00:00:00
What does the United States think it's
00:00:01
going to gain from decapitating the
00:00:03
Iranian leadership?
00:00:04
>> Well, that that's kind of obvious based
00:00:06
on what the president has said. It's
00:00:07
that
00:00:07
>> on what the president has said.
00:00:08
>> I'm I'm just saying based on what the
00:00:10
president says.
00:00:10
>> You can't trust anything that you're
00:00:12
hearing right now. You can't trust
00:00:13
anything that you're reading right now.
00:00:14
Two to multiply.
00:00:17
>> It's not paranoid. Absolutely. It is
00:00:20
paranoid to suggest that everything is
00:00:22
misinformation. Iran doesn't have a
00:00:24
nuclear weapon. So, it's not a nuclear
00:00:26
threat.
00:00:27
>> You speak a different nuclear language
00:00:28
than I do. This regime is at its lowest
00:00:30
lowest point. Why not strike it now?
00:00:32
>> I mean, I can give lots of reasons why
00:00:34
you wouldn't strike it. The ability to
00:00:36
create their own.
00:00:37
>> What are you concerned about? And what
00:00:38
are the unintended consequences that
00:00:40
you're foreseeing?
00:00:40
>> There is a domino effect that happens
00:00:43
with every decision that the United
00:00:44
States makes. So
00:00:48
>> guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you.
00:00:50
We're approaching a significant
00:00:51
subscriber milestone on this show and
00:00:53
roughly 69% of you that listen and love
00:00:56
this show haven't yet subscribed for
00:00:58
whatever reason. If there was ever a
00:00:59
time for you to do us a favor, if we've
00:01:01
ever done anything for you, given you
00:01:03
value in any way, it is simply hitting
00:01:05
that subscribe button. And it means so
00:01:07
much to myself, but also to my team
00:01:08
because when we hit these milestones, we
00:01:10
go away as a team and celebrate. And
00:01:11
it's the thing, the simple, free, easy
00:01:13
thing you can do to help make this show
00:01:14
a little bit better every single week.
00:01:17
So that's a favor I would ask you. And
00:01:19
um if you do hit the subscribe button, I
00:01:21
won't let you down. And we'll continue
00:01:22
to find small ways to make this whole
00:01:24
production better. Thank you so much for
00:01:26
being part of this journey. Means the
00:01:28
world. And uh yeah, let's do this.
00:01:34
Benjamin, Annie, Andrew, first and
00:01:37
foremost, thank you for being here
00:01:38
today. I I have to start with the
00:01:40
question that's been on my mind as
00:01:42
somebody that doesn't know a huge amount
00:01:43
about geopolitics, which is what the
00:01:46
hell is going on? And I and I say that
00:01:48
because that's exactly what I mean. What
00:01:50
is going on and what context do I need
00:01:52
to understand this sort of historical
00:01:54
context of the actions we're seeing in
00:01:56
Iran with this war right now? Benjamin,
00:02:00
I know you've got a a personal
00:02:02
connection to Iran because your family
00:02:03
fled Iran, I believe.
00:02:04
>> Yeah, I was uh I was 2 years old when we
00:02:06
left in March of 1979. Um uh a few
00:02:10
months after the sha had left and uh
00:02:12
just after Hani had arrived.
00:02:13
>> What is the sha and what is hermeni?
00:02:16
Yeah, sorry. The sha uh the former
00:02:19
monarch of Iran um the Pathfi dynasty
00:02:21
which came into power in the 1930s
00:02:23
deposing a previous dynasty that had
00:02:25
been around for a couple hundred years
00:02:27
and um the he his father brought in that
00:02:30
dynasty and then it was eventually he
00:02:32
was deposed by the British and the
00:02:34
Americans who felt he was getting too
00:02:36
close to the Nazis during World War II
00:02:38
concerned about supply routes for the
00:02:40
Nazis, oil and his son was installed on
00:02:42
the throne at a very young age, I
00:02:44
believe 18 or 19 and Um he ruled Iran
00:02:48
from uh from that period 1941
00:02:51
1942 around that time all the way
00:02:52
through 79 a great ally of the United
00:02:55
States over over time eventually um and
00:02:58
uh was depos was um overthrown on a
00:03:00
revolution and uh by Kumeni who was a
00:03:03
senior cleric who had been a thorn in
00:03:04
the Shaw side since the 60s was exiled
00:03:07
first to Turkey then Iraq then
00:03:10
ultimately to France right outside Paris
00:03:12
actually from there he basically led the
00:03:15
revolution ution that led to the sha's
00:03:16
uh removal um after 79.
00:03:19
>> And how was Iran different when the sha
00:03:21
was in power versus when her was in
00:03:23
power?
00:03:23
>> That depends on who you ask. Um it was a
00:03:26
constitutional monarchy. The sha had
00:03:28
powers that exceeded beyond what we
00:03:30
think a constitutional monarchy has
00:03:32
today like in Great Britain. Um he was
00:03:34
he ruled with an iron fist when he
00:03:36
needed to. He was an authoritarian, but
00:03:38
he also was one that was rapidly
00:03:40
modernizing Iranian society, wanted to
00:03:42
make it more like the West, using Iran's
00:03:44
immense oil resources and wealth to
00:03:46
really accelerate development, building
00:03:48
of social institutions, healthcare, uh,
00:03:51
literacy, modernization, all of those
00:03:53
things. That was his focus. Make Iran
00:03:54
more like the West. And, uh, in that
00:03:57
sense, he succeeded, but it came at the
00:03:58
expense often times of civil liberties
00:04:01
for many people. It came at the expense
00:04:03
of freedom for those who wanted to
00:04:06
essentially practice religion, Islam,
00:04:07
Shia, Islam in their own way. The Sha
00:04:09
was not hostile to religion, but he he
00:04:12
his policies were inconsistent with
00:04:14
where the traditional religious Iranians
00:04:16
wanted to go. And it sort of created a
00:04:18
schism in society. And you also had um a
00:04:21
wealth gap, an income disparity.
00:04:24
Immense wealth poured into the country,
00:04:25
but it didn't trickle its way downward
00:04:27
into the sort of the village and rural
00:04:29
poor. And so there was a lot of
00:04:31
frustration, a lot of disenchantment
00:04:33
with his policies. And that led to sort
00:04:34
of this populist backlash of wanting
00:04:37
something that was more democratic, more
00:04:39
accountable, uh more like the West uh
00:04:42
ironically. And uh and that sort of was
00:04:44
the beginning of of where that cycle
00:04:46
led.
00:04:47
>> And so how did Hani take power of Iran?
00:04:51
He led a movement, a mass populist
00:04:54
movement, not a religious one, but meant
00:04:56
to um go across multiple socio-economic
00:05:00
and political divides and unified the
00:05:02
opposition under this idea of removing
00:05:05
the monarchy, removing dependence on the
00:05:07
west. He specifically said Iran uh the
00:05:09
United States was to large part to blame
00:05:11
for Iran being in the state that it was,
00:05:14
for people not having the the the the
00:05:16
things they needed to live, the
00:05:17
freedoms, the liberties. He blamed the
00:05:19
Shaw's um use of the secret police and
00:05:22
torture methods on the United States and
00:05:24
on Israel who he claimed, you know,
00:05:26
taught the secret police how to do these
00:05:28
things. Um there's a complicated sort of
00:05:30
history to that. And he basically
00:05:32
promised them salvation from a what he
00:05:34
did what he portrayed as a puppet tyrant
00:05:37
of the United States and the masses
00:05:40
bought into this. But both the left and
00:05:42
the right really the right consisted of
00:05:44
the the black the Islamists. So you had
00:05:46
the red which were sort of the the
00:05:48
Marxist socialist uh followers. You had
00:05:50
the black and then you had sort of that
00:05:52
middle in between and they all coalesed
00:05:54
around this one charismatic religious
00:05:57
figure very um austere man um one who
00:06:00
didn't really have a lot of luxuries
00:06:02
himself led a simple life but was
00:06:04
consistent with his opposition to what
00:06:06
he saw uh tyranny and despatism and
00:06:10
people bought into it
00:06:12
>> and the Americans didn't like this. The
00:06:14
Americans didn't know what to make of
00:06:16
it. And there was a failure, and I think
00:06:18
Andrew can talk about this as well, over
00:06:19
a failure by the State Department, the
00:06:21
CIA in the 70s to see where the threat
00:06:23
was. They saw the threat coming from the
00:06:24
Soviet Union. They they were still
00:06:25
afraid of Soviet encroachment in the
00:06:27
Middle East, particularly through Iran.
00:06:29
Their concerns were with the Marxists,
00:06:31
the Communist parties. They did not
00:06:33
carefully look at the black. They didn't
00:06:35
look at the Islamists. They didn't see
00:06:36
them as a threat until it was too late.
00:06:39
The Shaw himself blocked or really
00:06:41
didn't give the CIA full access to Iran.
00:06:44
There was limited information that was
00:06:46
coming out. He relied on his own u
00:06:48
intelligence which fed him information
00:06:50
he wanted to hear which is that
00:06:52
everything is going great. The country
00:06:53
is doing well. The people love you.
00:06:55
They're all happy until the discontent
00:06:58
and the the protest became they reached
00:07:00
a threshold and it was too late to do
00:07:02
anything about it.
00:07:03
>> Yeah. The United States was kind of at
00:07:04
their peak period of meddling in foreign
00:07:07
governments at the time. Um kind of uh
00:07:10
in a strange way that we've come full
00:07:11
circle. This idea of of controlling an
00:07:14
entire country by controlling the
00:07:15
figurehead of the country. That's where
00:07:17
we were in the uh late '7s at the kind
00:07:20
of brink of the Cold War, right? Nobody
00:07:22
knew that the Berlin Wall was going to
00:07:24
fall. We were all concerned with the
00:07:26
spread of communism. Nobody was paying
00:07:28
attention to the Islamist threat. Nobody
00:07:29
was paying attention to really any other
00:07:31
kind of threat at all. was very much the
00:07:33
the
00:07:35
unfettered, uncontrolled,
00:07:37
unsupervised CIA running around with no
00:07:40
oversight and with very deep pockets.
00:07:43
>> And that changed at some point.
00:07:44
>> That changed in 2001 when uh al-Qaeda
00:07:47
successfully carried out the 911 attacks
00:07:49
in New York. And all of a sudden, the
00:07:51
threat that we had all been ignoring was
00:07:53
on our doorstep and had grown so wealthy
00:07:56
and had spread so vast across the world
00:07:58
that Islamic extremism became almost
00:08:01
overnight a household term. Now, there's
00:08:03
still a difference between al-Qaeda,
00:08:06
Islamic Shia extremism, and what is
00:08:09
practiced in the Shia faith and with the
00:08:13
outcomes that the Shia militants are
00:08:15
trying to pursue uh in support of Iran.
00:08:18
But it's hard to differentiate that in
00:08:20
the United States where we don't
00:08:21
understand the difference between Sunni
00:08:23
and Shia.
00:08:24
>> Annie, what do you think this war is
00:08:25
really about?
00:08:28
>> Very interesting what you both said and
00:08:30
I think what I would add to that to that
00:08:32
which very much speaks to today is that
00:08:35
the CIA in fact had many ups and downs
00:08:39
over the decades from its creation right
00:08:41
after World War II until this moment in
00:08:44
time and then on 911. And so it's been
00:08:47
like an accordion experience of power
00:08:50
being taken away from the CIA and then
00:08:53
being grabbed back because the CIA has
00:08:56
always historically been the president's
00:08:59
hidden hand. It has been the way in
00:09:02
which the White House can execute
00:09:04
executive power without having to follow
00:09:08
the laws of war that the military does.
00:09:10
So military is a code called title 10.
00:09:13
CIA is a code called Title 50. And while
00:09:16
that may sound a bit wonkish, it is
00:09:19
important to understand because Title 50
00:09:21
essentially, as Andrew can speak to,
00:09:23
gives the president authority under
00:09:26
classified presidential directive to
00:09:30
change any rule he wants that suits him
00:09:33
for an operation at hand, which gets us
00:09:36
precisely to where we are today.
00:09:38
>> So, as far as I understand, there was
00:09:39
the Sha, the sort of royal leader who
00:09:41
was in power. He was overthrown in the
00:09:43
late 1970s by Hermeni. Hermeni
00:09:46
galvanized people to believe in his way
00:09:48
and he's been in power ever since.
00:09:50
>> It gets complicated because homi with an
00:09:53
O was the original leader of the
00:09:55
revolution and was later replaced by Hy
00:09:58
with an A. Okay, there's two and but no
00:10:00
that's that is
00:10:01
>> the supreme leader the you know and this
00:10:04
speaks to the revolutionary nature of
00:10:07
Iran which has been you know taking
00:10:10
place since 1979 you know in the news
00:10:13
today people hear the um IR you know the
00:10:17
Iranian revolutionary guard and it's so
00:10:20
important to understand that word
00:10:22
revolution because and you can speak to
00:10:25
this better than any of us but Iran has
00:10:26
been holding on to this idea uh that or
00:10:29
rather the regime has that we are the
00:10:32
revolutionary force against America.
00:10:34
That is why the chant is always death to
00:10:37
America. The wound of 19 of pre-1975,
00:10:42
the wound of America meddling and having
00:10:44
the shaw as its puppet is as inflamed or
00:10:49
was as inflamed two days ago as it was
00:10:54
the day after the revolution in 1979.
00:10:56
>> I think that's probably important
00:10:57
context. we m missed which was the US
00:10:59
got involved in the sha and how he
00:11:03
governed Iran.
00:11:04
>> It's a fascinating period in 1951. So
00:11:07
basically under the Iranian constitution
00:11:09
the sha the king has the authority to
00:11:11
select the prime minister with the
00:11:13
consent of parliament. The consent part
00:11:14
is really nominal and so Mosad who is a
00:11:18
senior member of parliament and also a
00:11:20
member of the previous royal dynasty is
00:11:22
distantly related. this um elderly
00:11:25
statesman who the sha out of sort of
00:11:28
courtesy after having gone through a
00:11:29
successive list of prime ministers says
00:11:31
okay I'm going to appoint him prime
00:11:32
minister so he wasn't democratically
00:11:35
elected he was the he was elected to
00:11:37
parliament but from there the sha
00:11:38
selected him to be prime minister
00:11:40
mosadak nationalized the oil company the
00:11:43
Anglo-American oil company which was
00:11:44
owned primarily by the British this
00:11:46
angered the British who in turn
00:11:48
blockaded Iran's ports and basically
00:11:50
shut down its oil um industry and
00:11:53
creating a national crisis. Um, and
00:11:55
Mosatk was sort of amassing additional
00:11:57
powers within himself uh for himself
00:12:00
basically overstepping the authority
00:12:02
that he had even though he had the
00:12:04
support of a good deal of the public as
00:12:05
it became obvious that this was a a bad
00:12:08
move especially in the eyes of um Iran's
00:12:10
international trading partners and it
00:12:12
was causing Iran to be um isolated.
00:12:16
There was push back towards him and then
00:12:18
he was removed. The British had wanted
00:12:20
MI6 had wanted to overthrow him,
00:12:22
basically get him removed and they um
00:12:25
try to recruit the United States to
00:12:26
help. Um President Truman refused to
00:12:29
engage in this earlier. Eisenhower comes
00:12:31
in is more receptive under CIA CIA
00:12:34
director Alan Dulles to actually engage
00:12:36
in this called operation TP Ajax led by
00:12:39
Kermit Roosevelt who is the CIA agent uh
00:12:42
officer tasked with this. And then the
00:12:44
Americans and the British basically help
00:12:46
ferment a crowd that is a part of the
00:12:49
movement that removes mosatk. Now
00:12:51
whether it's a common I think a
00:12:53
misconception that the US CIA was behind
00:12:55
it. The British had a bigger role in in
00:12:57
this. The um Americans were more of the
00:12:59
junior partner but they became sort of
00:13:01
the public face of it.
00:13:03
>> But Moad was not this overwhelmingly
00:13:05
popular democratically elected figure
00:13:07
either. The history is more complicated.
00:13:09
And regardless um there have been many
00:13:12
prime min there were many prime
00:13:13
ministers after him. Um and so he was
00:13:15
known as a nationalist because he
00:13:16
believed that Iran's oil should be
00:13:18
nationalized and not really beholden to
00:13:20
British interests and that created a lot
00:13:22
of u resentment and animosity. But that
00:13:26
began the US Iranian relationship really
00:13:28
solidified when the sha returned. He
00:13:30
didn't leave really he just sort of took
00:13:32
himself out of the country for a bit but
00:13:33
he never stepped down. Um and while this
00:13:36
was all being resolved then he comes
00:13:37
back and then the the US Iranian
00:13:39
relationship continues all the way
00:13:41
through 79.
00:13:41
>> So the UK and the US have been meddling
00:13:43
in Iran for a long time and kind of you
00:13:45
know exerting their will.
00:13:48
>> The UK since the 19th century by far the
00:13:50
UK has been the dominant colonial force
00:13:53
in in modern Iranian history.
00:13:55
>> And they lose that power in the sort of
00:13:57
1980s early 1980s because the Hani comes
00:14:00
in. The British lose that power with the
00:14:02
fall of pretty much the fall of the
00:14:04
empire in the 1940s after World War II
00:14:06
and the United States in 79. Exactly.
00:14:08
>> And then since then, the UK and the US
00:14:10
haven't been able to sort of exert
00:14:12
control and their will over Iran and
00:14:14
>> zero zero. There's not even an embassy
00:14:16
there because of course they took our
00:14:17
embassy or they took over the embassy. I
00:14:19
mean, it's been it's been like ground
00:14:21
zero of nothing for the CIA's power, for
00:14:24
any American power, really for any
00:14:25
Western power.
00:14:26
>> You call it a black box.
00:14:27
>> It's a rogue nation. It's a black box of
00:14:30
information. A rogue nation is a is one
00:14:32
of a handful of countries around the
00:14:33
world that follow no international
00:14:35
norms. Um, North Korea is a rogue
00:14:37
nation. Uh, Bellarus is a rogue nation.
00:14:39
Cuba is a rogue nation. Venezuela was a
00:14:41
rogue nation. These countries that
00:14:44
completely stand separate from the the
00:14:48
norms of an international society. And
00:14:51
in Iran's case, it also became this
00:14:53
black box where it did not allow
00:14:54
foreigners in, especially not
00:14:55
Westerners. It closed down its embassy.
00:14:58
the traditional methods for collecting
00:14:59
intelligence were very difficult and
00:15:01
geographically it's so far away and so
00:15:03
far outside of the the sphere of
00:15:06
influence for the United States that in
00:15:09
terms of intelligence and military
00:15:11
prioritization it just fell to the
00:15:14
bottom of the list
00:15:14
>> and yet look exactly where it is it's
00:15:16
right in the middle of the east and to
00:15:18
Benjamin's point oil it's always about
00:15:21
oil there's always a component of oil
00:15:23
>> and there are so many other oil options
00:15:26
in that region besides Iran right? Saudi
00:15:28
Arabia, UAE, uh Bahrain, Qatar, they
00:15:31
they've they've got the United States
00:15:33
could partner with other Arab countries
00:15:37
to get what they wanted without having
00:15:38
to deal with Iran.
00:15:39
>> So, explain to me in simple terms why
00:15:42
Trump right now has decided that this is
00:15:45
the best time to attack Iran. I want to
00:15:48
start with you, Andrew. What's your
00:15:50
point of view on that? The full picture
00:15:51
of what his motivations. I think the
00:15:53
question that you just asked is the most
00:15:56
preient question that we will talk about
00:15:58
today. Why? Why now? Why is it being
00:16:01
communicated the way it's being
00:16:02
communicated? Why was it executed the
00:16:04
way it was executed? So why is now the
00:16:06
very the best of all times? I frankly
00:16:09
don't think it is. I think that's the
00:16:11
narrative that's being communicated to
00:16:13
the world and to the public. Um, what
00:16:17
Donald Trump did in attacking Iran goes
00:16:19
against what the ODNI report assessed
00:16:22
for the big the most likely threats
00:16:24
against the United States in her 2000 in
00:16:26
the ODNI's 2005 threat assessment. It
00:16:29
goes against the uh Department of Wars
00:16:32
2026 national defense strategy and it
00:16:35
goes against the White House's national
00:16:36
security strategy. These massive
00:16:39
doctrinal
00:16:40
>> annual assessments for how the United
00:16:42
States will will protect national
00:16:44
security. The attack against Iran goes
00:16:46
contrary to all three of those in terms
00:16:48
of priority and action. So why now? Why
00:16:52
the way that we've done it? I can't
00:16:55
answer it in any kind of logical way.
00:16:57
>> What's the non-logical answer?
00:16:59
>> It's a distraction. It's international
00:17:02
pressure with Israel. It's a cheap win
00:17:06
after a series of losses.
00:17:08
It's uh a lastditch effort before he
00:17:11
understands he that Donald Trump and and
00:17:13
his party will lose control of the House
00:17:16
in the midterms this year.
00:17:19
>> I have a little bit of a different take,
00:17:21
shall I?
00:17:22
>> Um
00:17:24
I believe the current administration is
00:17:28
led as a completely top-down situation.
00:17:31
In other words, like sole presidential
00:17:34
authority. this current president is
00:17:38
very enraptured with power and with um
00:17:42
prowess, with effectiveness. And on the
00:17:46
heels of Maduro and maybe even the
00:17:48
cartel leader in Mexico, I believe that
00:17:52
the current president saw a moment of of
00:17:56
intense weakness that had been building,
00:17:59
no doubt. And in waring in general, when
00:18:03
when looking at it theoretically like
00:18:05
someone like myself, the decapitation
00:18:08
strike is the ultimate strike. It's
00:18:11
literally like it sounds when you can it
00:18:13
comes from cut off the head of the
00:18:14
snake. And that is exactly what just
00:18:17
happened.
00:18:18
>> Why? Why though? Why? Why did he do
00:18:19
that?
