directly. And you, it almost looks like

a Trump that's thinking about his legacy

ahead of time. And one's legacy is going

to be determined by like the wars you

you start, the people you take out, the

Venezuela situation, the economies seems

to be really important to him. Do you

think this is he's motivated more so by

his legacy than say someone else?

>> I do believe that we are in a position

where this is the first president we've

ever had, and I would love to be wrong.

Please disagree with me on this, but I

think this is the first president we've

ever had that's more focused on personal

legacy than professional or political

legacy. I think he's thinking about

Donald Trump and the name Trump and the

Trump fortune and the Trump future more

than he's thinking about the image of

him on children's bookmarks as a as a

president of the United States for the

rest of the existence of the United

States. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't

feel like he's motivated by country by

service. He is supposed to be

>> it's not it's not country over part or

party over country. It's brand over

country. The Trump brand. I would agree

with that. Yeah,

>> I've never heard a president talking

about, oh, I might take Greenland, might

might go to Venezuela. Um,

>> he he fancies himself a dealmaker. He

wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He he prides

himself on the number of wars that he's

he's he's u ended um conflicts that he's

solved. I think ideally he would have

wanted Iran to end up with a diplomatic

solution. He came with terms. I don't

think war was a preferred option. I he

would be much happier if there was an

agreement that, you know, allowed

everything to kind of stay in place.

Iran would abide by nuclear

restrictions, missile restrictions,

proxy restrictions and then a Trump

casino gets built in you know that would

have made him happy because yeah that is

about the personal that is about the

brand that and it's also he sees that as

benefiting the United States benefiting

uh the US's global partners in the

region so but but I think a lot of this

is personally driven I I I would agree.

>> I also find it quite fascinating that

our prime minister in the UK K Dharma is

not being asked about any of this stuff

ahead of time. I think if we go back a

couple of decades, the UK and the US

were allies. Now it seems like the US is

kind of acting as a lone force in the

world. And it's funny cuz you know I

watched Karma come out after the attacks

have happened and he clearly had no idea

what's going to happen. Same in

Venezuela. Once upon a time you would

have briefed us. The president did go to

the prime minister about I think using

Diego Garcia in other bases um and was

turned down if I'm not mistaken. Right.

That that so there was some awareness

that something was being planned and and

the prime minister said that the that

the UK government would have no part in

any of that.

>> What's going on here? What's the the

macro picture of in terms of the

declining world order that we once knew

where we had where it wasn't just United

States running around doing whatever

they liked and other people might be

briefed or asked.

I mean, I'm interested in looking at

outcome, you know, and then kind of

looking backwards at how we got there.

And I'm also very interested in how

divided America is because I really do

see it as the greatest weakness. So, you

can show strength in what just happened,

but if you are extremely vulnerable at

home, then, and I'm not talking

necessarily about Hezbollah terrorist

cells being, you know, activated, which

may or may not happen. I'm just talking

about the the clash of political parties

in the United States. And to that end, I

often look at the past and like so we're

talking about you mentioned, you know,

being friendly and having our allies and

our and I can't help but look at the

reaction of the opposing party right now

at this action for better or for worse,

but bringing up the Iraq war and talking

about how we got our allies involved. We

went to Congress and I as a historian

can't help but think, but wait a minute,

the Iraq war was built on faulty

intelligence. The Iraq war led us into a

20year

absolute misery with so many people in

this area killed and so many more

problems metastasizing as a result. And

so to to be selective about what works

and what what doesn't work is to me as

dangerous as a situation as we are in

now. And I know that's a little bit

skirting away from, you know, giving you

an answer as to why what was done was

done or whether it's a good idea or a

bad idea. It just simply is very

interesting to me because I can't help

but see, you know, being a subject

matter expert on the history of the CIA

in particular. I see these actions

where it is presidential authoritydriven

since the end of World War II. And to

me, that's what this action looks like.