00:18:20
>> Well, I cannot tell you why, but I can
00:18:22
tell you what what we all know that this
00:18:24
happened. So if you reverse engineer
00:18:27
what happened I think it become there's
00:18:30
only one conclusion which is that I
00:18:34
would think the current president had
00:18:35
wanted to do this and was waiting
00:18:40
till he had the intelligent the good the
00:18:42
intell and the intelligence part of it
00:18:44
is beyond remarkable like how they how
00:18:47
the CIA and NSA and you know probably
00:18:51
DIA and NGA all of these intelligence
00:18:54
agencies, of which there are many, not
00:18:56
just the CIA, were able to get that
00:18:59
information to the president in that
00:19:01
exact moment, and make that strike and
00:19:03
decapitate the leadership that has been
00:19:06
in power since 1979.
00:19:08
>> When they talk about the motives here,
00:19:10
Trump will often site nuclear weapons as
00:19:12
the motive, saying he didn't want uh
00:19:15
Iran to get nuclear weapons. Is is that
00:19:18
what's going on here in your point of
00:19:19
view? The 2025 National Threat
00:19:21
Assessment that was produced by the ODNI
00:19:23
in March, so less than a year old,
00:19:26
specifically says that Iran was unlikely
00:19:29
to pursue the development of nuclear
00:19:31
enrichment or nuclear weapons. That was
00:19:32
the assessment of the the ODNI and that
00:19:35
instead their primary concern was that
00:19:37
Iran was going to focus resources into
00:19:39
the research of biological and chemical
00:19:40
weapons. So the fact that in March of
00:19:42
2025 the ODNI the assessment of all
00:19:46
intelligence agencies said Iran is not
00:19:48
working on a nuclear weapon and then
00:19:51
after the strike in June of the same
00:19:52
year where we dropped bunker busters and
00:19:55
in Fordo further obliterating their
00:19:58
nuclear enrichment capability and
00:19:59
obliterating their program. We have two
00:20:01
documents that say they're not
00:20:03
developing it. We have another series of
00:20:04
attacks that says it's obliterated and
00:20:06
yet we're still saying that we need to
00:20:09
attack Iran because of WMD. We've heard
00:20:11
that story before. We've heard that WMD
00:20:14
is a just that the concern of WMD is a
00:20:17
just cause for war and that was when we
00:20:18
invaded Iraq in 1992.
00:20:20
>> So what do you think the real motivation
00:20:21
there is? Therefore is
00:20:22
>> it's very similar to what Annie is
00:20:24
saying that that we have a current
00:20:26
administration that is president down.
00:20:28
It's fascinating if you read the
00:20:29
official documentation because when you
00:20:31
read the department of wars national
00:20:33
security strategy what you hear more
00:20:35
than any other word is Donald Trump. Our
00:20:38
President Donald Trump is leading
00:20:40
America through our President Donald
00:20:41
Trump, the great Donald Trump. Like the
00:20:43
it's incredible when you hear the
00:20:44
speeches that come out of Marco Rubio's
00:20:46
mouth or Pete Hex's mouth. What do you
00:20:47
hear more than any other term? You hear
00:20:49
the name of the president. Usually you
00:20:52
hear we or the government or this
00:20:55
administration. It's not around a
00:20:56
personality. So, it's a very interesting
00:20:58
situation because it there's so much of
00:21:01
a person at stake here and everybody
00:21:05
surrounding the office of the president
00:21:07
is only there because they are
00:21:09
respecting kissing the ring of the
00:21:11
personality in the center
00:21:12
>> and I'm going to add to that further
00:21:14
just for a moment if I may because on
00:21:16
that point the button on that is that if
00:21:19
you I watch the president the current
00:21:20
president's speeches to sort of you know
00:21:23
discern things and you can often See,
00:21:27
get your answer right there. And in one
00:21:29
of the speeches either this morning or
00:21:31
yesterday, he mentioned that the
00:21:33
Ayatollah tried to kill him.
00:21:36
And it's to me it's like, oh, that's the
00:21:40
tit for tat, you know, again, top down
00:21:44
or you could say school boy sandbox. I
00:21:47
say that as the mother of two boys. you
00:21:49
know, this human behavior that is way
00:21:52
outside the norm of, you know,
00:21:55
intelligence reports and assessments and
00:21:57
these long monographs that may or may
00:21:59
not actually be effective. I mean, you
00:22:01
know, the biggest surprises of the past
00:22:03
40 years, the Berlin wall falling and
00:22:06
9/11 were completely unseen by any
00:22:10
intelligence report. So there is an
00:22:12
argument that those intelligence reports
00:22:14
are as good as a coin toss. So I want to
00:22:17
come to that point because the very fact
00:22:19
that we have an Islamic Republic is a
00:22:21
direct result of a failure of American
00:22:23
intelligence to see that threat as early
00:22:25
as 197677.
00:22:27
A failure to inform then President
00:22:30
Carter to do the necessary take the
00:22:31
necessary steps to support the Sha and
00:22:34
to neutralize that threat. So the United
00:22:36
States track record in Iran for the last
00:22:38
40 or 50 years is abysmal when it comes
00:22:41
to intelligence uh and when it comes to
00:22:44
statecraftraft. And so there's that
00:22:46
legacy, number one. Number two, October
00:22:49
7, 2023, the Hamas attack against Israel
00:22:51
changed the dynamic entirely. That
00:22:54
attack surprised Israeli intelligence.
00:22:56
It surprised Americans. It surprised
00:22:57
almost anybody watching. Nobody thought
00:22:59
Hamas was going to do that, when they
00:23:01
did it, and the means in which they did
00:23:03
it. So all of a sudden, that forced a
00:23:04
recalibration, a recalculation of what's
00:23:07
at stake, what could happen. If we wait
00:23:09
for an imminent threat till we see
00:23:11
actually the sign outside the door, it's
00:23:13
too late. So from the president's
00:23:15
perspective to answer your original
00:23:16
question, why now? Why do this? I
00:23:18
believe the October 7th attacks and it's
00:23:21
not at the behest of Israel necessarily.
00:23:22
It's the idea that Iran we know finances
00:23:25
Hamas, subsidizes Hamas, trains Hamas,
00:23:27
equips Hamas, provides um logistical
00:23:31
support of on on many levels so that
00:23:33
Hamas can be what it was. And Hezbollah
00:23:35
also. You have these destabilizing
00:23:37
non-state groups in the Middle East
00:23:40
wreaking havoc, destabilizing, causing
00:23:42
uh causing chaos. You're the United
00:23:44
States. You're also dealing with a
00:23:46
nuclear threshold state. So Iran may or
00:23:48
may not have a nuclear weapons program,
00:23:50
but they exceeded the 20% enrichment
00:23:52
that they were allowed to do under the
00:23:54
nonuclear non-proliferation treaty. They
00:23:56
they violated IAEA safeguards. They they
00:23:59
lied. So you take all of this together,
00:24:02
this is a regime that can't be trusted,
00:24:04
that chance death to America, which is
00:24:05
more than Saddam Hussein ever did, and
00:24:07
is funding groups that had a that up
00:24:10
until 911, Iran was behind more acts of
00:24:12
terror that cost American lives than any
00:24:15
other state or non-state group in the
00:24:17
world. 911 changed that, but up until
00:24:19
that, the Marine barracks bombing um in
00:24:21
in the 1980s, terrorist attacks
00:24:24
throughout Europe, South America, US
00:24:26
embassy, absolutely the USS Cole, right?
00:24:29
So this is a we've we've been at war
00:24:32
from the president's perspective with
00:24:33
Iran since they took our hostages for
00:24:35
which they've never atoned for. They've
00:24:37
never been held to account for. So if
00:24:38
you take that calculus and then now
00:24:40
we're in a post October 7th world with a
00:24:43
nuclear threshold state what happened
00:24:45
that changed was last year's 6 day a
00:24:48
12-day war in June created an
00:24:50
opportunity weakened Iran enough and its
00:24:52
proxies Hezbollah Hamas weakened. If
00:24:55
there's an opportunity to finally
00:24:56
address this 47year-old conflict, this
00:24:59
was the window to do it. That is why I
00:25:02
believe rightly or wrongly the president
00:25:04
took the action when he did.
00:25:07
>> That doesn't make it the best window.
00:25:09
And that's what we're being told is that
00:25:10
it was the last best window.
00:25:12
>> I don't think it was the last best
00:25:13
window, but it was a window or at least
00:25:14
from their perspective, it was it was a
00:25:16
window. You've got everyone weakened.
00:25:18
You've got the the regime less popular
00:25:20
than it's ever been. I mean, we saw the
00:25:21
protest in January that led to the the,
00:25:23
you know, the the blood bath that, you
00:25:25
know, upwards of 30,000 people killed on
00:25:28
January 8th and 9th. This was, you know,
00:25:31
this this regime is at its lowest lowest
00:25:33
point both in terms of domestic
00:25:35
credibility and soft power and ability
00:25:37
to to use proxies to carry out its will.
00:25:40
Why not strike it now would be the
00:25:42
logic.
00:25:43
>> I mean, I can give lots of reasons why
00:25:45
you wouldn't strike it. It's it's it's
00:25:46
violating international law. It sets a
00:25:48
dangerous precedent. It creates
00:25:50
instability. There are Americans dead,
00:25:52
Maradis dead, uh Saudis dead for what?
00:25:57
For for for something that was already
00:25:58
on the precipice of dying itself.
00:26:01
>> It's been dying for 40 years.
00:26:02
>> So why not let it run its course?
00:26:04
>> Because because what more damage is it
00:26:06
going to do? What more October 7th can
00:26:09
we see?
00:26:10
>> Arguably less than anything that's
00:26:11
already been done. So, it's like taking
00:26:13
action on it's like putting down the
00:26:15
dead dog after it's done all of its
00:26:18
>> Well, you I don't think that you could
00:26:19
say to the families of the 30,000 some
00:26:22
people who were murdered by the regime
00:26:24
just earlier, you know, in January that
00:26:26
it's a dead dog. I don't I think they
00:26:28
would disagree.
00:26:29
>> That's it's their country. It's their
00:26:31
people. It's their it's their decision.
00:26:34
It's their right to self-determination.
00:26:36
>> I'm not saying it's correct what was
00:26:38
done. I'm I'm just simply telling saying
00:26:40
the facts of that which I agree with you
00:26:42
know unilaterally that that the weakened
00:26:44
situation was perceived by this
00:26:47
administration as the moment to strike
00:26:49
and what is done is done.
00:26:51
>> Agreed.
00:26:51
>> And so I think what's more interesting
00:26:54
to me is you know observing how America
00:26:58
is dealing with this. I mean we are in
00:26:59
our own crisis America our own serious
00:27:03
crisis and there are crises around the
00:27:06
world particularly in this area and
00:27:08
without having a crystal ball none of us
00:27:10
know and I think that what will happen
00:27:13
in the next two weeks will be profoundly
00:27:16
telling interestingly people will say
00:27:18
this was a good move or this will was a
00:27:20
bad move which in and of itself is a
00:27:23
bizarre theater because your point is
00:27:26
correct you've got you America taking
00:27:29
action in a place that's not its not its
00:27:32
sovereign country.
00:27:33
>> Yes. And to your point, you've got, you
00:27:36
know, decades of a menace that is now
00:27:39
off the table.
00:27:41
>> I would disagree with that. Exactly. We
00:27:43
don't know. And and the worst part is
00:27:45
that in the leadup to this, Iran's
00:27:47
relationship with the with Russia and
00:27:50
China and and other countries that are
00:27:53
successfully countering American
00:27:54
influence worldwide had grown closer
00:27:56
than ever before. I think they're fair
00:27:58
weather friends that just turn on them
00:27:59
in a second.
00:28:00
>> What are you concerned about, aren't
00:28:02
you?
00:28:02
>> So, so there's a number of things here.
00:28:04
So, first of all, with the removal of
00:28:06
Maduro in Venezuela, which happened less
00:28:08
than 60 days ago, and now the killing,
00:28:11
the assassination of a of a leader,
00:28:13
>> the decapitation of the regime,
00:28:15
>> which was the same thing you did here
00:28:16
when you rendered Maduro, right? It's a
00:28:17
decapitation of a regime.
00:28:19
>> That's different. I I would say if
00:28:20
you're going to, you know, extract
00:28:22
someone, you haven't killed them. So,
00:28:25
that's not decapitation. basically
00:28:27
swapping out the CEO. This is completely
00:28:29
reforming the company or
00:28:30
>> I agree with that because because they
00:28:32
were different countries. They operated
00:28:33
in different ways. But when you attack
00:28:35
the leadership,
00:28:36
>> when you attack the head of state,
00:28:38
>> that is protected under international
00:28:40
law because because when you do that,
00:28:42
you open the gates for everyone.
00:28:44
>> Of course.
00:28:44
>> What is it? What is at the heart of your
00:28:46
concern? Because it sounds like you're
00:28:47
saying that this wasn't the right time
00:28:48
to do this and and so what are the
00:28:50
unintended consequences that you're
00:28:52
foreseeing? So there is a domino effect
00:28:56
that happens with every decision that
00:28:58
the United States makes. And now that we
00:29:00
have essentially taken this military
00:29:03
action against a sovereign country, it
00:29:05
opens the door for all sorts of other
00:29:08
countries to just unilaterally choose
00:29:10
when they're going to take action
00:29:11
against another sovereign independ. We
00:29:13
have created more opportunity for more
00:29:16
rogue nations which is a greater
00:29:17
abandonment of an international
00:29:18
community which destabilizes our global
00:29:22
trade, our economics, our sense of
00:29:24
personal security. The Americans are
00:29:27
less secure now than they were 4 days
00:29:30
ago. They are targeted now more than
00:29:32
they were 4 days ago. And if we if we
00:29:36
are coming to the conclusion that we
00:29:37
need to make things worse before we can
00:29:39
make things better, that's a
00:29:40
conversation I guess we can have. the
00:29:42
debate we can have. But with with the
00:29:44
crisis that we have here at home, with
00:29:47
the concerns that exist, with the stated
00:29:49
priorities,
00:29:50
>> crisis here at home,
00:29:51
>> we have an economic crisis here at home,
00:29:52
an immigration crisis here at home. We
00:29:54
have a crisis of politics here at home.
00:29:57
Like the United States is
00:29:58
>> I would just say it's tribal warfare
00:29:59
here at home. I mean, I watch it and
00:30:01
it's just very, very, very dangerous.
00:30:03
Keep going.
00:30:03
>> No, no, no. It's just now we have just
00:30:05
exacerbated that even more. And we've
00:30:07
exacerbated that more with an ally in
00:30:10
the Middle East that just got done
00:30:14
carrying out one of the most destructive
00:30:16
attacks in history against Gaza.
00:30:19
>> You you brought up something. You talk
00:30:20
about sovereignty. Um with regards to
00:30:22
the January 8th um
00:30:26
the violence committed against the
00:30:28
protesters. You said that that basically
00:30:29
it's their own people's
00:30:30
self-determination. How do how does the
00:30:32
international community deal with acts
00:30:34
of state violence against its own
00:30:36
people?
00:30:36
>> That's so we have a a word for that and
00:30:39
it's called intrastate conflicts. Okay.
00:30:41
Conflict inside of a state, a civil war,
00:30:42
>> right?
00:30:43
>> Mhm.
00:30:44
>> The international community has no
00:30:45
responsibility for stepping into a civil
00:30:46
war.
00:30:47
>> So that was this is a great point. This
00:30:48
is the debate that the uh that the four
00:30:52
allied powers had at the end of World
00:30:53
War II when they were convening the
00:30:55
Nermberg trials. You had this idea that
00:30:57
we don't have laws to account for how a
00:31:00
country or state treats people within
00:31:02
its own sovereign borders. The idea is
00:31:04
that Germany could do what Germany did
00:31:06
within Germany proper. Forget about
00:31:08
occupied Germany. Within its own
00:31:09
borders, it can mistreat anybody because
00:31:11
that was German law. And the push was
00:31:13
that that's not the world we want to
00:31:15
live in anymore. We want to live in a
00:31:16
world where basically nations cannot do
00:31:18
that to people. And that's where the
00:31:20
basis of the Nuremberg tribunals came.
00:31:22
And that's where we got international
00:31:23
law of war crimes, crimes of aggression,
00:31:25
genocide, so on and so forth. So the
00:31:28
idea is that just because Iran is
00:31:30
sovereign, we we sit back and allow them
00:31:32
to do that. It's it wasn't a civil war
00:31:33
because one side was fighting with with
00:31:35
with knives, machetes, assault rifles.
00:31:37
The other side had spoons, wooden sp,
00:31:39
you know, I mean, that kind of thing,
00:31:40
right? It was so lopsided. It was such
00:31:42
an abuse and a asymmetric battle.
00:31:45
>> Under the Clinton administration, we
00:31:46
chose to not be part of the
00:31:48
International Criminal Court. We pulled
00:31:50
ourselves out of the very same
00:31:52
conclusion that you're talking about.
00:31:54
>> Yeah. But Nuremberg was not but but
00:31:55
there's also the ICJ. There is a UN
00:31:57
framework that's independent from the
00:31:58
ICC and the Rome treaty. So all I'm
00:32:00
saying is we do have international law
00:32:02
that addresses what nations can do to
00:32:04
their own people.
00:32:05
>> And we violated international law by by
00:32:08
running by attacking a head of state. So
00:32:10
what what is the there's no continuity.
00:32:12
There's no consistency. We choose to do
00:32:14
what we choose to do. We choose to
00:32:16
support what we choose to support. and
00:32:17
we choose to abandon what we choose to
00:32:18
abandon. And how how do you make sense
00:32:21
in a world like that? How do you predict
00:32:23
the future? How do you manage even
00:32:25
raising a family? How do you know where
00:32:26
you can travel? How do you decide on
00:32:28
investments? How do you you can't that
00:32:30
is a great point and I think that's the
00:32:31
that's a you know that's a point to be
00:32:33
made here is that there's an absence of
00:32:35
the enforcement of law internationally
00:32:37
and it's victor's justice and the
00:32:39
dominant will essentially exercise
00:32:41
whatever will they want. The law be
00:32:43
damned. Do you think this is part of
00:32:46
Trump's what his motivations are linked
00:32:49
to his personal legacy? And I say this a
00:32:51
lot because I think sometimes you got to
00:32:52
kind of follow the incentive structure,
00:32:54
especially of a president that can't be
00:32:55
reelected, who has talked a lot about
00:32:57
wanting to win the Nobel Peace Prize,
00:32:58
although he's probably never said it
00:32:59
directly. And you, it almost looks like
00:33:01
a Trump that's thinking about his legacy
00:33:04
ahead of time. And one's legacy is going
00:33:06
to be determined by like the wars you
00:33:08
you start, the people you take out, the
00:33:09
Venezuela situation, the economies seems
00:33:11
to be really important to him. Do you
00:33:13
think this is he's motivated more so by
00:33:15
his legacy than say someone else?
00:33:17
>> I do believe that we are in a position
00:33:18
where this is the first president we've
00:33:19
ever had, and I would love to be wrong.
00:33:22
Please disagree with me on this, but I
00:33:24
think this is the first president we've
00:33:25
ever had that's more focused on personal
00:33:27
legacy than professional or political
00:33:30
legacy. I think he's thinking about
00:33:32
Donald Trump and the name Trump and the
00:33:35
Trump fortune and the Trump future more
00:33:37
than he's thinking about the image of
00:33:40
him on children's bookmarks as a as a
00:33:42
president of the United States for the
00:33:44
rest of the existence of the United
00:33:45
States. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't
00:33:47
feel like he's motivated by country by
00:33:52
service. He is supposed to be
00:33:55
>> it's not it's not country over part or
00:33:56
party over country. It's brand over
00:33:59
country. The Trump brand. I would agree
00:34:01
with that. Yeah,
00:34:02
>> I've never heard a president talking
00:34:03
about, oh, I might take Greenland, might
00:34:04
might go to Venezuela. Um,
00:34:06
>> he he fancies himself a dealmaker. He
00:34:09
wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He he prides
00:34:11
himself on the number of wars that he's
00:34:13
he's he's u ended um conflicts that he's
00:34:16
solved. I think ideally he would have
00:34:18
wanted Iran to end up with a diplomatic
00:34:20
solution. He came with terms. I don't
00:34:22
think war was a preferred option. I he
00:34:24
would be much happier if there was an
00:34:25
agreement that, you know, allowed
00:34:26
everything to kind of stay in place.
00:34:28
Iran would abide by nuclear
00:34:30
restrictions, missile restrictions,
00:34:31
proxy restrictions and then a Trump
00:34:33
casino gets built in you know that would
00:34:35
have made him happy because yeah that is
00:34:37
about the personal that is about the
00:34:38
brand that and it's also he sees that as
00:34:40
benefiting the United States benefiting
00:34:42
uh the US's global partners in the
00:34:43
region so but but I think a lot of this
00:34:46
is personally driven I I I would agree.
00:34:49
>> I also find it quite fascinating that
00:34:50
our prime minister in the UK K Dharma is
00:34:53
not being asked about any of this stuff
00:34:55
ahead of time. I think if we go back a
00:34:57
couple of decades, the UK and the US
00:34:58
were allies. Now it seems like the US is
00:35:01
kind of acting as a lone force in the
00:35:03
world. And it's funny cuz you know I
00:35:05
watched Karma come out after the attacks
00:35:07
have happened and he clearly had no idea
00:35:08
what's going to happen. Same in
00:35:09
Venezuela. Once upon a time you would
00:35:11
have briefed us. The president did go to
00:35:14
the prime minister about I think using
00:35:16
Diego Garcia in other bases um and was
00:35:19
turned down if I'm not mistaken. Right.
00:35:20
That that so there was some awareness
00:35:22
that something was being planned and and
00:35:24
the prime minister said that the that
00:35:26
the UK government would have no part in
00:35:27
any of that.