So, we're in the new era where we are

in, which I find interesting, is where

the president of the United States can

essentially take what would historically

be a covert action operation. You

wouldn't even know about it. That would

be the idea. Instead,

announcing it as a military program. So,

he's merging the legal authorities of

Title 10 and Title 50. And of course,

the average person in the United States

isn't like, "Oh, wait a minute. He's

merging those authorities because What

is what are the title 10 and title 50?

>> Well, title 10 is the military must

follow certain laws of war. Okay.

>> Okay. And title 50 says if the president

decides it is a national security

threat, he can use the CIA's

paramilitary,

that is an actual mil military force.

They sheep dip tier one operators over

from the military and take the patches

off their shoulders, put them in

non-military clothing and send them out

to do military type work.

>> So he's using the military how he wants

to use them.

>> Yes. And

>> he has that right as the

commander-in-chief, as the chief

executive of the United States, the DoD

or now the DO and CIA fall under the

executive branch. They don't fall under

the legislative branch. they don't fall

under the the judicial branch. So, the

president has and always has had the

ability to take these types of actions

and write executive orders. What's so

different here is that while we're

talking about CIA and CIA being used um

by the president in his exercise of

authority, what we're all not talking

about, what we're missing is that CIA

has been gutted. This is the same

president that went to war with CIA in

his first term. CIA has gone through

massive attrition since then. They were

defunded under his first presidency. So,

Director Rackcliffe is the least used

director, the least referenced director.

You never hear about him.

>> Is he the head of the CIA?

>> He's the head of the CIA. And and what I

am concerned about is that the CIA I

left in 2014

was already missing intelligence on

Venezuela and and Iran. Since then, it's

gotten smaller. It's gotten marginalized

more. It went to it's been treated

hostily by the by the US president. And

the CIA that I had started hearing

rumors about in the early 2020s, 65% of

the intelligence that they were

producing was coming from foreign

allies.

>> They didn't have the ability to create

their own its say is that every CIA

sadly, you know, has nostalgia for the

former CIA if you look at history and

believes that their CIA was better than

the current CIA. That's just the nature

of

>> I'm not saying it was better or worse.

I'm just saying the intelligence that

the CIA is using now. I I would argue

that we keep talking about CIA and you

keep seeing CIA in the headlines and

it's actually not

>> exactly. But hang on, ODNI didn't or at

least according to, shall we say, the

New York Times, which must have come

from the White House. CIA provided the

intelligence.

So there you go.

>> Fake. I don't think that's real. I don't

think CIA here's the thing. CIA.

>> How do you think why do you based on

>> CIA is the central intelligence agency

which is by design it means that every

other intelligence that comes from every

other agency inside the DoD inside uh

the national security infrastructure has

to come through CIA only CIA produces

the final product for the president. So

therefore

>> everything is CIA and CIA contain and

CIA is the one that's in charge of

maintaining foreign relationships with

foreign intelligence services. So when

Israel has an intelligence report that

they share with the US president, it

goes through the CIA. So all credit and

all blame always goes to CIA. That

doesn't mean CIA actually had the

intelligence themselves.

>> So what who do you think had the

intelligence and why does this matter?

>> The number one most informed country in

the world on the goings on in Iran is

Israel. Tell me if I'm wrong.

>> No, I would agree with that. There's no

way the United States would have been

able to launch against Iran without

close coordination and incredible

intelligence support from Israel.

>> And I'm going to disagree.

>> Why does it matter?

>> Because it means that Israel could be

directing the activities of the US

military by the intelligence they select

to give to the president.

>> So I wouldn't take that step.

>> I don't think Israel has a monopoly on

intelligence provided. Um we know that

uh MI6 has also historically been very

active and very capable probably more so

than CIA has been and in large part

because the British government has a

embassy has diplomatic ties um has trade

and economic ties with Iran. Um and it's

and the Islamic regime has seen the UK

as a effective sort of pipeline or

conduit to the United States and has

used that in the past um sometimes you

know to to better effect than before.

But I I think that there's a I think

there's sources of intelligence that the

United States gets. And Israel is

influential, but I don't think it is the

sole influencer or the one that pushes

it over the edge one way or the other.

>> I wasn't saying that they're the sole,

but but when it came to Iran, and I

think we're saying the same thing, they

are they don't have the monopoly, but

they have the

>> they're the biggest game in town.

>> Exactly. when it comes to understanding

what's happening in Iran.

>> I mean, I'm going to disagree because I

think that, okay, look at past

situations where the United States

attempted to do a decapitation strike

and then have a regime change. You can

look at Iraq. We tried to kill Saddam

Hussein, failed, and then a disaster

blows up. Libya tried to kill Gaddafi,

fails, a disaster blows up.

Iran

tries to kill the regime or take

decapitate the regime and succeeds.

So you are you saying that you believe

that's because in the other situations

the intelligence was coming from the CIA

who didn't have such great intelligence

and in this situation the intelligence

was coming from Israel who did. No, I'm

saying that that

a big piece of the opportunity of Iran

is tied to the opportunity that was

presented to us by our allies in the

region. I don't think it's just Israel.

Saudi Arabia wants to see the end of

Iran. UAE wants to see the end of Iran.

Jordan wants to see the end of Iran.

There's multiple allies in the region

that want to see the end of Iran. But

when it came to who had the longest,

most reliable human intelligence source

network inside Iran, I don't think

anybody came even close to comparing

with with Israel.

>> And you're saying that was used

selectively, meaning

>> because all intelligence that's shared

with an ally is selective.

>> Of course,

>> I have 10 pieces. Do I give all 10

pieces to my ally or do I give just the

three pieces that I think will move them

off the X?

>> Right. Well, you had to they had to have

those 20 individuals tagged to do their

find, fix, and finishing. Period. End of

story. It couldn't have happened without

it. And I believe that the United

States, the CIA aggregates all that

intelligence, you know, sigage, all the

ins to know that. I can't imagine how

Israel knew that more than the United

States.

I just I I that's my that's where I was.

>> So, I mean, just to give you a very

quick example, right? You're 100% right

that people have to be tagged.

>> When you tag a cell phone, let's just

say we're talking about cell phones.

Cell phones give you a geo a geo

location. Every cell phone signal sends

a geo tag,

>> but only on the service network that

controls that phone. The United States

doesn't have access to most of the

service providers in the Middle East.

So, you already have to have someone to

interlocute the Middle Eastern service

provider with the West. And then on top

of that, you then have to be able to

identify that that selector, that cell

phone belongs to that person. Again, if

you think that the United States is so

powerful, it has every cell phone of

every person around the country, around

the world, they're not

>> I think there's biometric tagging that

is not necessarily electronic based.

>> So, you're saying that it I I appreciate

your point of view. The point is that

Iran, according to every prioritized

list that we have, is on the low end of

our priorities. Russia's above them.

China's above them.

Uh the cartels across Mexico are above

them. So somehow we had such refined

intelligence on

>> What's your conclusion here, Andrew?

Because I feel like there's there's a

second half of your point that's

missing. Like a conclusion that you're

you're pointing towards, but not saying.

>> Isn't it? Isn't it just the lowest of

the hanging fruits of all the ones you

mentioned? Also,

>> correct. It doesn't. So, what I'm saying

is I it doesn't make sense that we would

take this action unless we are really

just acting on the behest of our allies

for some other kind of gain, a personal

gain for the Trump brand, if you will,

some sort of uh hedgeimonyy that the

United States is desperately grasping

for because we realize that we don't

have that power and influence anymore.

And as a result of these actions and

actions like what we took in Venezuela,

we have now empowered and validated some

of the worst regimes in the world that

we've always held accountable for taking

the same kind of actions that we take.

>> And who are you concerned about as it

relates to other regimes?

>> China, Russia, this Russia.