00:35:28
>> What's going on here? What's the the
00:35:30
macro picture of in terms of the
00:35:32
declining world order that we once knew
00:35:34
where we had where it wasn't just United
00:35:36
States running around doing whatever
00:35:37
they liked and other people might be
00:35:39
briefed or asked.
00:35:41
I mean, I'm interested in looking at
00:35:44
outcome, you know, and then kind of
00:35:46
looking backwards at how we got there.
00:35:48
And I'm also very interested in how
00:35:51
divided America is because I really do
00:35:53
see it as the greatest weakness. So, you
00:35:55
can show strength in what just happened,
00:35:57
but if you are extremely vulnerable at
00:36:01
home, then, and I'm not talking
00:36:03
necessarily about Hezbollah terrorist
00:36:05
cells being, you know, activated, which
00:36:08
may or may not happen. I'm just talking
00:36:11
about the the clash of political parties
00:36:15
in the United States. And to that end, I
00:36:20
often look at the past and like so we're
00:36:23
talking about you mentioned, you know,
00:36:26
being friendly and having our allies and
00:36:28
our and I can't help but look at the
00:36:31
reaction of the opposing party right now
00:36:34
at this action for better or for worse,
00:36:36
but bringing up the Iraq war and talking
00:36:40
about how we got our allies involved. We
00:36:45
went to Congress and I as a historian
00:36:50
can't help but think, but wait a minute,
00:36:52
the Iraq war was built on faulty
00:36:55
intelligence. The Iraq war led us into a
00:37:01
20year
00:37:03
absolute misery with so many people in
00:37:07
this area killed and so many more
00:37:10
problems metastasizing as a result. And
00:37:13
so to to be selective about what works
00:37:18
and what what doesn't work is to me as
00:37:21
dangerous as a situation as we are in
00:37:24
now. And I know that's a little bit
00:37:26
skirting away from, you know, giving you
00:37:28
an answer as to why what was done was
00:37:31
done or whether it's a good idea or a
00:37:33
bad idea. It just simply is very
00:37:36
interesting to me because I can't help
00:37:37
but see, you know, being a subject
00:37:40
matter expert on the history of the CIA
00:37:42
in particular. I see these actions
00:37:47
where it is presidential authoritydriven
00:37:50
since the end of World War II. And to
00:37:52
me, that's what this action looks like.
00:37:54
So, we're in the new era where we are
00:37:56
in, which I find interesting, is where
00:37:59
the president of the United States can
00:38:00
essentially take what would historically
00:38:04
be a covert action operation. You
00:38:07
wouldn't even know about it. That would
00:38:08
be the idea. Instead,
00:38:11
announcing it as a military program. So,
00:38:14
he's merging the legal authorities of
00:38:16
Title 10 and Title 50. And of course,
00:38:19
the average person in the United States
00:38:21
isn't like, "Oh, wait a minute. He's
00:38:22
merging those authorities because What
00:38:24
is what are the title 10 and title 50?
00:38:26
>> Well, title 10 is the military must
00:38:28
follow certain laws of war. Okay.
00:38:30
>> Okay. And title 50 says if the president
00:38:33
decides it is a national security
00:38:35
threat, he can use the CIA's
00:38:38
paramilitary,
00:38:40
that is an actual mil military force.
00:38:42
They sheep dip tier one operators over
00:38:45
from the military and take the patches
00:38:48
off their shoulders, put them in
00:38:50
non-military clothing and send them out
00:38:52
to do military type work.
00:38:55
>> So he's using the military how he wants
00:38:57
to use them.
00:38:58
>> Yes. And
00:38:58
>> he has that right as the
00:39:00
commander-in-chief, as the chief
00:39:03
executive of the United States, the DoD
00:39:06
or now the DO and CIA fall under the
00:39:08
executive branch. They don't fall under
00:39:10
the legislative branch. they don't fall
00:39:11
under the the judicial branch. So, the
00:39:13
president has and always has had the
00:39:15
ability to take these types of actions
00:39:19
and write executive orders. What's so
00:39:21
different here is that while we're
00:39:24
talking about CIA and CIA being used um
00:39:27
by the president in his exercise of
00:39:29
authority, what we're all not talking
00:39:31
about, what we're missing is that CIA
00:39:34
has been gutted. This is the same
00:39:37
president that went to war with CIA in
00:39:39
his first term. CIA has gone through
00:39:41
massive attrition since then. They were
00:39:44
defunded under his first presidency. So,
00:39:47
Director Rackcliffe is the least used
00:39:50
director, the least referenced director.
00:39:52
You never hear about him.
00:39:53
>> Is he the head of the CIA?
00:39:54
>> He's the head of the CIA. And and what I
00:39:56
am concerned about is that the CIA I
00:39:59
left in 2014
00:40:03
was already missing intelligence on
00:40:06
Venezuela and and Iran. Since then, it's
00:40:10
gotten smaller. It's gotten marginalized
00:40:12
more. It went to it's been treated
00:40:14
hostily by the by the US president. And
00:40:17
the CIA that I had started hearing
00:40:20
rumors about in the early 2020s, 65% of
00:40:24
the intelligence that they were
00:40:25
producing was coming from foreign
00:40:26
allies.
00:40:27
>> They didn't have the ability to create
00:40:29
their own its say is that every CIA
00:40:33
sadly, you know, has nostalgia for the
00:40:35
former CIA if you look at history and
00:40:38
believes that their CIA was better than
00:40:41
the current CIA. That's just the nature
00:40:43
of
00:40:43
>> I'm not saying it was better or worse.
00:40:45
I'm just saying the intelligence that
00:40:47
the CIA is using now. I I would argue
00:40:50
that we keep talking about CIA and you
00:40:52
keep seeing CIA in the headlines and
00:40:54
it's actually not
00:40:56
>> exactly. But hang on, ODNI didn't or at
00:40:59
least according to, shall we say, the
00:41:01
New York Times, which must have come
00:41:02
from the White House. CIA provided the
00:41:05
intelligence.
00:41:06
So there you go.
00:41:07
>> Fake. I don't think that's real. I don't
00:41:09
think CIA here's the thing. CIA.
00:41:12
>> How do you think why do you based on
00:41:13
>> CIA is the central intelligence agency
00:41:15
which is by design it means that every
00:41:18
other intelligence that comes from every
00:41:19
other agency inside the DoD inside uh
00:41:22
the national security infrastructure has
00:41:24
to come through CIA only CIA produces
00:41:27
the final product for the president. So
00:41:29
therefore
00:41:30
>> everything is CIA and CIA contain and
00:41:33
CIA is the one that's in charge of
00:41:35
maintaining foreign relationships with
00:41:36
foreign intelligence services. So when
00:41:38
Israel has an intelligence report that
00:41:40
they share with the US president, it
00:41:41
goes through the CIA. So all credit and
00:41:45
all blame always goes to CIA. That
00:41:48
doesn't mean CIA actually had the
00:41:50
intelligence themselves.
00:41:51
>> So what who do you think had the
00:41:52
intelligence and why does this matter?
00:41:54
>> The number one most informed country in
00:41:57
the world on the goings on in Iran is
00:41:59
Israel. Tell me if I'm wrong.
00:42:00
>> No, I would agree with that. There's no
00:42:02
way the United States would have been
00:42:03
able to launch against Iran without
00:42:05
close coordination and incredible
00:42:07
intelligence support from Israel.
00:42:08
>> And I'm going to disagree.
00:42:10
>> Why does it matter?
00:42:11
>> Because it means that Israel could be
00:42:13
directing the activities of the US
00:42:15
military by the intelligence they select
00:42:18
to give to the president.
00:42:19
>> So I wouldn't take that step.
00:42:22
>> I don't think Israel has a monopoly on
00:42:24
intelligence provided. Um we know that
00:42:27
uh MI6 has also historically been very
00:42:29
active and very capable probably more so
00:42:31
than CIA has been and in large part
00:42:33
because the British government has a
00:42:35
embassy has diplomatic ties um has trade
00:42:38
and economic ties with Iran. Um and it's
00:42:41
and the Islamic regime has seen the UK
00:42:44
as a effective sort of pipeline or
00:42:45
conduit to the United States and has
00:42:47
used that in the past um sometimes you
00:42:50
know to to better effect than before.
00:42:52
But I I think that there's a I think
00:42:54
there's sources of intelligence that the
00:42:56
United States gets. And Israel is
00:42:58
influential, but I don't think it is the
00:43:00
sole influencer or the one that pushes
00:43:02
it over the edge one way or the other.
00:43:03
>> I wasn't saying that they're the sole,
00:43:04
but but when it came to Iran, and I
00:43:07
think we're saying the same thing, they
00:43:08
are they don't have the monopoly, but
00:43:11
they have the
00:43:11
>> they're the biggest game in town.
00:43:12
>> Exactly. when it comes to understanding
00:43:14
what's happening in Iran.
00:43:15
>> I mean, I'm going to disagree because I
00:43:18
think that, okay, look at past
00:43:20
situations where the United States
00:43:23
attempted to do a decapitation strike
00:43:25
and then have a regime change. You can
00:43:27
look at Iraq. We tried to kill Saddam
00:43:30
Hussein, failed, and then a disaster
00:43:32
blows up. Libya tried to kill Gaddafi,
00:43:36
fails, a disaster blows up.
00:43:39
Iran
00:43:41
tries to kill the regime or take
00:43:44
decapitate the regime and succeeds.
00:43:48
So you are you saying that you believe
00:43:51
that's because in the other situations
00:43:53
the intelligence was coming from the CIA
00:43:56
who didn't have such great intelligence
00:43:59
and in this situation the intelligence
00:44:01
was coming from Israel who did. No, I'm
00:44:05
saying that that
00:44:09
a big piece of the opportunity of Iran
00:44:11
is tied to the opportunity that was
00:44:13
presented to us by our allies in the
00:44:16
region. I don't think it's just Israel.
00:44:17
Saudi Arabia wants to see the end of
00:44:19
Iran. UAE wants to see the end of Iran.
00:44:21
Jordan wants to see the end of Iran.
00:44:22
There's multiple allies in the region
00:44:23
that want to see the end of Iran. But
00:44:25
when it came to who had the longest,
00:44:29
most reliable human intelligence source
00:44:31
network inside Iran, I don't think
00:44:34
anybody came even close to comparing
00:44:36
with with Israel.
00:44:38
>> And you're saying that was used
00:44:39
selectively, meaning
00:44:40
>> because all intelligence that's shared
00:44:42
with an ally is selective.
00:44:43
>> Of course,
00:44:44
>> I have 10 pieces. Do I give all 10
00:44:46
pieces to my ally or do I give just the
00:44:48
three pieces that I think will move them
00:44:50
off the X?
00:44:50
>> Right. Well, you had to they had to have
00:44:52
those 20 individuals tagged to do their
00:44:54
find, fix, and finishing. Period. End of
00:44:57
story. It couldn't have happened without
00:44:59
it. And I believe that the United
00:45:01
States, the CIA aggregates all that
00:45:04
intelligence, you know, sigage, all the
00:45:07
ins to know that. I can't imagine how
00:45:10
Israel knew that more than the United
00:45:13
States.
00:45:14
I just I I that's my that's where I was.
00:45:17
>> So, I mean, just to give you a very
00:45:19
quick example, right? You're 100% right
00:45:20
that people have to be tagged.
00:45:22
>> When you tag a cell phone, let's just
00:45:23
say we're talking about cell phones.
00:45:24
Cell phones give you a geo a geo
00:45:26
location. Every cell phone signal sends
00:45:28
a geo tag,
00:45:29
>> but only on the service network that
00:45:32
controls that phone. The United States
00:45:34
doesn't have access to most of the
00:45:36
service providers in the Middle East.
00:45:37
So, you already have to have someone to
00:45:40
interlocute the Middle Eastern service
00:45:42
provider with the West. And then on top
00:45:44
of that, you then have to be able to
00:45:46
identify that that selector, that cell
00:45:48
phone belongs to that person. Again, if
00:45:51
you think that the United States is so
00:45:52
powerful, it has every cell phone of
00:45:54
every person around the country, around
00:45:55
the world, they're not
00:45:57
>> I think there's biometric tagging that
00:46:00
is not necessarily electronic based.
00:46:03
>> So, you're saying that it I I appreciate
00:46:07
your point of view. The point is that
00:46:10
Iran, according to every prioritized
00:46:13
list that we have, is on the low end of
00:46:16
our priorities. Russia's above them.
00:46:18
China's above them.
00:46:21
Uh the cartels across Mexico are above
00:46:23
them. So somehow we had such refined
00:46:26
intelligence on
00:46:28
>> What's your conclusion here, Andrew?
00:46:30
Because I feel like there's there's a
00:46:31
second half of your point that's
00:46:32
missing. Like a conclusion that you're
00:46:34
you're pointing towards, but not saying.
00:46:36
>> Isn't it? Isn't it just the lowest of
00:46:37
the hanging fruits of all the ones you
00:46:39
mentioned? Also,
00:46:39
>> correct. It doesn't. So, what I'm saying
00:46:41
is I it doesn't make sense that we would
00:46:44
take this action unless we are really
00:46:47
just acting on the behest of our allies
00:46:52
for some other kind of gain, a personal
00:46:54
gain for the Trump brand, if you will,
00:46:57
some sort of uh hedgeimonyy that the
00:46:59
United States is desperately grasping
00:47:01
for because we realize that we don't
00:47:02
have that power and influence anymore.
00:47:04
And as a result of these actions and
00:47:06
actions like what we took in Venezuela,
00:47:08
we have now empowered and validated some
00:47:12
of the worst regimes in the world that
00:47:14
we've always held accountable for taking
00:47:15
the same kind of actions that we take.
00:47:17
>> And who are you concerned about as it
00:47:18
relates to other regimes?
00:47:19
>> China, Russia, this Russia.
00:47:22
I believe that a big part of the reason
00:47:23
that that Zalinsky hasn't been
00:47:25
assassinated by Russia is because that
00:47:28
would be crossing a red line. That would
00:47:30
that would infuriate Europe and the
00:47:31
United States because you don't attack
00:47:33
world leaders. We just gave them
00:47:34
permission to do so. The same thing in
00:47:36
Taiwan. We can ass now China has free
00:47:38
reign to just assassinate one person in
00:47:40
Taiwan. And then that's just them. We're
00:47:43
not even talking about Pakistan and
00:47:44
India. We're not talking about any of
00:47:46
the border disputes that are happening
00:47:47
anywhere else across Asia or warlords in
00:47:49
Africa. We just validated these these
00:47:53
illegal inhumane
00:47:56
extrajudicial processes all over the
00:47:58
world. So unlike these other world
00:48:00
leaders, Kam was his his his his
00:48:04
philosophy, his entire ideology was was
00:48:07
is built on death to America among death
00:48:11
to other things. You don't have other
00:48:12
world leaders, you don't have the
00:48:14
president of Taiwan saying death to
00:48:16
China. You don't have Zillinsky even
00:48:17
saying death to Russia. He might want
00:48:19
Putin dead, but he's not sort of he
00:48:21
doesn't want the demise of the entire
00:48:22
Russian Republic. Uh and so I think this
00:48:25
is where Kam stands apart where it is it
00:48:28
is a a a movement which became a system
00:48:31
of government predicated on the demise
00:48:34
and the destruction of of the United
00:48:37
States. What's interesting how do you
00:48:38
counter that? Yeah.
00:48:39
>> Interesting with the term stands apart
00:48:40
is I was imagining therefore a spectrum
00:48:43
and the minute it becomes a spectrum it
00:48:45
becomes somewhat subjective. So, you
00:48:47
know, one might say, well, we think they
00:48:49
wanted to hurt us. Whereas before in my
00:48:50
head when when I grew up, I always used
00:48:52
to see these wars and go, why don't they
00:48:53
just they know where the guy lives?
00:48:54
Like, I know that sounds like a
00:48:55
simplified, but they know where he is.
00:48:56
Why don't they just take him out? And
00:48:58
and it was always it always felt to me
00:48:59
that that was off the table in war. You
00:49:01
can't just assassinate a leader because
00:49:03
you don't like them or you're having a
00:49:04
sort of geopolitical disagreement. And
00:49:06
it's actually only in the last sort of
00:49:08
year or two that I thought, okay, maybe
00:49:10
it is free reign to just fly in and
00:49:12
snatch someone out of bed with their
00:49:13
wife, which is what happened in
00:49:14
Venezuela. and then seeing this that you
00:49:16
can just drop a bomb on them wherever
00:49:17
they are. It does kind of make you, you
00:49:20
know, wonder maybe this is now on the
00:49:21
table. I've never really seen that in my
00:49:23
lifetime. I mean, I know there was some
00:49:25
things that went on Libya and in Iraq
00:49:26
and so on, but to snatch a prime
00:49:28
minister out of bed with his wife and
00:49:30
fly him over with photos of I wow, this
00:49:32
is this is a new type of uh geopolitical
00:49:37
action.
00:49:38
>> It's what the it's what our secretary of
00:49:40
state is calling the golden era of the
00:49:43
United States. the old world is gone.
00:49:46
Like these are the this is the narrative
00:49:48
coming out and and being spread by the
00:49:52
representation of the free world. France
00:49:56
there the macaron just this morning
00:49:58
stated that to be free you must be
00:50:00
feared.
00:50:02
This is the world that we're creating.
00:50:04
Death to America. Guess how much I care
00:50:07
about that. Guess how much I care that a
00:50:08
poor broke ass far away pitily
00:50:11
dank country says death to America.
00:50:14
Guess how afraid I am of that? Zero. And
00:50:16
guess how afraid? Multiple people who
00:50:18
have led the United States have been
00:50:19
afraid of that. They They're not. You
00:50:22
can say it all you want. Doesn't matter.
00:50:23
And when you do when you do carry out an
00:50:25
attack,
00:50:26
>> right,
00:50:26
>> against the USS Cole.
00:50:29
For every one attack that's successful,
00:50:30
25 of them are thwarted. That's the
00:50:33
That's the benefit of being the most
00:50:35
powerful military in the world. You
00:50:38
don't have to worry about everybody who
00:50:40
chants in the streets. How many people
00:50:42
disown their kids because they say, "I
00:50:44
hate you." When they're teenagers, you
00:50:45
don't care. You're like, "Give it time.
00:50:47
They'll grow up. They'll be fine."
00:50:49
They've got to go through their
00:50:50
before they realize what it's like to be
00:50:51
grown-ups. That's what we say about our
00:50:53
children.
00:50:54
>> The other You can say the same thing
00:50:55
about a country that just came to power
00:50:58
in 1979.
00:51:00
They're less than a hundred years old.
00:51:03
What What do they know about how to
00:51:05
actually be a country? What do we know?
00:51:06
We're only 250 years old.
00:51:11
Um,
00:51:11
>> I mean it's hard it's hard to swallow
00:51:13
that like, you know, it's okay if you
00:51:15
have like a horrible, you know,
00:51:16
murderous, brutal regime making women
00:51:19
run around in hijabs and ruining entire
00:51:22
thousands of years old Persian
00:51:23
civilizations.
00:51:24
>> Have you been to this part of the world?
00:51:26
I
00:51:26
>> I have not been.
00:51:27
>> That's what they That's normal life
00:51:29
there. That's what do you think is
00:51:30
happening in the in the hermit kingdom
00:51:32
in North Korea? I mean, shoot, look,
00:51:35
Afghanistan. We left Afghanistan and
00:51:37
knew that that's what exactly what the
00:51:38
Taliban was going to do.
00:51:39
>> Right. But what's happening here is not
00:51:42
since 79 is not normal. But but just to
00:51:44
go back to one step for a second, who do
00:51:46
we know launched the missiles that
00:51:47
killed the Supreme Leader and all the
00:51:49
other um in the uh hierarchy?
00:51:51
>> The I think the credit is going to the
00:51:53
United States.
00:51:54
>> No, no. The credit is going to Israel.
00:51:57
>> So So Israel is the one that essentially
00:52:00
pushed the button, pulled the trigger,
00:52:01
what have you. The US provided the
00:52:03
>> Exactly. In which case then does Israel
00:52:06
have the prerogative to take out a head
00:52:08
of state that was you know essentially
00:52:10
the only nation state might I remind you
00:52:12
that came out in support of the October
00:52:15
7 attacks was only Iran not even North
00:52:17
Korea came out and said anything no one
00:52:19
else did absolutely said this was you
00:52:21
know
00:52:22
>> on October 8th he directed Hezbollah to
00:52:24
join the war
00:52:25
>> therefore is a fair is he a fair target
00:52:27
for Israel
00:52:28
>> that's a great question is he a
00:52:29
combatant
00:52:32
>> if if authorizes, funds, motivates,
00:52:36
endorses, and basically encourages and
00:52:38
shoves out the door your attacker. Do
00:52:40
you then have a right to go after them?
00:52:42
>> That's I think that's maybe that's the
00:52:44
$10,000 question here. Okay? Because
00:52:46
because if you are will if you're
00:52:48
willing to see the the leader of every
00:52:50
country as an as a combatant, they are
00:52:52
the heads of the military. The president
00:52:54
is the the commander-in-chief of the
00:52:56
military. If they are combatant, they
00:52:58
are a legal target. So if they're a
00:53:00
legal target, why is it against
00:53:01
international law to attack head of
00:53:02
state? And even more, what's the
00:53:05
acceptable collateral damage? Because
00:53:06
Israel is notorious for assassinations
00:53:08
around the world. It's it's what makes
00:53:10
them so difficult for other people to
00:53:12
ally with because we don't support
00:53:14
assassinations. And most assassinations
00:53:16
are not legal combatants. They're
00:53:19
scientists. That's a civilian. They're
00:53:22
experts. That's a civilian. They're
00:53:24
heads of industry. That's a civilian.
00:53:26
They're generals, but not in a hot
00:53:28
conflict. that makes them a
00:53:28
non-combatant.