I believe that a big part of the reason

that that Zalinsky hasn't been

assassinated by Russia is because that

would be crossing a red line. That would

that would infuriate Europe and the

United States because you don't attack

world leaders. We just gave them

permission to do so. The same thing in

Taiwan. We can ass now China has free

reign to just assassinate one person in

Taiwan. And then that's just them. We're

not even talking about Pakistan and

India. We're not talking about any of

the border disputes that are happening

anywhere else across Asia or warlords in

Africa. We just validated these these

illegal inhumane

extrajudicial processes all over the

world. So unlike these other world

leaders, Kam was his his his his

philosophy, his entire ideology was was

is built on death to America among death

to other things. You don't have other

world leaders, you don't have the

president of Taiwan saying death to

China. You don't have Zillinsky even

saying death to Russia. He might want

Putin dead, but he's not sort of he

doesn't want the demise of the entire

Russian Republic. Uh and so I think this

is where Kam stands apart where it is it

is a a a movement which became a system

of government predicated on the demise

and the destruction of of the United

States. What's interesting how do you

counter that? Yeah.

>> Interesting with the term stands apart

is I was imagining therefore a spectrum

and the minute it becomes a spectrum it

becomes somewhat subjective. So, you

know, one might say, well, we think they

wanted to hurt us. Whereas before in my

head when when I grew up, I always used

to see these wars and go, why don't they

just they know where the guy lives?

Like, I know that sounds like a

simplified, but they know where he is.

Why don't they just take him out? And

and it was always it always felt to me

that that was off the table in war. You

can't just assassinate a leader because

you don't like them or you're having a

sort of geopolitical disagreement. And

it's actually only in the last sort of

year or two that I thought, okay, maybe

it is free reign to just fly in and

snatch someone out of bed with their

wife, which is what happened in

Venezuela. and then seeing this that you

can just drop a bomb on them wherever

they are. It does kind of make you, you

know, wonder maybe this is now on the

table. I've never really seen that in my

lifetime. I mean, I know there was some

things that went on Libya and in Iraq

and so on, but to snatch a prime

minister out of bed with his wife and

fly him over with photos of I wow, this

is this is a new type of uh geopolitical

action.

>> It's what the it's what our secretary of

state is calling the golden era of the

United States. the old world is gone.

Like these are the this is the narrative

coming out and and being spread by the

representation of the free world. France

there the macaron just this morning

stated that to be free you must be

feared.

This is the world that we're creating.

Death to America. Guess how much I care

about that. Guess how much I care that a

poor broke ass far away pitily

dank country says death to America.

Guess how afraid I am of that? Zero. And

guess how afraid? Multiple people who

have led the United States have been

afraid of that. They They're not. You

can say it all you want. Doesn't matter.

And when you do when you do carry out an

attack,

>> right,

>> against the USS Cole.

For every one attack that's successful,

25 of them are thwarted. That's the

That's the benefit of being the most

powerful military in the world. You

don't have to worry about everybody who

chants in the streets. How many people

disown their kids because they say, "I

hate you." When they're teenagers, you

don't care. You're like, "Give it time.

They'll grow up. They'll be fine."

They've got to go through their

before they realize what it's like to be

grown-ups. That's what we say about our

children.

>> The other You can say the same thing

about a country that just came to power

in 1979.

They're less than a hundred years old.

What What do they know about how to

actually be a country? What do we know?

We're only 250 years old.

Um,

>> I mean it's hard it's hard to swallow

that like, you know, it's okay if you

have like a horrible, you know,

murderous, brutal regime making women

run around in hijabs and ruining entire

thousands of years old Persian

civilizations.

>> Have you been to this part of the world?

I

>> I have not been.

>> That's what they That's normal life

there. That's what do you think is

happening in the in the hermit kingdom

in North Korea? I mean, shoot, look,

Afghanistan. We left Afghanistan and

knew that that's what exactly what the

Taliban was going to do.

>> Right. But what's happening here is not

since 79 is not normal. But but just to

go back to one step for a second, who do

we know launched the missiles that

killed the Supreme Leader and all the

other um in the uh hierarchy?

>> The I think the credit is going to the

United States.

>> No, no. The credit is going to Israel.

>> So So Israel is the one that essentially

pushed the button, pulled the trigger,

what have you. The US provided the

>> Exactly. In which case then does Israel

have the prerogative to take out a head

of state that was you know essentially

the only nation state might I remind you

that came out in support of the October

7 attacks was only Iran not even North

Korea came out and said anything no one

else did absolutely said this was you

know

>> on October 8th he directed Hezbollah to

join the war

>> therefore is a fair is he a fair target

for Israel

>> that's a great question is he a

combatant

>> if if authorizes, funds, motivates,

endorses, and basically encourages and

shoves out the door your attacker. Do

you then have a right to go after them?

>> That's I think that's maybe that's the

$10,000 question here. Okay? Because

because if you are will if you're

willing to see the the leader of every

country as an as a combatant, they are

the heads of the military. The president

is the the commander-in-chief of the

military. If they are combatant, they

are a legal target. So if they're a

legal target, why is it against

international law to attack head of

state? And even more, what's the

acceptable collateral damage? Because

Israel is notorious for assassinations

around the world. It's it's what makes

them so difficult for other people to

ally with because we don't support

assassinations. And most assassinations

are not legal combatants. They're

scientists. That's a civilian. They're

experts. That's a civilian. They're

heads of industry. That's a civilian.

They're generals, but not in a hot

conflict. that makes them a

non-combatant.

>> The spaces you're talking about, the

line between civilian and someone who

works for the government or is on a

government funded weapons program or

something of that nature, those lines

are blurred in the Middle East. We know

that

>> those lines are blurred everywhere. A

civilian who works for a company that's

hired by the US military, is that person

a combatant? Okay. But it but those

distinctions are are are far more subtle

in the Middle East and especially when

you're a scientist working for a state

nuclear program

>> that you're being forced to work for

because you're one of the few scientists

that can do it.

>> I I don't know. Are they forced to work

for? I mean I mean there are there are

defectors. There are those who who who

opt and then there are those who double

down and become religious cheerleaders

supporting what the government's doing.

I mean, the point I'm making is that you

saying it doesn't give you the

international under international law

the right to take out a head of state.

What if it was self-defense?

>> That's not what it was.

>> I have a counternarrative here. Just

just to throw it out and kind of switch

up the the discussion here. You know,

this administration is very interested

in in social media. And for that reason,

I am too. And I look at I saw a meme

that was going around immediately after

this um decapitation event so quickly in

fact it made me wonder like who pushed

that out that quickly. And it's a white

sheet of paper with all the months of

the year of 2026. And January there's a

picture of Maduro.

February there's a picture of the

Mexican cartel leader. March, one day

off, there's a picture of the supreme

leader of Iran and then there's a

question mark in the other months. And

it made me think and sort of wonder

speculate, is this messaging to Putin

that he better start negotiating with

Trump?

>> Nope. Putin's a whole different beast.

What what that's a message to is the

leader of Cuba.

>> Yeah, Cuba, I was going to say, is next.

And if you follow what the United States

considers to be the four state sponsors

of terrorism, the only one that remains

after Cuba is North Korea.

>> You know, every once in a while you come

across a product that has such a huge

impact on your life that you'd probably

describe as a gamecher. And I would say

for about 35 to 40% of my team, they

would currently describe this product

that I have in front of me called Ketone

IQ, which you can get at ketone.com

as a game changer. But the reason I

became a co-owner of this company and

the reason why they they now are a

sponsor of this podcast is because one

day when I came to work, there was a box

of this stuff sat on my desk. I had no

idea what it was. Lily in my team says

that this company have been in touch. So

I went upstairs, tried it, and quite

frankly, the rest is history. in terms

of my focus, my energy levels, how I

feel, how I work, how productive I am.

Game changer. So, if you want to give it

a try, visit ketone.com/stephven

for 30% off. You'll also get a free gift

with your second shipment. And now you

can find Keton IQ at Target stores

across the United States, where your

first shot is completely free of charge.