00:53:29
>> The spaces you're talking about, the
00:53:31
line between civilian and someone who
00:53:34
works for the government or is on a
00:53:35
government funded weapons program or
00:53:37
something of that nature, those lines
00:53:39
are blurred in the Middle East. We know
00:53:40
that
00:53:40
>> those lines are blurred everywhere. A
00:53:42
civilian who works for a company that's
00:53:44
hired by the US military, is that person
00:53:46
a combatant? Okay. But it but those
00:53:47
distinctions are are are far more subtle
00:53:50
in the Middle East and especially when
00:53:52
you're a scientist working for a state
00:53:54
nuclear program
00:53:56
>> that you're being forced to work for
00:53:58
because you're one of the few scientists
00:53:59
that can do it.
00:54:00
>> I I don't know. Are they forced to work
00:54:02
for? I mean I mean there are there are
00:54:04
defectors. There are those who who who
00:54:06
opt and then there are those who double
00:54:07
down and become religious cheerleaders
00:54:10
supporting what the government's doing.
00:54:11
I mean, the point I'm making is that you
00:54:13
saying it doesn't give you the
00:54:14
international under international law
00:54:16
the right to take out a head of state.
00:54:17
What if it was self-defense?
00:54:20
>> That's not what it was.
00:54:21
>> I have a counternarrative here. Just
00:54:22
just to throw it out and kind of switch
00:54:24
up the the discussion here. You know,
00:54:26
this administration is very interested
00:54:28
in in social media. And for that reason,
00:54:31
I am too. And I look at I saw a meme
00:54:36
that was going around immediately after
00:54:39
this um decapitation event so quickly in
00:54:43
fact it made me wonder like who pushed
00:54:45
that out that quickly. And it's a white
00:54:49
sheet of paper with all the months of
00:54:51
the year of 2026. And January there's a
00:54:54
picture of Maduro.
00:54:56
February there's a picture of the
00:54:58
Mexican cartel leader. March, one day
00:55:01
off, there's a picture of the supreme
00:55:03
leader of Iran and then there's a
00:55:05
question mark in the other months. And
00:55:07
it made me think and sort of wonder
00:55:10
speculate, is this messaging to Putin
00:55:15
that he better start negotiating with
00:55:17
Trump?
00:55:18
>> Nope. Putin's a whole different beast.
00:55:19
What what that's a message to is the
00:55:21
leader of Cuba.
00:55:22
>> Yeah, Cuba, I was going to say, is next.
00:55:24
And if you follow what the United States
00:55:27
considers to be the four state sponsors
00:55:29
of terrorism, the only one that remains
00:55:31
after Cuba is North Korea.
00:55:33
>> You know, every once in a while you come
00:55:35
across a product that has such a huge
00:55:37
impact on your life that you'd probably
00:55:39
describe as a gamecher. And I would say
00:55:43
for about 35 to 40% of my team, they
00:55:47
would currently describe this product
00:55:49
that I have in front of me called Ketone
00:55:51
IQ, which you can get at ketone.com
00:55:54
as a game changer. But the reason I
00:55:56
became a co-owner of this company and
00:55:57
the reason why they they now are a
00:55:58
sponsor of this podcast is because one
00:56:01
day when I came to work, there was a box
00:56:02
of this stuff sat on my desk. I had no
00:56:04
idea what it was. Lily in my team says
00:56:06
that this company have been in touch. So
00:56:08
I went upstairs, tried it, and quite
00:56:10
frankly, the rest is history. in terms
00:56:11
of my focus, my energy levels, how I
00:56:14
feel, how I work, how productive I am.
00:56:17
Game changer. So, if you want to give it
00:56:19
a try, visit ketone.com/stephven
00:56:21
for 30% off. You'll also get a free gift
00:56:23
with your second shipment. And now you
00:56:26
can find Keton IQ at Target stores
00:56:27
across the United States, where your
00:56:29
first shot is completely free of charge.
00:56:32
This company that I've just invested in,
00:56:34
it's grown like crazy. I want to be the
00:56:35
one to tell you about it because I think
00:56:36
it's going to create such a huge
00:56:38
productivity advantage for you. Whisper
00:56:39
Flow is an app that you can get on your
00:56:41
computer and on your phone on all your
00:56:43
devices and it allows you to speak to
00:56:44
your technology. So instead of me
00:56:46
writing out an email, I click one button
00:56:47
on my phone and I can just speak the
00:56:49
email into existence and it uses AI to
00:56:52
clean up what I was saying. And then
00:56:54
when I'm done, I just hit this one
00:56:55
button here and the whole email is
00:56:57
written for me. And it's saving me so
00:56:59
much time in a day because Whisper
00:57:01
learns how I write. So on WhatsApp, it
00:57:03
knows how I am a little bit more casual.
00:57:05
On email, a little bit more
00:57:06
professional. And also there's this
00:57:07
really interesting thing they've just
00:57:08
done. I can create little phrases to
00:57:10
automatically do the work for me. I can
00:57:12
just say Jack's LinkedIn and it copies
00:57:14
Jack's LinkedIn profile for me because
00:57:16
it knows who Jack is in my life. This is
00:57:17
saving me a huge amount of time. This
00:57:19
company is growing like absolute crazy.
00:57:21
And this is why I invested in the
00:57:22
business and why they're now a sponsor
00:57:23
of this show. And Whisper Flow is
00:57:25
frankly becoming the worstkept secret in
00:57:27
business, productivity, and
00:57:29
entrepreneurship. Check it out now at
00:57:30
whisperflow spelled w i s p r l o
00:57:34
w.ai/steeen.
00:57:37
It will be a game changer for you.
00:57:39
>> Why does the US care about Cuba? What's
00:57:41
the context there? What what does the US
00:57:43
want with Cuba?
00:57:44
>> Well, Cuba's 90 miles off the coast of
00:57:47
Florida for starters. So,
00:57:49
geographically, it's very dangerous.
00:57:52
Cuba was where the Soviet Union put
00:57:56
nuclear missiles
00:57:59
there, you know, almost bringing the
00:58:01
United States to the brink of nuclear
00:58:02
war during the Kennedy administration.
00:58:04
It's one of the only countries in the
00:58:05
Western Hemisphere that does not fall
00:58:07
under the United States's sphere of
00:58:08
influence.
00:58:09
>> I actually saw this yesterday.
00:58:11
>> The Cuban government is talking with us
00:58:14
and they're in a big deal of trouble as
00:58:17
you know. They have no money. They have
00:58:19
no anything right now, but they're
00:58:21
talking with us and maybe we'll have a
00:58:24
friendly takeover of Cuba.
00:58:28
>> Exactly.
00:58:28
>> So Trump says that maybe we'll have a
00:58:30
friendly takeover of Cuba and he said
00:58:32
that two days ago. Mhm.
00:58:35
>> So, Cuba's next and then North Korea.
00:58:37
>> Do they wouldn't North Korea have
00:58:39
nuclear weapons though, don't they,
00:58:40
Annie? So,
00:58:41
>> yes, they do.
00:58:41
>> I I I always wonder that actually does
00:58:43
getting to a a point where you have
00:58:45
nuclear weapons kind of mean the US will
00:58:46
leave you alone?
00:58:47
>> Absolutely. I think that part of all of
00:58:50
this is the the sort of elephant in the
00:58:51
room is that
00:58:54
you cannot, you know, the United States
00:58:56
will not let anyone else join the
00:58:59
nuclear 9.
00:59:01
North Korea was the last example of that
00:59:05
mistake during the Clinton
00:59:06
administration being told by the leader
00:59:09
of North Korea, "Oh, no, no, we're not
00:59:11
going to have a nuclear program." And
00:59:13
then him not, you know, deciding by sort
00:59:16
of committee and all his sage advisers
00:59:18
and following and talking to Congress
00:59:20
and all of that, we're not going to
00:59:21
attack North Korea. That would be
00:59:23
unacceptable. That was the Democratic
00:59:25
President Clinton's position. And as a
00:59:28
result, North Korea developed nuclear
00:59:31
weapons and now has nuclear weapons and
00:59:34
the nuclear weapons systems to strike
00:59:36
the United States and has demonstrated,
00:59:39
you know, a desire if provoked or
00:59:42
actually has said if provoked it would
00:59:44
do so. And so, you know, you that was
00:59:48
not going to happen with Iran. Certainly
00:59:50
not on this watch and probably not on
00:59:53
any watch. Is there a bit of an unspoken
00:59:55
rule geopolitically where if you get to
00:59:57
nuclear weapons, you can do whatever the
00:59:58
hell you want and
00:59:59
>> it's the ultimate deterrence.
01:00:00
>> Yeah, absolutely. You can't mess with
01:00:02
somebody who has a nuclear weapon and
01:00:04
you and you and you don't.
01:00:05
>> One of my friends was asking me this
01:00:06
morning whe how the situation with Iran
01:00:09
getting nuclear weapons is any different
01:00:10
from the situation with North Korea
01:00:13
having nuclear weapons or is it the
01:00:14
same?
01:00:15
>> Well, it's the same thing. only perhaps
01:00:16
were well now this regime is is it is up
01:00:19
we don't know what will happen with it
01:00:20
but having you know an esh correct me on
01:00:24
this pronunciation you know the idea
01:00:27
that the Shia idea that the sort of
01:00:30
apocalyptic end is not necessarily a bad
01:00:33
thing
01:00:34
>> oh the arrival of the mai and and and
01:00:37
that whole thing right sort of creating
01:00:38
the conditions for that to come about
01:00:39
>> yes there's a there's kind of a a
01:00:42
undergirling the Islamic regime's
01:00:45
thinking being is this idea and that's
01:00:47
very dangerous to the idea that we don't
01:00:49
want to have a nuclear war
01:00:51
>> though that regime is not suicidal. I I
01:00:54
I will sort of state that Kame was was
01:00:56
prepared to die for his cause but he was
01:00:58
not suicidal in the sense that he would
01:01:00
go out and sort of you know um if he
01:01:02
could I don't think start a nuclear war
01:01:04
that he knew his country was going to
01:01:06
get destroyed fighting. Uh that is I
01:01:08
think you know one distinction and I'm
01:01:10
not saying North Korea is suicidal but
01:01:12
definitely what remains of the
01:01:13
government there is not is not suicidal.
01:01:15
Um I don't think there is ideological
01:01:17
dieards as we saw in the founding
01:01:19
fathers of which Kam was the last one.
01:01:21
So that changes it a little bit now that
01:01:23
he's dead you know um there's uh the um
01:01:27
a philosopher Eric Hoffer he sort of
01:01:29
wrote that great causes start as
01:01:31
movements then they become businesses
01:01:32
then they become rackets. Okay. So,
01:01:35
Humeni M Humeni's movement that started
01:01:37
in the 70s that was the movement. It
01:01:39
became a business, a enterprise of which
01:01:41
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
01:01:43
profited immensely till it became a
01:01:45
racket and now we're at the racket phase
01:01:47
of it and the only one really left are
01:01:48
the racketeering leaders you know and
01:01:51
because the the the spiritual leaders
01:01:52
are now gone. Um what happens next I
01:01:55
think is sort of and you know we're now
01:01:56
in very much in unknown territory with
01:01:58
that. Andrew, to that point of nuclear
01:02:00
weapons, if Iran had already violated um
01:02:03
many of the things they'd said around
01:02:04
nuclear weapons and they I think they'd
01:02:05
enriched uranium to 60% roughly, they
01:02:08
would have theoretically continued to go
01:02:09
because they know that if you want the
01:02:11
US and other people in the region to
01:02:12
stay away from you, you got to get
01:02:14
nuclear weapons. And once you get that
01:02:16
to that point, then you no one's going
01:02:18
to mess with you.
01:02:19
>> So I think the assumption is that no one
01:02:20
will mess with you with nuclear weapons.
01:02:22
I don't think that that is going to be
01:02:23
the assumption for much longer. I think
01:02:25
that that Iran recognized that if it
01:02:29
could get a path to a deployable nuclear
01:02:32
capability, whether it's a rocket or
01:02:34
whether it's a missile or even if it's a
01:02:36
truck with a nuke in the trunk, they had
01:02:38
options. 60% enrichment, they have
01:02:41
options
01:02:43
there. I mean, with just nuclear waste,
01:02:45
they have options to cause real damage.
01:02:47
But enriched militaryra
01:02:50
sustainable kind of permanent state
01:02:54
nuclear capability is a much higher
01:02:55
level of enrichment than that. And
01:02:57
that's arguably what they have in North
01:03:00
Korea. Their deployability, their
01:03:02
capability for actually putting it on a
01:03:04
rocket and having the rocket hit where
01:03:05
it's supposed to hit and not blow up on
01:03:06
the launch pad is a little bit
01:03:07
different. And for that reason, I think
01:03:09
we have to take seriously the fact that
01:03:11
if the United States wanted to
01:03:13
demonstrate their power against the
01:03:15
nuclear capable country, they could do
01:03:17
it against North Korea. There's also
01:03:18
this concept that our current military
01:03:21
doctrine under Hegsth has applied that
01:03:23
no other president has ever applied and
01:03:25
no other department of defense,
01:03:26
Department of War has applied and that's
01:03:28
this idea called burden sharing.
01:03:30
According to the Department of War,
01:03:33
their doctrine now is a doctrine of
01:03:35
burden sharing, which means they will
01:03:36
force the burden of a national security
01:03:39
interest on American allies. An example
01:03:42
is they go into Iran with a small naval
01:03:46
force. They bomb Iran knowing very well
01:03:50
that Iran is going to spread the pain
01:03:52
across our allies in the Middle East. To
01:03:54
the United States Department of War,
01:03:55
that is us, that is our allies sharing
01:03:58
the burden. If they want to be our
01:04:00
allies, they have to do this. Same thing
01:04:02
is happening with Ukraine and with
01:04:04
Russia. If you want if Europe, if you
01:04:07
want to counter Russia, you must share
01:04:09
the burden with the United States. It
01:04:11
also gives the the United States now
01:04:13
cart blanch to go anywhere it wants with
01:04:15
a limited force, stir up a hornets nest,
01:04:18
and then let everybody else pay the
01:04:19
price. Well, in terms of the Middle
01:04:21
East, it certainly was an effective move
01:04:24
because, you know, all of these six
01:04:28
countries that Iran has now bomb, you
01:04:30
know, attacked in the past 48 hours are
01:04:34
now very angry with Iran. So, the burden
01:04:38
sharing has gone from kind of like this
01:04:41
is a fight that we're not in to this is
01:04:43
a fight we are in. I don't think that
01:04:45
anybody has taken any offensive actions
01:04:48
against Iran except
01:04:51
>> but they're not happy with it.
01:04:52
>> They weren't happy before.
01:04:53
>> No, they but the the the statements
01:04:54
they've put out are some of the
01:04:56
strongest that we've seen.
01:04:57
>> I mean, we've never even seen anything.
01:04:59
>> We've never seen the Gulf States put out
01:05:00
what they've basically, you know,
01:05:02
condemning Iran and holding it
01:05:03
responsible. It it's now any pretense
01:05:05
that there was a reproma, there was some
01:05:07
sort of a a coming together is is now
01:05:09
shattered. And and that's a setback for
01:05:11
whatever is left of the Islamic
01:05:12
Republic.
01:05:13
>> Huge setback. the the power that Iran
01:05:15
has over the Middle East is a power of
01:05:17
agriculture.
01:05:19
All of the countries that we look at,
01:05:20
all the oil collegiate countries can't
01:05:21
make their own food. Iran makes their
01:05:23
food. So, they've always had this weird
01:05:26
relationship where they disagree with
01:05:28
them politically. They disagree with
01:05:29
them religiously. They disagree with
01:05:30
them militarily, but they're still
01:05:33
allies because of food. The United
01:05:35
States has sanctions all over Russia,
01:05:38
except in one area, space. We still
01:05:40
cooperate with Russia. It's a carve out
01:05:43
because we don't want to lose their
01:05:44
access to the space program.
01:05:47
>> Do you think we're closer to nuclear war
01:05:49
now because of this action?
01:05:50
>> 100%.
01:05:51
>> So you you think this has moved us
01:05:52
closer to that?
01:05:53
>> 100%. And and I've got there's proof of
01:05:55
that all over the headlines today
01:05:57
because France is deploying air launch
01:06:00
nuclear warheads. Air launched nuclear
01:06:02
warheads. That means small warheads that
01:06:05
fit on the ends of airplane rockets.
01:06:08
They're deploying them all over Europe.
01:06:10
That means France is now taking its
01:06:12
nuclear arsenal and spreading it across
01:06:14
its European allies. The more nuclear
01:06:16
proliferation, the more risk of nuclear
01:06:19
that's just Ukraine and
01:06:21
>> that has nothing to do with Iran.
01:06:23
>> Yeah,
01:06:23
>> that has nothing to do with Iran. It
01:06:24
happened two days after Iran. It has
01:06:27
the threat of nuclear war comes from the
01:06:30
conflict in my opinion comes from the
01:06:33
conflict in Iran from the war in Ukraine
01:06:35
and comes from Russia
01:06:37
>> because you have an actual superpower
01:06:40
president who has threatened the use of
01:06:43
nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have a
01:06:46
nuclear weapon. So it's it's not a
01:06:48
nuclear threat.
01:06:50
>> You speak a different nuclear language
01:06:51
than I do. Russia is launching
01:06:54
intercontinental ballistic missiles that
01:06:55
can't be intercepted. It's got the
01:06:56
archnik. What the hell is it going to be
01:06:59
afraid of? A warhead on the tip of an
01:07:01
airplane.
01:07:02
>> It's not. That's a tactical nuke. That's
01:07:04
a battlefield.
01:07:05
>> What is your point?
01:07:06
>> My point is that we the deployment of a
01:07:08
nuclear weapon
01:07:09
>> is nuclear war. The deployment of a
01:07:12
nuclear weapon. If you're talking about
01:07:14
>> Hang on,
01:07:15
>> mutually assured destruction.
01:07:16
>> Are you talking about the use of a
01:07:17
nuclear weapon or are you talking about
01:07:19
putting a warhead on a aircraft? No,
01:07:21
that's that's been technology for a long
01:07:23
time. Using it in the battlefield,
01:07:24
>> but it's not being used in the
01:07:25
battlefield. I agree with you a
01:07:26
thousand%.
01:07:27
>> You don't think it's being you think it
01:07:28
is being used in the battle?
01:07:29
>> No, I'm saying it's being deployed. Is
01:07:31
that getting us closer to nuclear war?
01:07:32
Yes.
01:07:33
>> Yes, but it's not but it's not because
01:07:35
of Iran.
01:07:35
>> It has nothing to do with Iran. And what
01:07:37
are you talking about being deployed?
01:07:38
Because in you're talking about France
01:07:41
maneuvering where its weaponry is.
01:07:44
>> That's the definition of a deployment.
01:07:45
>> That is well then we're talking about
01:07:47
it. I'm talking about nuclear use. I
01:07:49
mean,
01:07:51
the United States deploys its nuclear
01:07:54
forces all the time by President Trump
01:07:57
saying, "I'm moving our submarines,"
01:08:00
>> which is just talk because they're
01:08:02
moving anyways. It's it's the same as
01:08:06
it's threatening when Putin says, "I'm
01:08:08
moving at my nuclear or when he tests,
01:08:11
you know, Norway by popping up right
01:08:15
offside outside of their shores." Those
01:08:18
are maneuvers that are very dangerous. I
01:08:20
I absolutely agree.
01:08:21
>> But in this particular case, has the
01:08:24
even from a Russian perspective, has
01:08:26
this war in Iran increase the
01:08:28
probability that a Putin would use a
01:08:30
nuclear?
01:08:30
>> In my opinion, absolutely not. No. In my
01:08:32
opinion, no. In my opinion, what it does
01:08:35
to Putin is it makes him say,
01:08:39
"Wow, this president
01:08:42
is unpredictable." And to some to an
01:08:46
authoritarian
01:08:48
person like Putin, that's a match for
01:08:51
him, not someone for him to walk on. And
01:08:56
I think that I'm not I'm not saying
01:08:58
that's a great way for world diplomacy
01:09:01
whatsoever. It's not diplomacy. It's
01:09:03
just, you know, it's just strongarmming
01:09:06
one another. But but we are not I do not
01:09:09
feel at all that this situation makes us
01:09:12
closer to a nuclear threat whatsoever.
01:09:16
>> I agree. I think it's a combination of
01:09:18
Ukraine and China's um military
01:09:20
exercises and action in the South China
01:09:22
Sea and the whole sort of you know what
01:09:25
we're not seeing. There's this argument
01:09:26
that China's watching what's going on
01:09:27
with the US and Iran. Here we are
01:09:29
depleting our interceptors, our
01:09:31
munitions. is China's meanwhile
01:09:33
stockpiling, you know, its resources and
01:09:36
is does this put us at a disadvantage if
01:09:38
and when the day comes where China
01:09:39
decides to take proactive aggressive
01:09:41
action visav Iran? That's something to
01:09:44
think about and I think that then I'm
01:09:46
worried about the risk of nuclear war in
01:09:48
that instance. I don't think Iran by
01:09:50
itself in a vacuum is is moving the
01:09:52
needle on that sort of nuclear risk
01:09:55
meter. To your point, what this is a
01:09:56
boon for is the defense contractor
01:09:59
world, is the military-industrial
01:10:00
complex. Because, for example, part of
01:10:03
why Iran is so weak is because they've
01:10:07
used up so many ballistic missiles in
01:10:10
their conflict with Israel. I I read
01:10:12
today the interceptor to missile ratio
01:10:14
something like 25 to1 that the
01:10:16
interceptors needed to to to catch these
01:10:18
ballistic missiles that Kuwait, the UAE,
01:10:21
Israel is using, they're like upwards of
01:10:23
of 10 15 times more expensive.
01:10:25
>> Yes.