This company that I've just invested in,

it's grown like crazy. I want to be the

one to tell you about it because I think

it's going to create such a huge

productivity advantage for you. Whisper

Flow is an app that you can get on your

computer and on your phone on all your

devices and it allows you to speak to

your technology. So instead of me

writing out an email, I click one button

on my phone and I can just speak the

email into existence and it uses AI to

clean up what I was saying. And then

when I'm done, I just hit this one

button here and the whole email is

written for me. And it's saving me so

much time in a day because Whisper

learns how I write. So on WhatsApp, it

knows how I am a little bit more casual.

On email, a little bit more

professional. And also there's this

really interesting thing they've just

done. I can create little phrases to

automatically do the work for me. I can

just say Jack's LinkedIn and it copies

Jack's LinkedIn profile for me because

it knows who Jack is in my life. This is

saving me a huge amount of time. This

company is growing like absolute crazy.

And this is why I invested in the

business and why they're now a sponsor

of this show. And Whisper Flow is

frankly becoming the worstkept secret in

business, productivity, and

entrepreneurship. Check it out now at

whisperflow spelled w i s p r l o

w.ai/steeen.

It will be a game changer for you.

>> Why does the US care about Cuba? What's

the context there? What what does the US

want with Cuba?

>> Well, Cuba's 90 miles off the coast of

Florida for starters. So,

geographically, it's very dangerous.

Cuba was where the Soviet Union put

nuclear missiles

there, you know, almost bringing the

United States to the brink of nuclear

war during the Kennedy administration.

It's one of the only countries in the

Western Hemisphere that does not fall

under the United States's sphere of

influence.

>> I actually saw this yesterday.

>> The Cuban government is talking with us

and they're in a big deal of trouble as

you know. They have no money. They have

no anything right now, but they're

talking with us and maybe we'll have a

friendly takeover of Cuba.

>> Exactly.

>> So Trump says that maybe we'll have a

friendly takeover of Cuba and he said

that two days ago. Mhm.

>> So, Cuba's next and then North Korea.

>> Do they wouldn't North Korea have

nuclear weapons though, don't they,

Annie? So,

>> yes, they do.

>> I I I always wonder that actually does

getting to a a point where you have

nuclear weapons kind of mean the US will

leave you alone?

>> Absolutely. I think that part of all of

this is the the sort of elephant in the

room is that

you cannot, you know, the United States

will not let anyone else join the

nuclear 9.

North Korea was the last example of that

mistake during the Clinton

administration being told by the leader

of North Korea, "Oh, no, no, we're not

going to have a nuclear program." And

then him not, you know, deciding by sort

of committee and all his sage advisers

and following and talking to Congress

and all of that, we're not going to

attack North Korea. That would be

unacceptable. That was the Democratic

President Clinton's position. And as a

result, North Korea developed nuclear

weapons and now has nuclear weapons and

the nuclear weapons systems to strike

the United States and has demonstrated,

you know, a desire if provoked or

actually has said if provoked it would

do so. And so, you know, you that was

not going to happen with Iran. Certainly

not on this watch and probably not on

any watch. Is there a bit of an unspoken

rule geopolitically where if you get to

nuclear weapons, you can do whatever the

hell you want and

>> it's the ultimate deterrence.

>> Yeah, absolutely. You can't mess with

somebody who has a nuclear weapon and

you and you and you don't.

>> One of my friends was asking me this

morning whe how the situation with Iran

getting nuclear weapons is any different

from the situation with North Korea

having nuclear weapons or is it the

same?

>> Well, it's the same thing. only perhaps

were well now this regime is is it is up

we don't know what will happen with it

but having you know an esh correct me on

this pronunciation you know the idea

that the Shia idea that the sort of

apocalyptic end is not necessarily a bad

thing

>> oh the arrival of the mai and and and

that whole thing right sort of creating

the conditions for that to come about

>> yes there's a there's kind of a a

undergirling the Islamic regime's

thinking being is this idea and that's

very dangerous to the idea that we don't

want to have a nuclear war

>> though that regime is not suicidal. I I

I will sort of state that Kame was was

prepared to die for his cause but he was

not suicidal in the sense that he would

go out and sort of you know um if he

could I don't think start a nuclear war

that he knew his country was going to

get destroyed fighting. Uh that is I

think you know one distinction and I'm

not saying North Korea is suicidal but

definitely what remains of the

government there is not is not suicidal.

Um I don't think there is ideological

dieards as we saw in the founding

fathers of which Kam was the last one.

So that changes it a little bit now that

he's dead you know um there's uh the um

a philosopher Eric Hoffer he sort of

wrote that great causes start as

movements then they become businesses

then they become rackets. Okay. So,

Humeni M Humeni's movement that started

in the 70s that was the movement. It

became a business, a enterprise of which

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

profited immensely till it became a

racket and now we're at the racket phase

of it and the only one really left are

the racketeering leaders you know and

because the the the spiritual leaders

are now gone. Um what happens next I

think is sort of and you know we're now

in very much in unknown territory with

that. Andrew, to that point of nuclear

weapons, if Iran had already violated um

many of the things they'd said around

nuclear weapons and they I think they'd

enriched uranium to 60% roughly, they

would have theoretically continued to go

because they know that if you want the

US and other people in the region to

stay away from you, you got to get

nuclear weapons. And once you get that

to that point, then you no one's going

to mess with you.

>> So I think the assumption is that no one

will mess with you with nuclear weapons.

I don't think that that is going to be

the assumption for much longer. I think

that that Iran recognized that if it

could get a path to a deployable nuclear

capability, whether it's a rocket or

whether it's a missile or even if it's a

truck with a nuke in the trunk, they had

options. 60% enrichment, they have

options

there. I mean, with just nuclear waste,

they have options to cause real damage.

But enriched militaryra

sustainable kind of permanent state

nuclear capability is a much higher

level of enrichment than that. And

that's arguably what they have in North

Korea. Their deployability, their

capability for actually putting it on a

rocket and having the rocket hit where

it's supposed to hit and not blow up on

the launch pad is a little bit

different. And for that reason, I think

we have to take seriously the fact that

if the United States wanted to

demonstrate their power against the

nuclear capable country, they could do

it against North Korea. There's also

this concept that our current military

doctrine under Hegsth has applied that

no other president has ever applied and

no other department of defense,

Department of War has applied and that's

this idea called burden sharing.

According to the Department of War,

their doctrine now is a doctrine of

burden sharing, which means they will

force the burden of a national security

interest on American allies. An example

is they go into Iran with a small naval

force. They bomb Iran knowing very well

that Iran is going to spread the pain

across our allies in the Middle East. To

the United States Department of War,

that is us, that is our allies sharing

the burden. If they want to be our

allies, they have to do this. Same thing

is happening with Ukraine and with

Russia. If you want if Europe, if you

want to counter Russia, you must share

the burden with the United States. It

also gives the the United States now

cart blanch to go anywhere it wants with

a limited force, stir up a hornets nest,

and then let everybody else pay the

price. Well, in terms of the Middle

East, it certainly was an effective move

because, you know, all of these six

countries that Iran has now bomb, you

know, attacked in the past 48 hours are

now very angry with Iran. So, the burden

sharing has gone from kind of like this

is a fight that we're not in to this is

a fight we are in. I don't think that

anybody has taken any offensive actions

against Iran except

>> but they're not happy with it.

>> They weren't happy before.

>> No, they but the the the statements

they've put out are some of the

strongest that we've seen.

>> I mean, we've never even seen anything.

>> We've never seen the Gulf States put out

what they've basically, you know,

condemning Iran and holding it

responsible. It it's now any pretense

that there was a reproma, there was some

sort of a a coming together is is now

shattered. And and that's a setback for

whatever is left of the Islamic

Republic.

>> Huge setback. the the power that Iran

has over the Middle East is a power of

agriculture.