01:10:26
>> Um and and these drones are relatively
01:10:28
cheaply made, these shahed drones that
01:10:29
they're using. So, you know, there is
01:10:31
that aspect of it too that Iran can just
01:10:33
fire like a madman all these sort of um
01:10:36
expendable um munitions and meanwhile
01:10:39
we're spending three, four, five, 10
01:10:41
times as much to intercept them.
01:10:42
>> Yes. Although you do see in any kind of
01:10:44
conflict like this, you always see new
01:10:46
weapons on the battle and and that's
01:10:48
what happened now. And America actually
01:10:50
has been copying the Shahed drones,
01:10:53
these cheap, we call them the Lucas,
01:10:55
these cheap systems that can just go in
01:10:58
and, you know, cause havoc without
01:11:01
precision. And we deployed them. So I
01:11:04
think this was I think this was a long
01:11:06
time.
01:11:06
>> Sorry to interrupt you, Stephen.
01:11:07
>> Well, I think this is one of the big
01:11:08
questions that a lot of people are
01:11:09
asking, which is how long can Iran fight
01:11:12
for in this war? Um, and what does that
01:11:14
fight look like? um that here in these
01:11:17
jars you have I think it's the relative
01:11:19
amount of soldiers that each country
01:11:21
has. Now obviously soldiers are just
01:11:23
goes back to what Obama said about
01:11:24
horses and bayonets. They're one form of
01:11:26
um combat but I was quite surprised at
01:11:29
how big Iran's military is relative to
01:11:33
even the US but other um countries in
01:11:36
the region. I think they have the
01:11:37
biggest military in the region. Is that
01:11:38
correct?
01:11:38
>> So we have to separate between the IRGC
01:11:41
and the National Army. They serve two
01:11:43
different functions.
01:11:44
>> What are those two things? the IRGC, uh,
01:11:46
which Annie brought up earlier. So, the
01:11:48
I stands for Islamic Revolutionary Guard
01:11:50
Corps, not Iranian. What does that mean?
01:11:52
It's protecting the Islamic Revolution.
01:11:54
It is an ideological army that sits
01:11:56
outside of the main structures of power,
01:11:58
accountable only to the Supreme Leader.
01:12:00
The National Army really goes through
01:12:03
the office of the presidency and others
01:12:04
and you know, even though the Supreme
01:12:05
Leader has a say in it, but the the
01:12:07
army's job is to protect Iran's borders.
01:12:10
The IRGC's job is to protect the
01:12:12
revolution and the ideology and the
01:12:15
proxies and everything else that we have
01:12:16
come to know about Iran. So if we look
01:12:18
at the if we look at those if we look at
01:12:20
what's in the jar, we have to separate
01:12:22
what the national army which is only its
01:12:24
job is to defend the borders versus the
01:12:26
ideological army. I'm curious what that
01:12:29
would look like if we took out the
01:12:30
national army and are left with the
01:12:32
ideological force. Iran have the largest
01:12:34
stockpile in the Middle East of
01:12:35
missiles, drones, and air defenses,
01:12:37
possessing thousands of ballistic crews,
01:12:39
missiles, and kamicazi drones. This is
01:12:41
their primary offensive strength. Um,
01:12:44
and they have quite a significant
01:12:45
defense budget as well. But I guess the
01:12:47
question I'm trying to get at is like
01:12:48
how long can they fight for? And how
01:12:50
does that fight look over time? Because
01:12:52
I know they shot they shot hundreds and
01:12:53
hundreds of ballistic missiles over the
01:12:54
weekend. Yeah, Israel claims that in the
01:12:56
in the July in the June war of last
01:12:58
year, it it um eliminated about half of
01:13:00
Iran, what it believes to be Iran
01:13:02
stockpiles, but also batteries,
01:13:03
launchers, basically capability. So, if
01:13:05
you whatever it was, let's say they have
01:13:07
half of that left. Um I I've seen
01:13:10
statist statistics saying that really
01:13:12
they can't go at this rate um Iran for
01:13:14
more than two to three weeks before
01:13:16
they're completely depleted.
01:13:17
>> Well, there's also an interesting move
01:13:18
that the United States did. While we
01:13:20
didn't kill the Supreme Leader, what we
01:13:22
did do was send our B2s to take out
01:13:26
missile underground missile systems
01:13:28
which Iran has.
01:13:29
>> Which are the aircrafts, right?
01:13:31
>> No, they're underground. They actually
01:13:32
call them missiles.
01:13:34
Yes, they came from the United States.
01:13:36
And this is a consider considerable
01:13:39
damage because the two ways in which
01:13:43
these sort of rogue nations whether it's
01:13:45
North Korea or Iran work their missiles
01:13:47
is they have them on what are called
01:13:49
road mobile launchers so that they
01:13:51
cannot be tracked and targeted or they
01:13:54
bury them deeply underground. And one of
01:13:56
the only things that can take out those
01:13:58
deeply buried missile sides is a B2 and
01:14:01
that's what the United States sent. So,
01:14:03
how do you how how do you think this
01:14:05
plays out over the coming weeks and
01:14:07
months? Because at some point, yeah,
01:14:08
they might run out of missiles, but that
01:14:09
doesn't necessarily mean the war is
01:14:10
over. I'm presuming that the US don't
01:14:12
want to throw soldiers on the ground in
01:14:15
Iran either. So, what how like how does
01:14:17
this play play out and how long?
01:14:19
>> And and that's one of the major
01:14:21
strategic errors that we made in
01:14:22
attacking Iran. They have the benefit of
01:14:24
time, not us. They can choose how to
01:14:27
react, when to react, in what way to
01:14:29
react. We don't know if they have a
01:14:31
dirty bomb that they're finishing up in
01:14:33
some underground bunker right now that's
01:14:34
just going to sit there and wait until
01:14:36
American boots on the ground show up.
01:14:37
The fact that you guys think that that
01:14:39
current nuclear deployments have nothing
01:14:42
to do with what's going on Iran, it it's
01:14:44
I I want to respect that opinion, but to
01:14:48
me it shows just a lack of military
01:14:51
experience and actual strategic intent
01:14:55
to kill. Like when you look at how
01:14:58
military and intelligence operators are
01:15:00
trained to think, we are trained to
01:15:01
think through a lens of maximum damage.
01:15:04
>> Iran is thinking through the same window
01:15:06
right now. And they're watching what we
01:15:08
just did in Afghanistan. Don't forget,
01:15:09
we killed Osama bin Laden, who was an
01:15:12
ideological figurehead of al-Qaeda in
01:15:14
2011 and didn't leave Afghanistan until
01:15:18
2022 when we were when we gave up.
01:15:21
That's another 11 years of war after the
01:15:24
guy that we were supposed to kill to end
01:15:26
the war. How is Kmeni is different?
01:15:29
Kmeni is different. But how different? I
01:15:32
don't know yet. And what are we going to
01:15:34
do? The the new leadership in Iran,
01:15:37
what's it going to be? Is it going to be
01:15:38
a leadership that that cowtows to the
01:15:40
United States, that cowtows to to
01:15:42
Israel? Is it going to be another shadow
01:15:43
government like the Sha? Are we going to
01:15:45
place somebody else and the Iranian
01:15:46
people are going to love it? Or are we
01:15:47
leaving a vacuum that China and Russia
01:15:49
are going to step into? And now we're
01:15:51
going to we're going to see a
01:15:52
strengthened Iran that's strengthened by
01:15:54
our largest adversaries in the world.
01:15:57
This is the reality of what we've got to
01:15:58
figure out because because the whether
01:16:00
they launch all their rockets in the
01:16:02
next two weeks, that doesn't mean that's
01:16:03
the end of the fight. For all we know,
01:16:05
it's going to come back and bite us in 6
01:16:07
months when some Hezbollah cell lights
01:16:10
New York on fire. We don't know. But
01:16:12
when it happens, arguably, it's going to
01:16:15
be justified.
01:16:16
>> To Andrew's point, Iran can wage a war
01:16:18
of attrition. It's harder. A war of
01:16:20
attrition is basically low-level
01:16:22
warfare. Think of like death by a
01:16:24
thousand cuts, right? I'll just keep
01:16:26
poking at you enough to eventually wear
01:16:28
you down, destabilize you, weaken you.
01:16:30
Whereas what you can do is massive
01:16:32
retaliation and these big sort of, you
01:16:34
know, theatrical strikes. War of
01:16:36
attrition is basically grinding for the
01:16:38
long haul and wearing you down. This is
01:16:40
something that to to his point, Iran is
01:16:42
capable of doing and is probably willing
01:16:44
to do and sees is the only way that it
01:16:46
can survive this is the war of
01:16:47
attrition. the war. It's it's it's
01:16:49
whatever remnant is left.
01:16:51
>> It's how Russia has survived so long.
01:16:53
It's the war of attrition.
01:16:54
>> But but like I'm like who's the lead? Do
01:16:55
you need a leader
01:16:56
>> or is it just lots of different pockets
01:16:58
of people?
01:16:58
>> Time will tell and you know Hezbollah's
01:17:01
sort of cells around the world will tell
01:17:03
us what happens. But I think another way
01:17:06
of looking at it, I saw a a former
01:17:09
member of the National Security Council
01:17:11
commenting that like yes, cells could be
01:17:14
activated in America or they could just
01:17:18
fade away. And this is where I don't
01:17:20
have a crystal ball and I'm just
01:17:23
observing what's happening. But I do
01:17:25
think that the that all of this hangs on
01:17:28
the razor's edge of public opinion
01:17:31
because you know we time will tell
01:17:34
whether or not this regime falls whether
01:17:37
what you're saying if it's either or but
01:17:39
I don't I don't think that we I don't
01:17:42
think that we can know.
01:17:43
>> Haven't we been here before to some
01:17:44
degree?
01:17:44
>> Too many times. Too many times.
01:17:46
>> What is the lesson from history that
01:17:47
everyone seems to have forgotten
01:17:49
>> that we are shitty learners of history.
01:17:51
That's that's what the lesson is
01:17:52
>> to to your point of you know who the
01:17:54
leadership would be. Something else that
01:17:55
that philosopher I quoted Eric Hoffer
01:17:57
had said that you know mass movements
01:17:58
they don't need a god but they do need a
01:18:00
devil. So to that effect the leader
01:18:03
doesn't matter as much as having an
01:18:04
enemy does.
01:18:06
>> That is the so so basically so long as
01:18:08
we the United States or the western
01:18:10
world is framed as the enemy that is
01:18:12
enough to keep a war of attrition going
01:18:15
absent any figurehead or charismatic
01:18:17
leader. And he was a religious figure
01:18:19
versus just a political figure.
01:18:22
>> He was a religious figure
01:18:24
>> to your point. He was a rakateeer at the
01:18:25
end.
01:18:26
>> Yeah. I mean he was running I mean
01:18:28
effectively. Yeah.
01:18:28
>> And everyone in most people knew that.
01:18:31
>> Yeah. Absolutely.
01:18:32
>> Thousands of people have gathered in
01:18:33
public squares in Toronto to openly weep
01:18:34
and mourn his death. Roughly 20% of the
01:18:37
population are staunch ideological
01:18:38
supporters of him.
01:18:39
>> Yeah. 20% of 90 million. Yeah. Yeah.
01:18:41
>> And it's interesting because you one can
01:18:42
imagine that that 20% might grow
01:18:46
especially if the the coming months make
01:18:48
their lives worse in some way. They
01:18:50
experience I don't know poverty or
01:18:52
whatever else and and then you know
01:18:54
friends die because of this war. It
01:18:56
doesn't take long for narrative to turn.
01:18:58
And
01:18:58
>> so that's what everyone's been warning
01:18:59
about that you strike Iran. This was a
01:19:01
warning last June. You strike Iran,
01:19:03
you're going to get rally around the
01:19:04
flag. the people that are secularists
01:19:05
now are going to turn and they're going
01:19:07
to start supporting the regime and we're
01:19:08
going to set back the cause of let's say
01:19:10
freedom or democracy. It didn't happen.
01:19:12
It turns out that basically the people
01:19:14
in Iran blamed the regime for their own
01:19:17
for the misery that was that was um put
01:19:19
upon them. And so I think that 20% will
01:19:21
get even smaller as a result not just of
01:19:23
this. It would have gotten smaller
01:19:24
anyway as a result of this. I think
01:19:26
it'll get even smaller still because
01:19:28
their salvation is not at the end, you
01:19:30
know, of a of a of a turban or a robe.
01:19:32
It basically comes with the liberty and
01:19:34
freedom that this government, this
01:19:36
regime won't give them. And so that is,
01:19:38
I think, evident now to the 80% of
01:19:40
Iranians, all of whom of that mean that,
01:19:42
you know, 80 80% of the population is
01:19:44
born after 79. They don't know the old
01:19:46
regime. All they know is this one. And
01:19:48
what they know is they don't like it.
01:19:49
They don't like living under it. And
01:19:51
they want anything other than what this
01:19:52
is.
01:19:53
>> You feel differently.
01:19:54
>> I think that that's an overly idealistic
01:19:56
way of thinking about it. We failed to
01:19:58
convert Iraq when we took out Saddam
01:20:00
Hussein. We failed to to to convert
01:20:02
Afghanistan when we took out the
01:20:03
Taliban.
01:20:03
>> Iran is not Iraq and Afghanistan,
01:20:05
though. It is not.
01:20:06
>> I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying
01:20:08
that when you when you change a
01:20:10
government from the top down, that
01:20:12
doesn't do anything for the people.
01:20:14
>> No one's changing it. There's no nation
01:20:15
building. We're not going in to do
01:20:16
Ragnarok.
01:20:18
So, what's going to build it? What's
01:20:19
going to change it? The people. The
01:20:21
people that have been slaves for
01:20:22
basically the last what 40, 50 years.
01:20:25
The people who have had no education.
01:20:26
The people who have been marginalized.
01:20:28
You think they're just going to
01:20:29
understand how organize themselves
01:20:31
incredibly educated very very highly I
01:20:33
mean it's it's one of the most educated
01:20:34
populists in the world and I have and
01:20:36
and they are very the the people that
01:20:38
are not regime supporters are very
01:20:40
western thinking I mean we see this we
01:20:42
see this in in the culture they produce
01:20:44
the media they produce when they go and
01:20:46
they speak around the world so the
01:20:47
populace is there the capability is
01:20:50
there the will is there all they need is
01:20:52
basically not to be you know not to be
01:20:54
facing the barrel of a gun
01:20:55
>> we are about to find out if that's true
01:20:57
and that is what that is what we are all
01:20:59
writing on right now is whether this
01:21:01
this intellectual minority in a
01:21:03
poverty-stricken economically defunct
01:21:05
country is going to even stay
01:21:07
there or whether they're going to take
01:21:09
their brains and their success and their
01:21:11
opportunities somewhere else.
01:21:13
>> The the diaspora and everything we're
01:21:15
hearing says they are the people are
01:21:17
cannot wait to help rebuild the country.
01:21:19
>> Why do you trust what you're hearing?
01:21:20
>> Well, his family's there, so he's
01:21:22
probably
01:21:24
wor the worst thing you can do is trust
01:21:26
the people that you have a personal
01:21:27
relationship with. They're the least
01:21:29
objective people that you can talk to.
01:21:31
>> So, who are there 80% of the population?
01:21:33
>> Who do you talk to?
01:21:34
>> Exactly. Who do you trust?
01:21:35
>> You can't trust anything that you're
01:21:37
hearing right now. You can't trust
01:21:38
anything that you're reading right now.
01:21:39
The information landscape is two to
01:21:41
multiply.
01:21:44
>> It's not paranoid. Absolutely. It is
01:21:46
absolutely paranoid to suggest that
01:21:48
everything is misinformation. one would
01:21:52
believe, at least I certainly believe
01:21:54
that I have a faculty up here to be able
01:21:56
to take information and try and discern
01:22:00
what might be information misinformation
01:22:03
and what isn't and then also be willing
01:22:05
to stand corrected. That's a very
01:22:07
important part of it and that goes back
01:22:09
to my tribal problem is once you have a
01:22:11
horse in the race and you become
01:22:13
convinced and I am hearing a little
01:22:15
convincedness
01:22:17
from you that you know then I believe
01:22:19
you lose your ability to be able to go
01:22:22
oh wow maybe I was wrong maybe this and
01:22:25
again I'm not condoning what the
01:22:27
administration did whatsoever I'm just
01:22:30
listening to Benjamin and saying that is
01:22:33
to my eye a much better source I'm a
01:22:36
journalist. I'm going to listen to what
01:22:38
people on the ground are saying there.
01:22:41
Certainly family members because their
01:22:44
opinion is going to be legitimately, you
01:22:47
know, heartfelt and not propagandized.
01:22:50
>> Again, we speak a completely different
01:22:52
language. When you talk to me about
01:22:53
opinion, heartfelt, and family, and
01:22:58
belief,
01:22:59
>> none of those are objective. None of
01:23:01
those are rebellions are born on those
01:23:03
things. By the way,
01:23:03
>> I agree. And and that that doesn't make
01:23:06
it objectively correct. It was a
01:23:08
rebellion that ended up in the Iran that
01:23:10
we just saw fall apart.
01:23:12
>> That was a revolution. That was a
01:23:14
rebellion.
01:23:14
>> Andrew, where does your skepticism come
01:23:16
from? What's it rooted in? Because you
01:23:18
did spend almost a decade as an
01:23:19
undercover spy for the United States in
01:23:21
the CIA. Where where is the skepticism
01:23:24
coming from? Why shouldn't we believe
01:23:25
people on the ground who are saying what
01:23:26
they're saying?
01:23:27
>> I have seen this stuff firsthand. I've
01:23:28
been trained in how this stuff works.
01:23:30
I've had to uh deploy this in in pursuit
01:23:33
of American goals and ambitions in the
01:23:35
past. And and what you're saying isn't
01:23:38
inaccurate
01:23:40
as to how people react. People be we
01:23:43
just trust the opinion of the people
01:23:44
that we we trust the opinion of the
01:23:47
people we trust more than we trust the
01:23:49
opinion of others only because it's our
01:23:52
opinion that they're trustworthy at all.
01:23:54
>> So who do you trust to get your
01:23:56
information from? I want to take my
01:23:58
information from as as far opposite
01:24:01
sources as possible and then see where
01:24:03
the information
01:24:05
confirms itself, where it correlates.
01:24:07
Because if you if you see anti-American
01:24:09
people saying the same thing as
01:24:11
anti-Iranian people, where their
01:24:12
messages are the same has corroboration,
01:24:15
the number of dead leaders, as an
01:24:16
example. There's that's a corroborative
01:24:18
point because you're hearing both the
01:24:20
Iranian state media say that and pro- US
01:24:23
western forces talk about that. But what
01:24:25
if it's to your point a black box and
01:24:26
you can't get information from the
01:24:28
sources you're used to getting from?
01:24:29
>> Well, that's it's that's exactly right.
01:24:30
It is a black box. So, if we know it's a
01:24:34
black box, we have to question every
01:24:35
source that comes out. Every piece of
01:24:37
information that comes out. What we're
01:24:38
seeing a lot of right now with Iran is
01:24:39
called circular reporting. It's one
01:24:41
single source of information that comes
01:24:43
out that gets multiplied over and over
01:24:45
again. We're seeing it happen in the
01:24:47
White House, too, because the White
01:24:48
House has kicked out so many
01:24:49
journalistic legacy media outlets. So
01:24:51
now one story gets multiplied over and
01:24:54
over again and we're seeing stuff that's
01:24:55
that's repeated.
01:24:56
>> I have to say something. I am I am a
01:24:58
little bit skeptical about what is true.
01:25:00
I'm like the furthest from ever being a
01:25:02
conspiracy theorist, but a little bit
01:25:03
skeptical of what's true because I did a
01:25:06
post about this subject and obviously
01:25:08
I've spent 15 years in social media. So
01:25:10
our whole business was building scaling
01:25:11
huge social media audiences. And what I
01:25:13
received in my DMs was like I've never
01:25:16
seen before.
01:25:16
>> About what?
01:25:18
I've heard people talking about bots for
01:25:21
decades and most of the time that
01:25:22
they're actually they're wrong. It's
01:25:24
something else going on with the
01:25:25
algorithm or maybe something they don't
01:25:27
like they saw so they call it a bot. I
01:25:30
received thousands and thousands and
01:25:33
thousands of DMs when I posted about
01:25:35
this subject matter. And some of those
01:25:37
accounts when you go on the page and you
01:25:38
look at their posting history, their
01:25:39
engagement, you look at certain patterns
01:25:41
which we've built tools before to kind
01:25:43
of um spot.
01:25:44
>> Some of these accounts aren't real. And
01:25:46
I I said to my friends, I was like,
01:25:47
"What the I posted about this
01:25:48
issue and then I had thousands and
01:25:50
thousands and thousands and thousands of
01:25:52
these accounts DM me encouraging me to
01:25:54
post more about certain things. First
01:25:57
time in my life ever I go, "Oh, that was
01:25:59
definitely it was so a
01:26:01
>> influence operation." Okay. So, what
01:26:02
were they what were these bots pushing
01:26:04
you to post on? I'm conscious whether I
01:26:07
should say or not because I don't want
01:26:09
to infer
01:26:10
>> by doing so you're
01:26:11
>> I'm like inferring that a particular but
01:26:14
I'm just saying I've never felt what I
01:26:17
experienced then and I have I mean every
01:26:19
this trailer will come out we'll see
01:26:20
loads of bots we have systems but this
01:26:22
was in my DMs it was encouraging someone
01:26:23
like me who has a big platform to push a
01:26:25
certain narrative and the the only
01:26:27
reason I noticed is because of the sheer
01:26:28
volume and then the narrative was almost
01:26:31
identical and I think well 1,700
01:26:35
different accounts of all asking me to
01:26:37
do the same thing.
01:26:37
>> So you have final control over the the
01:26:39
edit of this. Yeah.