All of the countries that we look at,

all the oil collegiate countries can't

make their own food. Iran makes their

food. So, they've always had this weird

relationship where they disagree with

them politically. They disagree with

them religiously. They disagree with

them militarily, but they're still

allies because of food. The United

States has sanctions all over Russia,

except in one area, space. We still

cooperate with Russia. It's a carve out

because we don't want to lose their

access to the space program.

>> Do you think we're closer to nuclear war

now because of this action?

>> 100%.

>> So you you think this has moved us

closer to that?

>> 100%. And and I've got there's proof of

that all over the headlines today

because France is deploying air launch

nuclear warheads. Air launched nuclear

warheads. That means small warheads that

fit on the ends of airplane rockets.

They're deploying them all over Europe.

That means France is now taking its

nuclear arsenal and spreading it across

its European allies. The more nuclear

proliferation, the more risk of nuclear

that's just Ukraine and

>> that has nothing to do with Iran.

>> Yeah,

>> that has nothing to do with Iran. It

happened two days after Iran. It has

the threat of nuclear war comes from the

conflict in my opinion comes from the

conflict in Iran from the war in Ukraine

and comes from Russia

>> because you have an actual superpower

president who has threatened the use of

nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have a

nuclear weapon. So it's it's not a

nuclear threat.

>> You speak a different nuclear language

than I do. Russia is launching

intercontinental ballistic missiles that

can't be intercepted. It's got the

archnik. What the hell is it going to be

afraid of? A warhead on the tip of an

airplane.

>> It's not. That's a tactical nuke. That's

a battlefield.

>> What is your point?

>> My point is that we the deployment of a

nuclear weapon

>> is nuclear war. The deployment of a

nuclear weapon. If you're talking about

>> Hang on,

>> mutually assured destruction.

>> Are you talking about the use of a

nuclear weapon or are you talking about

putting a warhead on a aircraft? No,

that's that's been technology for a long

time. Using it in the battlefield,

>> but it's not being used in the

battlefield. I agree with you a

thousand%.

>> You don't think it's being you think it

is being used in the battle?

>> No, I'm saying it's being deployed. Is

that getting us closer to nuclear war?

Yes.

>> Yes, but it's not but it's not because

of Iran.

>> It has nothing to do with Iran. And what

are you talking about being deployed?

Because in you're talking about France

maneuvering where its weaponry is.

>> That's the definition of a deployment.

>> That is well then we're talking about

it. I'm talking about nuclear use. I

mean,

the United States deploys its nuclear

forces all the time by President Trump

saying, "I'm moving our submarines,"

>> which is just talk because they're

moving anyways. It's it's the same as

it's threatening when Putin says, "I'm

moving at my nuclear or when he tests,

you know, Norway by popping up right

offside outside of their shores." Those

are maneuvers that are very dangerous. I

I absolutely agree.

>> But in this particular case, has the

even from a Russian perspective, has

this war in Iran increase the

probability that a Putin would use a

nuclear?

>> In my opinion, absolutely not. No. In my

opinion, no. In my opinion, what it does

to Putin is it makes him say,

"Wow, this president

is unpredictable." And to some to an

authoritarian

person like Putin, that's a match for

him, not someone for him to walk on. And

I think that I'm not I'm not saying

that's a great way for world diplomacy

whatsoever. It's not diplomacy. It's

just, you know, it's just strongarmming

one another. But but we are not I do not

feel at all that this situation makes us

closer to a nuclear threat whatsoever.

>> I agree. I think it's a combination of

Ukraine and China's um military

exercises and action in the South China

Sea and the whole sort of you know what

we're not seeing. There's this argument

that China's watching what's going on

with the US and Iran. Here we are

depleting our interceptors, our

munitions. is China's meanwhile

stockpiling, you know, its resources and

is does this put us at a disadvantage if

and when the day comes where China

decides to take proactive aggressive

action visav Iran? That's something to

think about and I think that then I'm

worried about the risk of nuclear war in