01:26:40
>> So there's no if you don't if you don't
01:26:42
want what you say to get edited to get
01:26:43
to get aired then it'll get cut. But one
01:26:46
way or the other whatever you say like I
01:26:47
I want you to say what you saw because
01:26:50
>> if the narrative was anti-Iran,
01:26:52
>> then you were attacked by Western
01:26:53
forces,
01:26:54
>> Western bots attacking a known
01:26:56
Westerner. Mhm.
01:26:57
>> If you were if you were propped up by
01:27:00
pro-Iranian
01:27:02
cyberbots, then now you're talking about
01:27:03
a cyber capacity, a cyber capability in
01:27:05
Iran that nobody's talking about. So,
01:27:06
one way or the other,
01:27:07
>> or maybe an ally or someone else or
01:27:09
whatever it might be, I don't know. But
01:27:10
I just it made what it's my point was
01:27:12
that it's made me skeptical about my own
01:27:15
information chamber. And I'll be honest,
01:27:18
before I realized what was going on,
01:27:20
very persuasive.
01:27:22
>> Very persuasive. you were persuaded by
01:27:24
the bots before you realized they were
01:27:25
saying nice things to you and then
01:27:26
they're encouraging you to continue to
01:27:28
>> to push a certain narrative and it just
01:27:30
took it took me a second to pause and
01:27:32
thought actually maybe wouldn't that be
01:27:33
a perfect strategy in these moments to
01:27:35
get people who have big platforms to
01:27:37
just bump bond their DMs and tell them
01:27:39
that you know like why aren't you
01:27:41
standing up for us and please use your
01:27:42
voice to um to speak on this particular
01:27:45
issue and I thought actually maybe I
01:27:47
need I need my information from
01:27:49
somewhere else. Well, I think the point
01:27:51
that you're making, which is very
01:27:52
important, it has to do with, you know,
01:27:55
mimedics or popularity. In other words,
01:27:58
what we don't know the outcome of the
01:28:01
situation yet. We don't know if the
01:28:02
Hezbollah sleeper cells will be
01:28:04
activated. Are they waiting to see
01:28:07
whether what they do will be welcomed or
01:28:11
will be demonized? And I think that
01:28:14
there's an profound influence in social
01:28:17
media
01:28:19
and that is true in this administration
01:28:21
and and previous administrations about
01:28:23
the rise of pushing public opinion. I
01:28:27
mean that to your point that's what you
01:28:29
worked on at the agency or you at least
01:28:31
saw happen.
01:28:32
>> The fact is and I'm glad that you're
01:28:34
seeing it for yourself. You can't trust
01:28:36
what you see. First of all, if you're a
01:28:39
single language person, you only see
01:28:40
what's in your language. you don't see
01:28:42
what's in a different language. And then
01:28:44
we all have an echo chamber around us.
01:28:46
And the the the fact that we have so
01:28:48
much technology just amplifies our echo
01:28:50
chamber. Our our algorithm sees what we
01:28:53
see. It sees what we like. It sees what
01:28:54
we pause longer on than something else.
01:28:57
And it gives us more of that. And people
01:28:59
become very wealthy and very successful
01:29:01
understanding the behavior that people
01:29:03
prefer. And you give people more of what
01:29:05
they already prefer. And then it makes
01:29:07
them happier. And they don't even
01:29:08
realize they're sitting inside of an
01:29:10
echo chamber. So for all of these
01:29:12
reasons, I don't trust the information I
01:29:14
see. I don't trust information unless
01:29:15
multiple sources of conflicting values
01:29:18
and conflicting priorities and
01:29:19
conflicting goals where they say the
01:29:21
same thing. I'll give that more
01:29:23
credence.
01:29:23
>> And if you can't get those sources
01:29:24
because information,
01:29:26
>> then you can't have a conclusion.
01:29:28
>> So you can have a living assessment.
01:29:30
>> Do you not operate? If you're a foreign
01:29:32
policy decision maker, if you're a
01:29:33
president, if you're a national security
01:29:35
adviser, you have to give advice and
01:29:37
consent. You have to figure out
01:29:38
something. You can't say I have a lack
01:29:40
of evidence or I have a lack of um
01:29:42
opinion or lack of information and
01:29:44
therefore because I can't cooperate or
01:29:46
verify there's no ven diagram of u
01:29:48
overlapping views.
01:29:50
>> That's when you have you have to use
01:29:51
time as a tool. You have to use time to
01:29:54
to be the tool that you use to collect
01:29:55
more information. If you if you give up
01:29:58
time you give up one of your most
01:30:00
important tools which is what we're
01:30:01
giving up with this attack. We're giving
01:30:04
up time so that we can potentially just
01:30:05
fit a tal a calendar January, February,
01:30:09
March. Like that's why what what did we
01:30:12
actually gain? What how did the United
01:30:14
States actually tangibly benefit from
01:30:17
what just happened in Iran?
01:30:19
>> If the United States, how did we
01:30:21
>> if in four months from now before the
01:30:22
midterm elections there is new
01:30:25
leadership in Iran, entirely new, if
01:30:27
there is regime change,
01:30:28
>> in other words, if there is by the
01:30:30
president's own metrics victory. Okay.
01:30:33
>> Will you change your tune on this this
01:30:35
goal of what did we gain? What if it's
01:30:36
not evident right now? What if it isn't
01:30:37
four months?
01:30:38
>> I Yeah, I it's a living assessment. So,
01:30:41
of course, if for all for all we know,
01:30:43
the president's decision is going to
01:30:44
work out. But for all we know, it's
01:30:45
going to get worse. For all we know, it
01:30:47
won't be four months. It'll be four
01:30:48
years of of of a of a drought and
01:30:52
povertystricken and Iranians dying,
01:30:53
civilians dying because they can't find
01:30:55
food and water.
01:30:55
>> The 79 revolution took two years to
01:30:57
happen. Really began late 77. And then
01:30:59
you had a sort of reign of terror almost
01:31:01
like the you know thermodorian robes
01:31:03
Pierre period in early Iranian uh in the
01:31:06
uh early 80s where it took really four
01:31:08
or five years for all the dust to
01:31:09
settle. But but so the question is do
01:31:11
you want where are my results? Right?
01:31:14
It's only been
01:31:14
>> No. Where what are we gaining? What do
01:31:16
we even think we're going to gain? What
01:31:18
does what does the United States think
01:31:19
it's going to gain from from
01:31:22
decapitating the Iranian leadership?
01:31:24
>> Well, that that's kind of obvious based
01:31:25
on what the president has said. It's
01:31:27
that
01:31:27
>> on what the president has said.
01:31:28
>> I'm I'm just saying based on what the
01:31:30
president says. I'm not But if you ask
01:31:31
what the point was according to the
01:31:34
president because he's the one who
01:31:35
authorized the operation. It was putting
01:31:39
an end to Iran's nuclear program and
01:31:42
regime change.
01:31:44
>> Based off of what the president said,
01:31:45
the nuclear program was obliterated in
01:31:48
June of last year,
01:31:49
>> but there's attempts to reconstitute it.
01:31:51
They were looking to rebuild these
01:31:52
facilities. They have satellite footage
01:31:53
of this. Why are you why are you
01:31:55
disregarding previous narratives to
01:31:58
adopt the current narrative?
01:31:59
>> Because if I've learned nothing from 79
01:32:01
is that the previous narratives were
01:32:02
wrong. The assessments were wrong. So I
01:32:05
don't trust the assessments either. But
01:32:07
there's satellite imagery that shows,
01:32:08
oh, there's reconstruction happening at
01:32:11
um Esvahan or Natans or wherever. We can
01:32:13
see trucks moving. We can see buildings
01:32:15
coming up, right? Something is going on.
01:32:17
They chose to share that satellite. It's
01:32:19
impossible to not see. I and
01:32:22
>> it's impossible
01:32:24
to to practically say no no no no Iran
01:32:28
didn't want a nuclear weapon. They just
01:32:30
wanted to have electric power. I mean
01:32:32
nuclear power, you know, that's that's
01:32:35
not that's not really not a plausible
01:32:40
assessment.
01:32:41
>> That's what the ODNI put into their
01:32:43
official report.
01:32:43
>> How do you explain that they're going
01:32:44
beyond 20% enrichment? Then why are they
01:32:46
doing that?
01:32:47
>> They don't need more than 20%. So why?
01:32:48
So how
01:32:49
>> and it's Iraq. It was a racket. It is a
01:32:51
racket.
01:32:52
>> And we're talking about Tulsi Gabbard as
01:32:53
the head of DNA, which Exactly. Exactly.
01:32:55
Which is a great point because she is a
01:32:57
Trump supporter.
01:32:57
>> Silence. Well, you have not heard from
01:32:59
her.
01:33:00
>> Is are you are we not Gabbert has been a
01:33:02
lot of things in her career?
01:33:03
>> Yeah.
01:33:04
>> Yeah.
01:33:04
>> But do you think there was any risk of
01:33:06
Iran developing ur uranium to the point
01:33:08
that they could use it as a nuclear
01:33:09
weapon? Because if you look at the
01:33:10
timeline here,
01:33:11
>> of course,
01:33:11
>> um, which I'll throw up on screen, which
01:33:13
is just a screenshot, by 2021, they're
01:33:16
at a dangerous threshold. Iran begins
01:33:17
enriching uranium to 60% purity, which
01:33:20
is a short technical step away from the
01:33:21
90% needed for a weapon. And by 2023 to
01:33:24
2025, we were told that they were
01:33:25
theoretically weeks away from being able
01:33:28
to create a weapon, which is when Trump
01:33:31
decided to attack. You think that's
01:33:33
false?
01:33:33
>> We only know what we're being told and
01:33:36
what we're being told isn't even
01:33:37
consistent between what's publicly being
01:33:39
released by our own government and what
01:33:41
we're being told in mainstream media.
01:33:42
Yeah, but everybody
01:33:43
>> So what you think is the There's clearly
01:33:45
>> you have some kind of Is it false? Is it
01:33:47
Is it false?
01:33:48
>> I don't know. I don't know if it's
01:33:49
false.
01:33:49
>> Well, just look at North Korea if you
01:33:51
want to know if it's false. I mean, I
01:33:52
interviewed Bill Perry, the Secretary of
01:33:53
Defense, who went there and got the
01:33:55
guarantee and the promise from the dear
01:33:57
leader. There was no chance they were
01:33:59
going to develop a nuclear weapon.
01:34:01
Fingers crossed behind the back,
01:34:03
thermonuclear weapon. And look where we
01:34:05
are now. And so I think it would be
01:34:08
foolhardy for this administration or any
01:34:11
former administration to think that that
01:34:13
Iran wasn't doing the same thing.
01:34:15
>> It has every incentive to do it. If I
01:34:17
were Iran, I would absolutely, you know,
01:34:19
absolutely build one
01:34:20
>> because look what it did for North
01:34:22
Korea.
01:34:22
>> We're we're getting lost in the wrong
01:34:24
question. I I'm not trying to say that
01:34:27
Iran wasn't creating nuclear weapons.
01:34:28
I'm saying that the official stance of
01:34:30
the ODNI was that it was not.
01:34:32
>> The official stance they want you to see
01:34:34
to go to Right. Now we're getting now
01:34:36
we're getting now we're getting closer
01:34:38
to the same point.
01:34:39
>> Why would the president say something
01:34:41
different than what the ODNI is saying
01:34:42
to the public?
01:34:44
>> That is a failure in narrative control.
01:34:46
>> So there's an inconsistency there and
01:34:47
that's the question.
01:34:48
>> We agree on that. We agree.
01:34:49
>> We absolutely agree on that. Yeah.
01:34:50
>> So what do you think is actually going
01:34:52
on? I asked you this at the top, but
01:34:54
clearly you're pointing out some some
01:34:55
sort of ulterior motive. So I think
01:34:58
what's happening here is that we are
01:35:00
seeing an administration that doesn't
01:35:03
actually know how to govern and they're
01:35:07
they're trying to find a way to grapple
01:35:10
back some sense of success in the face
01:35:12
of overwhelming
01:35:15
contributing failures, economic
01:35:17
failures, alliance failures, power
01:35:20
struggles all over the world. We are we
01:35:22
are seeing a transition to a strong man
01:35:24
multi-olar world when we've only ever
01:35:27
lived in a unipolar world.
01:35:28
>> What's a strongman multipolar world?
01:35:30
>> It's what she was just talking about
01:35:31
with Putin and Russia, right? You when
01:35:33
you act in strong authoritarian ways and
01:35:36
people respect your authoritarian
01:35:38
behaviors by giving you safety and
01:35:40
giving you security, then that's
01:35:42
strongman diplomacy.
01:35:43
>> And why does that matter? What happens
01:35:45
next?
01:35:45
>> Because that's not cooperative. That
01:35:47
creates conflict. That creates more
01:35:48
opportunities for conflict, less
01:35:50
opportunities for communication, less
01:35:52
shared common interest, which is a
01:35:54
pathway to more what we call interstate
01:35:57
war, which is conflict between states
01:35:59
because they're not communicating,
01:36:00
they're not sharing, they're not even
01:36:01
reliant on each other. Therefore, it's
01:36:03
easier for war to break out. I have a
01:36:06
sort of pessimistic thought here which
01:36:09
is an alternative to the what was you
01:36:12
know what was hap what is happening in
01:36:14
Iran right now which is what would
01:36:16
happen what could happen and what might
01:36:17
happen in the United States and to your
01:36:21
point that where you said this
01:36:22
administration doesn't know how to
01:36:23
govern I would separate from that
01:36:26
whether that's true or not I would say
01:36:27
this administration thinks very
01:36:31
futuristically
01:36:33
about
01:36:34
surveillance systems and systems of
01:36:36
control. And you can see that with ICE
01:36:38
and with Homeland Security and my
01:36:40
concern would be that
01:36:44
red teaming or roundtabling all the
01:36:46
different blow possible blowback. Well,
01:36:48
what if we have Hezbollah sleeper cells,
01:36:51
you know, set off a dirty bomb in the
01:36:53
United States or do something that that
01:36:55
is in the eyes of some a perfect
01:36:59
opportunity to create more of a
01:37:02
surveillance state in the United States
01:37:04
to use biometric surveillance platforms,
01:37:08
ISR,
01:37:10
against United States citizens because
01:37:12
it's the only way to control
01:37:15
people and to to really know where the
01:37:17
bad guys are and that is a concern of
01:37:19
mine. So
01:37:20
>> can you can you be a bit more explicitly
01:37:22
clear that so you're saying that
01:37:24
>> well that you you in other words bio
01:37:28
sort of I always just look at things
01:37:29
because I consider weapon systems a lot
01:37:32
and understand where we have come from
01:37:34
you know nuclear weapons are the weapons
01:37:36
of the past
01:37:37
um surveillance systems are the weapons
01:37:40
of the present and drones what's the
01:37:42
weapon systems of the future I mean you
01:37:44
there's a serious motivation you can
01:37:46
just look at what happened with
01:37:47
anthropic and open AI in the defense
01:37:49
department the day before all of this
01:37:51
went down.
01:37:52
>> So, you're saying they're using this as
01:37:53
a way to introduce surveillance
01:37:55
mechanisms potentially on United States?
01:37:58
>> And I'm I'm not saying that per se. I'm
01:38:00
saying one hypothetical scenario that I
01:38:03
can see is red teaming a bad outcome is
01:38:06
not necessarily a bad outcome. Like if
01:38:08
there were a problem in the United
01:38:09
States as a result of this, we could
01:38:12
counter that with
01:38:15
legitimate reasons for more surveillance
01:38:17
systems. Do you think people sit around
01:38:19
and say that?
01:38:20
>> I know they do.
01:38:21
>> Really?
01:38:21
>> I mean, I don't think you can ever
01:38:23
forget that the Department of Homeland
01:38:24
Security, which by the way was like the
01:38:26
big issue in the United States, you
01:38:28
know, just a couple weeks ago, ICE, DHS,
01:38:31
Department of Homeland Security, for
01:38:33
those of the younger generation, did not
01:38:35
exist before 9/11. It was an absolute
01:38:39
byproduct of America being attacked. So
01:38:43
you're thinking that this Iranian
01:38:44
situation could give them cover to track
01:38:47
and surveil US citizens more. It would
01:38:49
create a justification.
01:38:51
>> I would change the word from cover to
01:38:53
opportunity because I do think that's
01:38:55
the way the systems work inside the you
01:39:00
know executive branch. And I think that
01:39:02
there is a always an extremely powerful
01:39:08
hidden hand that has to do with weapons
01:39:11
developers.
01:39:13
And this sets us up for a false
01:39:14
dichconomy. It's basically you could
01:39:16
have security or liberty. You can't have
01:39:17
both.
01:39:20
>> So, which one do you want?
01:39:22
>> You're biting your tongue there a little
01:39:24
bit.
01:39:24
>> No, he's 100% right. And and the the the
01:39:27
consternation that I'm feeling about
01:39:28
this whole situation is really tied to
01:39:30
the fact that we had a chance to not
01:39:34
exacerbate
01:39:36
the security situation of our planet by
01:39:39
just not attacking Iran. We could have
01:39:41
not exacerbated the security conflict
01:39:44
for every other country. Only Iran was
01:39:46
struggling with their own decision about
01:39:48
what they were going to do with
01:39:49
themselves. Now we have put dozens of
01:39:52
countries at risk. Active current risk,
01:39:55
near-term risk. There are people dead
01:39:57
today that would not have been dead had
01:39:59
we not sent bombs into Iran. There's
01:40:02
been property damage. There are markets
01:40:04
damaged. There are lifeight like
01:40:06
livelihoods are being damaged. There are
01:40:07
30,000 dead today who wouldn't have been
01:40:09
dead if we' done this in 1980.
01:40:11
>> You're never going to hear me say that I
01:40:13
really care that much about an Iranian
01:40:15
life compared to an American life.
01:40:17
That's just not how I roll. This is my
01:40:19
priority. This is my citizenship.
01:40:22
>> I don't I don't begrudge you of that, by
01:40:23
the way. I I totally and it's not that
01:40:24
my loyalty is elsewhere, but I'm saying
01:40:26
you're not saying there are people that
01:40:28
are dead. You're talking about the four
01:40:29
Americans. You're talking about Arab
01:40:31
citizens of the various cities.
01:40:32
>> Absolutely. The four Americans, but also
01:40:34
the Arab cities, right? And if we want
01:40:36
to
01:40:38
start counting death toll,
01:40:39
>> we start to lose sight of the fact that
01:40:42
we all have to live in a prioritized
01:40:43
world. It's like we talk about the
01:40:45
30,000 dead Iranians. We we haven't said
01:40:47
anything about the Palestinians that
01:40:48
died in Gaza, right? There's a lie. A
01:40:51
life is a life. Practically speaking, a
01:40:53
life is equal. A life is a life. It's a
01:40:54
tragedy to lose any human being. But you
01:40:56
still have to prioritize that on top of
01:40:58
another.
01:40:58
>> So, can we interchange them with the
01:41:00
four potential lives that were lost as a
01:41:02
result of the Austin shooting that
01:41:03
happened yesterday? Sure.
01:41:06
An American life that's lost is an
01:41:08
American life that's lost and the
01:41:09
priority should be on protecting
01:41:10
American life,
01:41:11
>> including protecting Americans from
01:41:12
themselves.
01:41:13
>> Absolutely. That's one thing that we're
01:41:15
not resourcing right now because our
01:41:16
resources are going somewhere else,
01:41:18
>> which is my point about I think, you
01:41:21
know, the real place to look at this is
01:41:23
is is surveillance in the United States.
01:41:25
>> Surveillance in the United States is is
01:41:27
100% a guaranteed future. Mass
01:41:30
surveillance has already happened. It
01:41:32
will it will just get exacerbated,
01:41:34
expanded, and legalized. It's already
01:41:36
there.
01:41:37
>> It's just the government has to buy
01:41:39
their data from your Apple phone. They
01:41:40
can't just pull it on their own.
01:41:42
>> I think it's probably worth introducing
01:41:43
the Anthropic PC here just because some
01:41:45
people won't have context. Um, in July
01:41:47
2025, Anthropic, who are a big AI
01:41:49
company, one of the biggest in the
01:41:50
world, the most exciting in the world,
01:41:51
and one of the most advanced in the
01:41:52
world, signed a $200 million deal to
01:41:54
build AI tools for US national security.
01:41:57
Um, in February 2026, which was last
01:42:00
month, the Pentagon demanded Anthropics
01:42:02
AI be available for all military
01:42:04
purposes, but Anthropic refused to allow
01:42:06
autonomous weapons or mass surveillance
01:42:08
of American citizens. This dispute
01:42:11
started after the US military used
01:42:12
Claude um in its raid to capture Claude
01:42:16
is a tool made by Anthropic, an AI tool
01:42:18
made by Anthropic. They used Claude in a
01:42:21
raid to capture Venezuelan President
01:42:22
Nichol Nicholas Maduro in January. um
01:42:25
which Anthropics had said violated its
01:42:27
terms of use. The defense secretary Pete
01:42:30
Hegs threatened to cancel the contract
01:42:32
and brand Anthropic a supply chain risk
01:42:34
unless it dropped its safety
01:42:36
restrictions and stopped telling the US
01:42:38
how to use Anthropics AI. And that
01:42:40
started a big conversation which is
01:42:42
raising raging online around mass
01:42:44
surveillance which is one of the things
01:42:46
anthropic said it didn't want America
01:42:48
using with its AI.
01:42:51
I mean, I think it's a convenient
01:42:53
narrative to position one giant AI
01:42:57
company as somehow moral because it went
01:43:00
up against the defense department and
01:43:01
another one not because it didn't
01:43:04
because like you said in there,
01:43:05
Anthropic was part and parcel to the
01:43:08
Maduro raid. So, I don't I don't believe
01:43:11
that corporations, certainly AI
01:43:13
corporations,
01:43:15
you know, are sitting around with a
01:43:16
violin for American surveillance. I just
01:43:19
don't I mean Americans sort of general
01:43:22
well-being you're not altruistic.
01:43:24
>> No, of course not. And I think that
01:43:25
narrative is dangerous.
01:43:27
>> There was a research piece done by
01:43:28
King's College in London where they ran
01:43:30
simulations on Cold War Star War games
01:43:32
using chat, Claude, and Gemini, which
01:43:34
are three AI tools. Each played the
01:43:36
leader of a nuclear armed superpower.
01:43:38
And in every single simulation, at least
01:43:41
one of the AI models escalated the
01:43:43
crisis by threatening to use nuclear
01:43:44
weapons. Claude, which is owned by
01:43:46
Anthropic, recommended nuclear strikes
01:43:48
in 64% of games, which was the highest
01:43:51
rate among all three of those AI models,
01:43:53
but stopped short of advocating for a
01:43:56
full strategic nuclear exchange or
01:43:57
nuclear war.
01:43:58
>> Bingo.
01:43:59
>> Wasn't that the plot of the war movie
01:44:00
War Games 1980s?
01:44:02
>> Bingo. I mean, that's Skynet. And so,
01:44:04
these are major concerns. um many of our
01:44:08
former generals who were heads of um you
01:44:12
know cyber and NSA are on the boards of
01:44:16
these companies. I've had conversations
01:44:18
with a number of them about this. I
01:44:20
think smart people are and and and
01:44:23
learned people are on are aware of like
01:44:26
this is an absolute cliffhanger
01:44:29
precipice.
01:44:32
>> What you doing? Uh, just making myself a
01:44:34
delicious coffee
01:44:35
>> from the freezer.
01:44:37
>> From the freezer. Have you not heard
01:44:38
about Comtier?
01:44:39
>> No.
01:44:39
>> Oh my gosh. This is going to change your
01:44:41
life. I invested in this company called
01:44:43
Cometier last year and they're now one
01:44:45
of the sponsors of this podcast because
01:44:46
they've taken a pretty revolutionary
01:44:48
approach to making coffee. Every coffee
01:44:50
is precision brewed at 10 times the
01:44:53
strength and then they flash freeze it
01:44:56
with liquid nitrogen to lock in the
01:44:59
flavor and freshness. And then it's
01:45:01
delivered to you on dry ice in these
01:45:02
recyclable aluminum capsules still
01:45:06
frozen like a little ice cube. All you
01:45:08
have to do is pop the capsule out, add
01:45:11
some hot water, and then you stir it and
01:45:15
you are good to go. You can also make
01:45:17
delicious iced coffee drinks as well.
01:45:19
Just pour it in.
01:45:22
Stir it up. And for anyone that hasn't
01:45:25
tried it, you can get $30 off your first
01:45:28
order of Cometier coffee if you go to
01:45:31
cometier.com/stephven.
01:45:34
We have finally caved in. So many of you
01:45:37
have asked us if we could bundle the
01:45:39
conversation cards with the 1% diary.
01:45:41
For those of you that don't know, every
01:45:43
single time a guest sits here with me in
01:45:44
the chair, they leave a question in the
01:45:45
diary of a CEO. and then I ask that
01:45:47
question to the next guest. We don't
01:45:49
release those questions in any
01:45:51
environment other than on these
01:45:53
incredible conversation cards. These
01:45:54
have become a fantastic tool for people
01:45:56
in relationships, people in teams, in
01:45:59
big corporations, and also family
01:46:01
members to connect with each other. With
01:46:02
that, we also have the 1% diary, which
01:46:04
is this incredible tool to change habits
01:46:06
in your life. So many of you have asked
01:46:08
if it was possible to buy both at the
01:46:10
same time, especially people in big
01:46:12
companies. So what we've done is we've
01:46:15
bundled them together and you can buy
01:46:16
both at the same time. And if you want
01:46:18
to drive connection and instill habit
01:46:20
change in your company, head to the
01:46:22
diary.com to inquire and our team will
01:46:24
be in touch. What is your most likely
01:46:26
scenario that would lead to a nuclear
01:46:29
war? Like cuz you you wrote the book on
01:46:31
this stuff that you know you're you're
01:46:32
you're the person everybody thinks of
01:46:33
when we think about the scenario that
01:46:35
nuclear war could break out. Of all the
01:46:38
potential routes there, which one do you
01:46:40
think is the most likely? I do think
01:46:42
that North Korea is very dangerous. I
01:46:45
think Putin is I would have told you
01:46:47
five years ago that Putin would you know
01:46:50
he's an int former intelligence officer.
01:46:52
He's familiar with history. He know he
01:46:55
knows better and now I would I have a
01:46:56
changed opinion about that. I think it's
01:46:59
very dangerous and I think that he you
01:47:02
know his use of the archeneck was sort
01:47:03
of like a like that that was a ballistic
01:47:06
missile that is capable of carrying a
01:47:08
nuclear warhead. There wasn't a nuclear
01:47:10
warhead in it. He did notify the State
01:47:12
Department prior to the launch of that,
01:47:15
you know, 30 minutes prior, but that's
01:47:17
like incredibly dangerous. So everything
01:47:20
is dangerous. Any nuclear armed nation
01:47:22
that, you know, threatens nuclear
01:47:25
weapons is dangerous, but AI is its own
01:47:27
extraordinary level of danger and the
01:47:31
article that you wrote speaks to that.
01:47:33
Now my understanding is currently
01:47:36
everybody knows that you know air quotes
01:47:39
and then when you learn when I learned
01:47:42
about the department of war anthropic AI
01:47:45
late at night battle over using AI in
01:47:49
these systems I was I was surprised.
01:47:52
>> Why?
01:47:53
>> Because I thought there was more
01:47:56
restraint on that and what I see in this
01:47:58
administration.
01:47:59
>> Yes. and to see sort of the the same
01:48:02
bravado that we do agree on is coming
01:48:05
out of this administration
01:48:07
about exerting power about um just being
01:48:12
able to do a decapitation strike
01:48:14
effectively using AI. I I go, "Wow, that
01:48:18
is not what I expected." The interesting
01:48:21
thing with Trump generally is that
01:48:24
he has a reputation of saying and doing
01:48:27
things that at one point we would have
01:48:28
all gone, "Oh my god." But we've almost
01:48:30
become so used to these things that
01:48:32
there's almost a desensitization to some
01:48:34
degree.
01:48:34
>> Shattering of norms they call it, right?
01:48:36
>> He also contradicts himself. I mean,
01:48:38
that's not even I mean, he's spoken on
01:48:40
the record about how I mean, I think he
01:48:43
put out a video in 2011. I might be
01:48:46
wrong on the date like attacking Obama
01:48:49
for you know and saying that he was
01:48:51
going to attack Iran
01:48:52
>> 20 in 2013. There's there's a there's a
01:48:54
tweet that he posted saying attacking
01:48:56
Iran is showing that you failed at
01:48:58
negotiations and you know something to
01:49:00
that effect.
01:49:00
>> So here we are talking about how
01:49:01
important it is to change your mind
01:49:03
maybe if you're not the maybe not if
01:49:05
you're the president of the United
01:49:06
States. I think the slippery slope is is
01:49:08
so gradual that sometimes you don't see
01:49:10
where you're you're heading towards. And
01:49:12
in terms of sort of military action and
01:49:13
the use of AI and all these things and
01:49:15
autonomous weapons, it we feel like
01:49:16
we're going down a slippery slope here
01:49:18
in a way that I haven't felt for the
01:49:20
other 33 years of my life as it relates
01:49:21
to geopolitics and war. And also
01:49:23
generally when you think about some of
01:49:24
the actions that and speeches at Davos
01:49:26
where the eur the US leaders were saying
01:49:29
to the Europeans, listen you guys are
01:49:30
weak now and we it was sounded to me
01:49:32
saying like you guys are weak. Get your
01:49:33
together. Figure out your energy
01:49:35
situation. we don't need you anymore.
01:49:36
Listen, we're not going to quit. We're
01:49:37
going to run this now. And this whole
01:49:39
idea of special relationship, blah blah
01:49:41
blah, it seems to have gone out the
01:49:42
window. So, you've got an emboldened
01:49:44
United States military and leadership
01:49:46
who seem to be able to do what the
01:49:47
they want. If you don't let us use your
01:49:49
AA how we wish, we'll smash your
01:49:51
company. We'll take away that 200
01:49:52
million contract and we'll cut you off
01:49:54
from the rest of the supply chain. And
01:49:55
we get used to it, you know, we hear the
01:49:57
head and go, "Oh, that's crazy that."
01:49:58
And then we kind of get desensitized
01:49:59
again as humans do.
01:50:01
>> But the direction of travel is something
01:50:03
sometimes what you want to look at. M
01:50:05
yeah
01:50:05
>> versus just this this sort of static
01:50:07
state of where we are.
01:50:08
>> That's the concern. I think you have hit
01:50:10
the nail on the head with that.
01:50:11
>> I agree. I think you've got I think
01:50:13
you've got a a much clearer picture than
01:50:15
most, Steve, on what's going on here.
01:50:17
The United States,
01:50:19
it has to pursue AI far more
01:50:23
aggressively than what what the what the
01:50:27
CEOs of these companies want. I actually
01:50:28
do believe there's quite a bit of
01:50:29
altruism in the CEOs and the founders of
01:50:32
these AIs. They didn't create these AIs
01:50:34
so they could be wararmongers. They
01:50:36
created these AIs for some techy
01:50:38
beautiful vision of some utopian future.
01:50:40
>> That's like saying Zuckerberg didn't
01:50:41
create Facebook for to to to cause teens
01:50:44
to feel bad about themselves. He created
01:50:45
it for way people to connect
01:50:47
>> for something else. Exactly. Right.
01:50:48
Right.
01:50:48
>> But look what happens.
01:50:49
>> That's Yeah. consequences.
01:50:51
>> Yeah.
01:50:53
>> So regardless of what the United
01:50:55
States's opinion is about AI, it also
01:50:58
has to very realistically look at how
01:50:59
China is developing AI. And China is
01:51:01
already 10x more aggressive than the
01:51:03
United States is. And if they crack the
01:51:05
code on certain types of AI like like uh
01:51:08
artificial general intelligence or
01:51:10
recursive uh recursive self-improvement,
01:51:13
if it breaks the code on these first,
01:51:16
it's an exponential head start over the
01:51:19
United States and all of their AI,
01:51:21
everything that we have some sort of
01:51:23
reticence about using automated or
01:51:25
autonomous weapons, mass surveillance,
01:51:26
China's already using. So the the number
01:51:29
one strategic priority consistently in
01:51:32
all documentation is China. So the
01:51:34
United States has to aggressively pursue
01:51:36
AI. It I I understand that mindset. It
01:51:40
is absolutely ludicrous to think that
01:51:42
one day an AI helps us take the leader
01:51:45
of Venezuela and then the next day we
01:51:46
claim it's a supply chain risk. That's
01:51:48
just that's the kind of lunacy that we
01:51:50
live in every day.
01:51:51
>> That's a good point.
01:51:52
>> But but the my my bottom line concern
01:51:55
here is that the United States used to
01:51:56
be the leader of the free world. We're
01:51:57
not a leader of the world at all. We're
01:52:00
adopting more autocratic behaviors
01:52:02
because we're seeing other countries
01:52:04
succeed with autocratic behaviors. And
01:52:06
we're abandoning Europe, which is the
01:52:07
only place left trying to say that
01:52:09
democracy still counts. Like we are we
01:52:12
are not leading anymore. We are
01:52:14
mimicking. We are reacting. We are
01:52:17
petulant. But we are not leading.
01:52:19
>> I'm still thinking about your doomsday
01:52:20
scenario with deathbed Vladimir Putin
01:52:22
and what he might do.
01:52:24
>> Is that like realistic?
01:52:27
Is it realistic? You know, it's like
01:52:28
from hell's heart I stab at thee. I
01:52:30
mean, it it it
01:52:33
I don't know what's realistic anymore. I
01:52:35
again, these norms that are shattered,
01:52:37
these restraints, these these guard
01:52:38
rails that we think, no, a leader
01:52:40
wouldn't do this or someone wouldn't do
01:52:42
that. I'm beginning to question all of
01:52:44
it, too. Um I don't know anymore what
01:52:46
what someone is or isn't capable of. And
01:52:48
I think humans have a discomfort with
01:52:51
cognitive dissonance where, you know,
01:52:52
holding two opposing viewpoints at once.
01:52:55
We've gotten I think worse at it um
01:52:57
evolutionary over over time and our
01:52:59
politicians are the worst yet or our
01:53:00
world leaders are are the worst at it
01:53:02
yet. And so that's a cause of concern
01:53:04
for me.
01:53:04
>> I always think like what has someone got
01:53:06
to lose and what have they got to gain?
01:53:07
And if you've got a couple of days left
01:53:08
of your life or a couple of days left in
01:53:10
office and you're I don't know Trump's
01:53:11
going to be what 83 by the time he gets
01:53:13
out of office or something.
01:53:14
>> Yeah. Why does he care if he pushes a
01:53:16
button and does whatever
01:53:17
>> at which point
01:53:19
you know and the same with Putin. And at
01:53:21
some point he's going to be old and he's
01:53:22
going to have a couple of, you know,
01:53:23
couple of weeks left in his life and
01:53:25
he's going to be reflecting on his
01:53:26
legacy and he's got nothing to lose.
01:53:28
Trump's got nothing to lose with there's
01:53:30
no second term. Well,
01:53:32
well, he he I watched him the other day
01:53:36
taking great admiration to the fact that
01:53:38
Zalinski can't be there can't be
01:53:40
elections in Ukraine because there's a
01:53:42
war going on. And I think he cracked a
01:53:43
joke saying that he would kind of like
01:53:45
that that if there was a US war going on
01:53:47
then there wouldn't be elections.
01:53:50
And I It sounded like a joke, but a lot
01:53:53
of things have sounded like jokes before
01:53:55
that he said. So, what is your um what
01:53:58
do you think happens next? And also, I I
01:54:00
wanted to get your take on, you know,
01:54:01
we've got this map here which shows
01:54:03
where Iran can strike with their
01:54:04
missiles. I've got friends in Dubai.
01:54:07
Never in my life did I think bombs would
01:54:09
be dropping on Dubai or any strikes or
01:54:10
drones would be happening in Dubai. And
01:54:12
one of my best friends was in a in the
01:54:14
basement in a bunker the two nights ago
01:54:16
because of what's going on. That whole
01:54:17
region has been hit. The Dubai airport
01:54:19
has been hit. Saudi Arabia has been hit.
01:54:21
Um, Bahrain's been hit. What does this
01:54:24
do? Qatar's been hit. What does this do
01:54:26
to the region? And why are Iran hitting
01:54:28
these places?
01:54:30
>> So, this is part of the burden sharing
01:54:33
strategy that the United States military
01:54:35
doctrine has put in place. And I think
01:54:37
to a certain extent, all of the region
01:54:40
already knew they were on Iran's radar.
01:54:42
They they've all had this weird hostile
01:54:45
collaborative relationship with Iran out
01:54:47
of necessity because Iran is the bread
01:54:48
basket of the Middle East. So they've
01:54:51
known that there's always the risk, but
01:54:53
I don't ever took that that particular
01:54:55
risk seriously.
01:54:57
>> Why Iran Iran doing it?
01:54:58
>> Yeah.
01:54:58
>> Why do they care about messing up Dubai
01:55:01
or making people in Dubai scared?
01:55:02
>> They are lowering the pain threshold.
01:55:04
The deputy foreign minister said, "We
01:55:06
can't strike Americans in America. We
01:55:09
can maybe strike Americans at their
01:55:11
bases in these Arab states and we can
01:55:12
also strike the states that are that are
01:55:14
hosting Americans, American civilians,
01:55:17
American military, American contractors,
01:55:19
you name it. They're all complicit and
01:55:21
it's lashing out because what happens is
01:55:24
if you make it miserable for everybody,
01:55:26
then United States is pressured to bring
01:55:28
this to an end.
01:55:29
>> Okay.
01:55:30
>> What does Iran have to lose to back to
01:55:32
your sort of doomsday scenario? They're
01:55:34
about to be destroyed anyway. What do
01:55:35
they have to lose? They're going to take
01:55:37
everyone down with them because only if
01:55:38
that threat is real will the United
01:55:40
States say, "Okay, you know what? We're
01:55:41
going to pause and see if we can get
01:55:42
back to diplomacy."
01:55:43
>> And it might work.
01:55:46
>> If the Arab states, you know, decide
01:55:48
that, okay, we're not going to sustain
01:55:50
this. We're not going to fight back. We
01:55:51
need this to end. United States, you
01:55:52
have to stop what you're doing.
01:55:54
>> So, we could see a lot of the conflict
01:55:55
actually taking place in some of these
01:55:56
neighboring countries, terrorist
01:55:57
attacks, etc.
01:55:58
>> It's working. It's working. It's causing
01:56:01
pain
01:56:01
>> to these sort of peripheral countries
01:56:03
that are not central to this conflict.
01:56:06
Look what the United States has done
01:56:07
arguably, right?
01:56:08
>> Yeah. And one of the unintended well
01:56:10
maybe intended consequences is if I turn
01:56:12
on the news in the UK right now, the
01:56:15
narrative is that this region, Dubai,
01:56:17
all of these places, Abu Dhabi, it's all
01:56:19
unsafe. And what that means is they're
01:56:21
showing that Sky News are going up to
01:56:23
families in Dubai and going, "How are
01:56:25
you feeling?" And they're going, "I'm
01:56:26
stuck. I just want to get home." And
01:56:27
this region have spent a lot of money
01:56:29
building their reputation over the last
01:56:30
couple of decades.
01:56:32
>> Their tourist economy. And this is going
01:56:34
to even if the the war was to stop
01:56:36
today, there'll be a big cohort of
01:56:37
people that choose not to go there on
01:56:39
holiday and choose not to go and
01:56:40
relocate there and that will
01:56:42
reverberate. Um, one could argue that
01:56:45
it's actually in, you know, this
01:56:47
narrative that the Middle East is
01:56:48
unsafe. One could argue that that's
01:56:50
actually in the interests of the UK and
01:56:53
>> it's going to drive down the price of
01:56:54
real estate.
01:56:55
>> Yeah. Yeah. and drive up our tax
01:56:57
receipts because we have a lot of I
01:57:00
think it's the biggest place that UK
01:57:01
taxpayers have gone to and millionaires
01:57:02
have gone to is this region. So, did you
01:57:05
have any thoughts on that?
01:57:06
>> No, you're not. I don't think you're
01:57:07
wrong. I think that there's uh whether
01:57:09
or not I I don't believe that Western
01:57:12
countries want to see death and
01:57:15
destruction in the Middle East. I don't
01:57:17
believe that. Um, I do think that when
01:57:20
they plan for blowback, they account for
01:57:22
that and they try to make the best
01:57:24
opportunity out of the blowback that
01:57:26
they already expect and that does make
01:57:28
sense. Um, but at the at the end of the
01:57:31
day, Iran has to do something to react
01:57:34
and it knows that it can't just send all
01:57:35
of its rockets at the fleet that's off
01:57:37
the coast of Oman because the fleet
01:57:38
that's off the coast of is going to be
01:57:40
able to intercept most of those rockets.
01:57:41
So if they want some kind of effective
01:57:43
response, the most effective response
01:57:45
they can have is to share the pain and
01:57:47
create some sort of international
01:57:49
resistance against what the United
01:57:51
States has done.
01:57:52
>> How long do you think this goes on for
01:57:53
Angie? If you had to guess,
01:57:54
>> if I had to guess, I would say that
01:57:56
there's going to be an active hot
01:57:57
conflict with Iran that lasts a few
01:58:00
weeks. Hot conflict meaning every day we
01:58:02
wake up and we see new rockets being
01:58:04
launched and new new attacks, new new
01:58:06
air sorties being launched. But uh but
01:58:09
the actual reverberations of this from
01:58:12
Hezbollah, from Hamas, from the Houthis,
01:58:14
from whatever loyal stansions still
01:58:18
exist in Iran, we could see that for
01:58:19
years. There there's no guarantee that
01:58:22
Iran's going to bounce back from this in
01:58:23
a better place. I hope it will, but hope
01:58:26
is not the same thing as reality. Hope
01:58:28
is just hope. I hope that it will, but
01:58:31
in the vacuum, we could see the biggest
01:58:33
adversaries to the United States flood
01:58:35
in and support Iran, like the biggest
01:58:36
adversaries in the world flood in and
01:58:37
support Afghanistan. We might see that
01:58:39
we have even less influence over the
01:58:41
region in the future than we do now.
01:58:43
>> Is there some an issue of the
01:58:45
distraction this is causing to what's
01:58:46
going on in Ukraine and in other parts
01:58:48
of the world where there was already
01:58:49
conflict and there was already turmoil?
01:58:51
Like are people now not going to pay
01:58:52
attention to Ukraine? So that that gives
01:58:54
Putin some cover to be more aggressive
01:58:56
there. It absolutely it emboldens every
01:58:59
authoritarian ruler out there because
01:59:01
now they've it's been it's validating to
01:59:03
them that they're not actually doing
01:59:04
anything wrong. If the president of the
01:59:06
United States can do it then certainly
01:59:07
the Putin can do it and Xiinping can do
01:59:09
it and and any warlord in Africa can do
01:59:12
it. It's certainly it's allowed
01:59:13
>> or on the flip side it's showing that if
01:59:15
you act outside of international norms
01:59:18
that the United States president will
01:59:20
not hesitate to decapitate your entire
01:59:22
leadership which is something maybe we
01:59:24
didn't think was conceivable a couple
01:59:25
weeks ago. So there's that inverse
01:59:27
message.
01:59:27
>> Is it conceivable that both might occur?
01:59:29
>> Yeah. Yes. Both can probably It sounds
01:59:31
to me like that might be the most likely
01:59:33
outcome that you're probably going to go
01:59:34
one of either ways. You know, China
01:59:36
might just say now's a good time to get
01:59:37
Taiwan because I mean I mean objectively
01:59:40
speaking people are distracted.
01:59:42
>> It's a perfect time for someone to try
01:59:44
to assassinate the president.
01:59:44
>> But then Cuba might say, you know,
01:59:46
we're going to behave.
01:59:47
>> Exactly. Because look what happens if we
01:59:48
don't.
01:59:49
>> What do you think, Annie, on this
01:59:50
subject of what happens next and what's
01:59:52
likely? I mean I'm
01:59:55
to that end I would say how fascinating
01:59:57
is it that what happened with Maduro in
01:59:59
January still shocks me 150 paramilitary
02:00:05
or military and intelligence officers go
02:00:07
in gra
02:00:10
sovereign leader and his wife in a
02:00:12
heavily fortified military base
02:00:16
take out his you know guardsmen who are
02:00:19
actually Cuban I mean there's just So
02:00:22
many
02:00:24
things to unpack in what I just said
02:00:26
about what just happened. And yet that's
02:00:29
just old news.
02:00:32
That and that to me is
02:00:35
more interesting than what might happen
02:00:37
in the future. Not be because I'll
02:00:41
I can I can try and wrap my head around
02:00:45
the past, but I can't predict the
02:00:48
future. But I am I do believe they they
02:00:51
correlate with one another and only
02:00:52
after time you know it's the old
02:00:55
hindsight is is is 2020 it will makes
02:00:58
how Iran unfolds
02:01:02
you know maybe we'll get the ban back
02:01:04
together in 5 months and have a
02:01:06
discussion and we'll all be wrong. I I
02:01:08
don't know.
02:01:09
>> Separate question. But do you think
02:01:10
Trump's going to leave office?
02:01:14
>> I mean the Constitution says he is.
02:01:16
>> Do you think he will? The Constitution
02:01:18
says he is.
02:01:19
>> But do you think he will?
02:01:20
>> I don't have a crystal ball.
02:01:22
>> Do you think he'll leave office?
02:01:23
>> I do.
02:01:24
>> Do you think he'll leave office?
02:01:24
>> I do. You do?
02:01:25
>> I have more confidence after last week's
02:01:28
um learning resources Supreme Court
02:01:29
opinion that we saw two justices who
02:01:32
Trump appointed who basically defied a
02:01:35
policy that was the signature of his of
02:01:37
his second term, you know, his campaign,
02:01:39
his his tariffs and saying that you
02:01:40
don't have that power.
02:01:42
>> I was emboldened. I I would have been
02:01:44
more pessimistic, but after seeing that,
02:01:46
I it gave me a little bit more hope that
02:01:48
that that there is still sort of a guard
02:01:51
rails and separation of powers. It's
02:01:52
still a thing.
02:01:53
>> What do you think happens next in the
02:01:54
region?
02:01:55
>> I'm with Andrew. I think 3 to four weeks
02:01:57
is the timeline I see for the actual
02:01:59
kinetic war. And then after that, um,
02:02:01
every one of these Iranian leaders,
02:02:03
whoever's left, whoever steps in and
02:02:04
fills a role of a whether it's a
02:02:06
military huna that takes over, whether
02:02:07
it's a symbolic supreme leader, these
02:02:09
are all marked men. They're all going to
02:02:11
be targeted for assassination. there is
02:02:13
no by Israel by primar but pretty much
02:02:16
anybody that considers um them enemies
02:02:19
even maybe now some of the Arab states
02:02:20
for that matter at the end of the day
02:02:23
>> uh it doesn't pay to be uh a political
02:02:26
or religious figure in Iran so at this
02:02:28
point I think what we're going to see in
02:02:30
the months to come is a slow fracturing
02:02:32
of that support and I not surprised if
02:02:34
we start seeing defections from the IRGC
02:02:37
and people just like we saw during 1979
02:02:39
saying you know what it's not worth it
02:02:41
there's nothing there's no there's no
02:02:42
long-term gain here because this regime
02:02:45
has lost any credibility domestically.
02:02:47
There's none left, zero. And it's losing
02:02:49
credibility in the region. It violated
02:02:51
an unspoken agreement with its Arab
02:02:53
neighbors that they don't directly fight
02:02:54
each other in this way. And its allies,
02:02:56
so-called allies, have abandoned it. It
02:02:59
has nothing left. So when you have
02:03:01
nothing left, what is there to fight
02:03:03
for? That's why, but that's going to
02:03:04
take a few months up to a year to play
02:03:06
out.
02:03:07
What is the most important thing that we
02:03:08
should have talked about that we didn't
02:03:09
talk about, Andrew,
02:03:11
>> as it relates to all of the stuff we
02:03:12
talked about today?
02:03:14
>> I think for me, what I'm always what I
02:03:17
always come back to is what is the
02:03:19
future for the average American? What
02:03:21
does it look like for us?
02:03:24
I'm not sure how this plays out. I I'm
02:03:26
not sure that we improved the state of
02:03:29
the average American very much in the
02:03:31
last few days. I don't know that we will
02:03:33
see much improvement in the next few
02:03:34
weeks. I don't know that we will see
02:03:36
much improvement in the next few years
02:03:38
um because of what actions we took in
02:03:40
Iran. But I do confirm I agree with what
02:03:42
the other two have said like the United
02:03:43
States administration has shown it's
02:03:46
powerful in Venezuela. It's powerful in
02:03:48
uh in Iran. Cuba's already being more
02:03:53
than whispered about as the next the
02:03:56
next transition in government.
02:03:59
How how much chaos are we going to see
02:04:02
to the existing world establishment
02:04:04
before Trump then leaves office
02:04:06
>> and somebody else has to come in and
02:04:08
pick up the mess? And I've always been
02:04:10
concerned not about Donald Trump, but
02:04:12
about who comes after Donald Trump.
02:04:14
>> Why? Because if Donald Trump paves the
02:04:16
way for this authoritarian type of shift
02:04:18
and if he has support through his final
02:04:20
days in office, then whoever comes next
02:04:22
will have even more legitimacy to come
02:04:24
in with a strong hand from the beginning
02:04:27
and potentially a world where only
02:04:29
authoritarian actions work. And that
02:04:33
just continues to take us down a road of
02:04:34
pain. I've been talking to you about
02:04:36
this for the better part of three years
02:04:37
that I believe the United I believe the
02:04:39
world and especially the United States
02:04:41
is is coming into one of its darkest
02:04:43
decades ever. This is the world that we
02:04:46
live in now. A world where it's not
02:04:48
unipolar, a world of AI technologies we
02:04:51
can't predict, of conflict that we can't
02:04:53
anticipate, of mass surveillance, of of
02:04:57
the breaking of international norms.
02:04:59
This is the world we are coming into
02:05:01
now. It's the world that our children
02:05:02
are going to be developed in. It's the
02:05:04
world that one day they will have to
02:05:06
create their own future in and and our
02:05:07
grandchildren will inherit whatever is
02:05:09
left of it after that. It's it's sad to
02:05:12
me to see that this is where we are and
02:05:14
unless we take some sort of
02:05:16
responsibility for our own future, we
02:05:18
will keep following this authoritarian
02:05:20
trend.
02:05:20
>> But isn't this better than the past?
02:05:22
>> I would say no. A unipolar world where
02:05:25
the United States is a supreme power as
02:05:27
an American, that is a better world.
02:05:29
>> But at least you won't die of dissentry
02:05:31
out in the wilderness, right?
02:05:32
>> Yeah. I mean, that's kind of what people
02:05:34
say, right? They say, "Well, babies
02:05:35
aren't dying anymore at child birth and,
02:05:38
you know, people less people are
02:05:39
struggling with poverty." So,
02:05:42
so it's a better depends what metric
02:05:44
you're measuring, I guess. But
02:05:47
on on that point of the transition after
02:05:50
Trump leaves, would it be worse if a
02:05:53
weak leader came in?
02:05:55
Because I'm I'm wondering, look, we know
02:05:57
Putin's still going to be there. We know
02:05:58
a lot of these other powers are still
02:05:59
going to be there.
02:06:01
Biden didn't strike me as the the
02:06:04
scariest guy in the world, the mo the
02:06:06
toughest guy in the world. Didn't strike
02:06:08
me as the toughest guy in the world. So,
02:06:09
if another figure like Biden came into
02:06:11
power after Trump once with that war
02:06:14
raging over there and with, you know,
02:06:15
China um thinking about Taiwan, etc. Is
02:06:19
that not even more dangerous?
02:06:21
>> I think there's a difference between a
02:06:22
strong leader and a strong arm. A strong
02:06:25
leader can chart a path, keep a vision,
02:06:27
make hard decisions, balance priorities,
02:06:30
keep people focused,
02:06:31
>> where a strong arm is out to win. And
02:06:34
Donald Trump, his entire career, he's
02:06:38
been the man who's out to win. Again, I
02:06:40
don't think this is a Trump issue. I
02:06:41
don't think this is a Trump problem. I
02:06:43
don't think Donald Trump is some villain
02:06:45
of the world. I just think Donald Trump
02:06:47
is the manifestation of how most
02:06:49
Americans felt at the time that they
02:06:51
elected him, which was like, we want to
02:06:53
win. And now we're realizing that two
02:06:57
years after the second time that we
02:06:59
wanted to win, there are other secondary
02:07:01
consequences that we hadn't considered.
02:07:03
And that's why so many of the kind of
02:07:06
groups that supported Donald Trump have
02:07:08
changed flavor about him. That's why his
02:07:09
approval rating is so low because he's
02:07:11
found a way to ostracize so many of the
02:07:13
groups that used to support him because
02:07:14
they didn't realize that he was more
02:07:17
complex than what they had originally
02:07:18
thought back in that November booth.
02:07:22
>> Annie, most important thing we should
02:07:23
have talked about that didn't
02:07:25
>> I'm going to pick up on Andrew's
02:07:29
thought about a strong leader versus a
02:07:31
strong arm because it's so important to
02:07:33
think about moving forward and is that
02:07:35
even possible? you know, yes, we
02:07:38
absolutely cannot have a weak leader. I
02:07:39
mean, look what happened with Putin
02:07:42
moving into Ukraine, taking Ukraine,
02:07:44
attacking Ukraine. And I I I think that,
02:07:48
you know, who wants to be president?
02:07:51
There's also this idea of you, you know,
02:07:53
you look at the records of how people
02:07:56
say come into office, how they how they
02:07:58
campaign, saying what they are, I'm
02:08:00
going to get rid of these dangerous
02:08:02
nuclear policies. I'm going they have
02:08:03
all kinds of optimistic ideas about
02:08:06
things and then something happens in
02:08:08
that first briefing. Something none of
02:08:11
us know. It's so mysterious and they
02:08:14
never talk about and then their policies
02:08:17
and their their perspective deeply
02:08:20
changes. And I think people move from an
02:08:23
idea that they can be a strong leader to
02:08:26
the idea that they have to be a strong
02:08:27
arm. And I think that's that's deeply
02:08:30
depressing to me. And I am an eternal
02:08:32
optimist. So I want to see that change.
02:08:34
>> Presumably they're being made aware of
02:08:36
the real threats that they face that the
02:08:39
US faces and suddenly what was I don't
02:08:41
know theoretical becomes very real
02:08:45
>> perhaps. And so the I who loves
02:08:47
narrative the question is what is that
02:08:50
narrative? And anything that is kept
02:08:52
absolutely secret I want to know about.
02:08:55
And I I no one knows that answer. No
02:08:57
president has ever spoken of it. So,
02:09:00
what is that narrative? What are they
02:09:01
told? It's definitely not aliens.
02:09:06
>> That's a conversation for another time.
02:09:08
>> Benjamin.
02:09:10
>> Um, here, right here, Taiwan. So, I've
02:09:15
been working on a simulation, a war game
02:09:17
that looks at something that's become up
02:09:20
in the news now. What happens if we
02:09:21
don't need China to invade Taiwan? We
02:09:23
need China to just blockade and
02:09:25
completely cut off 90% of the chips and
02:09:28
microprocessors and and um all the
02:09:30
things we need in this AI age into the
02:09:32
West. What the hell do we do under that
02:09:34
scenario? We don't have the
02:09:35
infrastructure, the capacity, the
02:09:36
resources to bring everything back
02:09:38
online that we need to to fabricate and
02:09:41
make these chips. Um we talked about
02:09:43
China a bit, but I'm really worried
02:09:45
about this what happens here is so
02:09:47
because we rely so much on that little
02:09:48
island. Um and we don't need it invaded,
02:09:51
we just need it blockaded kind of. So
02:09:52
what we see in the Straits of Hormuz
02:09:54
happening right now, 20% of the world's
02:09:55
oil, OPEC can increase production. It'll
02:09:58
take a few weeks to bring it offline,
02:09:59
stabilize the markets. We don't have
02:10:01
that luxury here, not when it comes to
02:10:03
the very things that powers the next
02:10:05
generation of warfare and diplomacy and
02:10:09
economic development.
02:10:10
>> I don't think the average person
02:10:11
realizes how much the West relies on
02:10:13
that little island.
02:10:14
>> 90% of our at least here in the United
02:10:17
States, 90% as I understand it, that
02:10:19
comes from from that one island. the
02:10:22
chips that are in our electrical
02:10:24
devices.
02:10:25
>> Why don't they just move it over here?
02:10:27
>> They're trying.
02:10:27
>> They're trying. Not They're trying,
02:10:29
right?
02:10:29
>> It takes years. It takes years to get it
02:10:31
cleared. It's very environmentally
02:10:32
damaging. The infrastructure takes time.
02:10:35
The expertise isn't here. All the IP
02:10:37
that's on that island comes from the
02:10:38
United States, but the actual factories
02:10:41
have been there and will be there.
02:10:42
>> I guess there'll be a big labor cost
02:10:44
impact as well.
02:10:45
>> Absolutely. regulations, all kinds of
02:10:46
things we have to work our way around
02:10:48
and figure out how and then you know
02:10:49
training the workers to be able to
02:10:50
fabricate them do it as efficiently
02:10:52
yield um you know results that are that
02:10:55
are high enough.
02:10:58
>> So that's your
02:11:00
concern.
02:11:00
>> Huge concern. I I I mean our
02:11:03
communications could shut down, our cars
02:11:04
could I mean so many things can go wrong
02:11:06
if we lose the capacity to power the
02:11:09
devices that we need.
02:11:11
>> What advice would you guys give? This is
02:11:12
my last question I promise. What advice
02:11:13
would you give to the average person?
02:11:15
You know, cuz we've talked theoretically
02:11:16
about geopolitics and the average person
02:11:18
sat at home can't do a lot about that.
02:11:20
But if you were to give advice to the
02:11:22
average person who's thinking about
02:11:23
their family, about their future, about
02:11:24
their work,
02:11:26
>> what would you say?
02:11:27
>> We are not helpless. It's not out of our
02:11:30
control, but we do have to assert our
02:11:33
control. There's a midterm election that
02:11:36
could effectively
02:11:39
quasi effectively block the decisions
02:11:40
that the president can make
02:11:41
unilaterally.
02:11:43
If
02:11:45
if we exercise our right to vote, we
02:11:48
create either a blue senate or a blue
02:11:51
house of representatives. Arguably, we
02:11:54
have demonstrated our ability to
02:11:56
exercise our right to vote and taken
02:11:58
back some semblance of control in our
02:12:00
country. But unfortunately, I think
02:12:02
people don't like waiting. They don't
02:12:04
like taking a seven months before they
02:12:07
can take an action. They want to do
02:12:08
something right now. And and we live in
02:12:10
a country in a democratic process where
02:12:13
we get a chance to exercise our power
02:12:17
every two years. So, we have to actually
02:12:19
show up and exercise that power.
02:12:20
>> What are you doing for you and your
02:12:21
family?
02:12:22
>> We're leaving the United States.
02:12:24
>> Why? because the United States is not
02:12:26
going in the direction that I believe is
02:12:29
the most conducive to the kind of
02:12:31
citizen that I want to build in my
02:12:33
children.
02:12:35
I don't want my children to grow up in a
02:12:37
country that is either afraid or angry.
02:12:40
I don't want my children to grow up in a
02:12:41
country that's constantly compromising
02:12:42
its own democratic principles. I don't
02:12:44
want to raise my kids in a country that
02:12:46
puts capitalism before all other things.
02:12:49
I want my children to grow up as global
02:12:51
citizens, to recognize that we're all
02:12:52
interconnected, to value every human
02:12:54
life. I wasn't given the privilege. I
02:12:56
was the perfect candidate to sit here
02:12:58
and tell you that American lives are
02:13:00
more valuable than everybody else.
02:13:01
That's not what I want to pass to my
02:13:02
children. I want my children to look at
02:13:04
lives around the world as valuable,
02:13:07
independent, individual blessings. And I
02:13:09
can try to teach them that, but that's
02:13:10
not the message that they get.
02:13:11
>> So, where you going to go?
02:13:13
>> That's for me to know. in Costa Rica.
02:13:15
>> I remember this one. I remember this
02:13:17
from
02:13:19
>> Absolutely. Read as much as you can
02:13:23
across the broadest spectrum that you
02:13:26
can find and have conversations about
02:13:30
what you think you know and what you
02:13:32
want to know with as many people as you
02:13:34
can across the broadest spectrum you
02:13:37
can. And don't be afraid to have a
02:13:40
little bit of friction like we had here
02:13:42
today. Mhm.
02:13:44
>> That that's the way it works and that's
02:13:46
how the mind stays fluid and flexible
02:13:49
and you can always realize that you're
02:13:52
wrong.
02:13:53
>> Amen. I think that's increasingly
02:13:54
important in an age of um
02:13:55
misinformation, disinformation is to be
02:13:57
able to have conversations like we had
02:13:59
today where you have an opinion but
02:14:01
you're open-minded to listen. And um
02:14:03
something that I I think is increasingly
02:14:05
important but increasingly rare. Um even
02:14:07
as a podcaster, you're kind of forced to
02:14:09
fit somewhere. you're pushed to be on
02:14:11
the right or pushed to be on the left or
02:14:12
pushed to believe this or pushed to
02:14:13
believe that. And it takes, especially
02:14:15
in the modern world with algorithms
02:14:16
hitting you every day, it takes some
02:14:18
restraint and thoughtfulness to try and
02:14:20
remain open. Um, so I love that message
02:14:23
and I hope for our audience that
02:14:25
listening, I hope that that's what they
02:14:26
do as well. like even if they don't like
02:14:28
a guest we have on the show or they have
02:14:29
a different of opinion, I hope you can
02:14:30
at least bring yourself to listen and
02:14:32
fight the the cognitive dissonance which
02:14:34
is very natural in human instinct to to
02:14:36
hear them out and to allow those ideas
02:14:38
to clash with your own to arrive at your
02:14:39
own conclusions. Benjamin,
02:14:41
>> I'm going to echo a lot of what Andy
02:14:43
said. Um stay curious. I think podcasts
02:14:46
like yours and I think others do a great
02:14:47
job of exposing people to different
02:14:49
things they didn't think of. So continue
02:14:51
to feed that curiosity. Um, and
02:14:54
cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable,
02:14:56
but it is a good thing because it forces
02:14:57
us to think of opinions that we wouldn't
02:14:59
otherwise. And I try to teach my
02:15:01
students the power of u empathy, which
02:15:04
basically means you don't have to like
02:15:06
the other side. You can hate the other
02:15:07
side, but just see the world as they see
02:15:09
it for a moment before you do.
02:15:11
>> So, I think empathy is critical.
02:15:13
>> Where do we find more of your work,
02:15:14
Benjamin? some
02:15:15
>> um I mean um for me it's it's I'm
02:15:18
building out ways to be able to find
02:15:20
more of it but um on on socials on X and
02:15:22
on Instagram I try to post as often as I
02:15:25
can and I give talks when I can. So
02:15:27
>> you haven't written a book yet?
02:15:28
>> Not yet. I'm I'm designing a simulation
02:15:30
platform. That's sort of my work product
02:15:31
but it's not available to the masses
02:15:33
yet.
02:15:34
>> And Annie,
02:15:36
>> where books are sold.
02:15:37
>> I mean you've got a lot of them but you
02:15:39
write fantastic books. Um any particular
02:15:41
one you would like people to read?
02:15:43
>> Start at the beginning. Okay.
02:15:46
Or
02:15:46
>> start at the end.
02:15:47
>> The Annie anthology.
02:15:48
>> I'll link them all below in the
02:15:49
description so people can find them. Um,
02:15:51
and Andrew,
02:15:52
>> you can find me at everydayspy.com, the
02:15:54
business that I own. You can find me
02:15:55
everywhere at as my name, Andrew
02:15:57
Bamante. And uh, and yeah,
02:15:59
>> YouTube. And you've written this great
02:16:00
book, Shadow Cell, which has been a
02:16:03
smash hit with New York Times
02:16:04
bestseller, wasn't it?
02:16:05
>> Yes, sir.
02:16:05
>> It was. Uh, and this is I mean, we
02:16:07
talked about this in our last episode,
02:16:08
but uh, took a long time to get this
02:16:10
book declassified, I believe, and get
02:16:11
permission from the CIA to release it.
02:16:13
It's a fascinating story of um
02:16:14
uncovering a mole within the CIA which
02:16:18
is fascinating. So, thank you again all
02:16:20
of you for getting together and
02:16:21
demystifying a lot of this stuff for me.
02:16:22
It's helped me to build my own
02:16:23
perspective on what's going on in the
02:16:24
world. And um I uh I hope we can have
02:16:27
you all back again soon once we figure
02:16:29
out what actually happens. So, thank you
02:16:32
so much. I appreciate a lot. Thank you.
02:16:34
>> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm
02:16:35
where they know exactly what video you
02:16:38
would like to watch next based on AI and
02:16:40
all of your viewing behavior. And the
02:16:42
algorithm says that this video is the
02:16:45
perfect video for you. It's different
02:16:47
for everybody looking right now. Check
02:16:48
this video out and I bet you you might
02:16:50
love it.
