0:00:03 Get unlimited grocery delivery with PCX Press Pass.
0:00:04 Meal prep, delivered.
0:00:06 Snacks, delivered.
0:00:08 Fresh fruit, delivered.
0:00:12 Grocery delivery on repeat for just $2.50 a month.
0:00:14 Learn more at pcexpress.ca.
0:00:18 We have a favor to ask you.
0:00:20 The Prof. G. Pod team is planning for the future of the show,
0:00:23 and we want our listeners to be a part of the conversation.
0:00:26 That’s why we’re hoping you’ll help us by filling out a brief survey.
0:00:29 Your feedback will help us figure out what’s working, what’s not.
0:00:32 Please visit us at voxmedia.com slash survey.
0:00:36 Again, that’s voxmedia.com slash survey to provide us with feedback.
0:00:39 We do take it seriously if we’re thinking about new product extensions
0:00:42 and want to know what we can do better.
0:00:43 More dick jokes.
0:00:45 More dick jokes.
0:00:46 Red your mind.
0:00:50 Hey, this is Peter Kafka.
0:00:54 I’m the host of Channels, a show about what happens when media and tech collide.
0:00:57 And this week I’m talking to Emily Sundberg,
0:01:03 whose Feed Me newsletter is a thriving one-person business with mega fans and lots of subscribers.
0:01:07 This is a story about a media company that’s taking off.
0:01:09 A very wise person once told me,
0:01:12 once you turn certain levers on, you can’t turn them back off.
0:01:14 And I don’t need to right now.
0:01:14 Like, everything’s working.
0:01:16 I don’t need to give more of my personal life.
0:01:20 That’s this week on Channels, wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.
0:01:25 Welcome to a bonus episode of the Prop G pod.
0:01:26 What’s happening?
0:01:31 A ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump is now in place after a 12-day war between Israel and Iran.
0:01:38 The region remains on edge as both sides claim victory and questions grow around how long the calm will last.
0:01:41 And also, what actually happened here and was it effective, ineffective?
0:01:50 In today’s episode, we speak with Kareem Sajipour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in Iran and U.S. foreign policy.
0:01:57 We discuss with Kareem what triggered the latest conflict, how it might shape the future of U.S. diplomacy in the region, and what comes next for Iran.
0:02:00 So with that, here’s our conversation with Kareem Sajipour.
0:02:05 Kareem, where does this podcast find you?
0:02:09 I’m in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
0:02:09 Nice.
0:02:11 And how long have you lived in D.C.?
0:02:15 I’ve been in D.C. for basically the last two decades.
0:02:18 I’d previously been based in the Middle East.
0:02:23 I’d lived in Tehran and Beirut, and I grew up mostly in Michigan.
0:02:24 Interesting.
0:02:28 So did your parents leave during the revolution, or did you live in Tehran after that?
0:02:33 My family was one of the few families that came to the U.S. before the revolution.
0:02:39 My father was a medical doctor, and he emigrated to the U.S. in the late 1950s.
0:02:45 My mom grew up both in Iran and in Italy, and they came together.
0:02:51 They settled in the U.S. in the late 60s, and I think they probably always thought they would one day go back to Iran.
0:02:56 But then when the revolution happened, they stood put, and I grew up mostly in the U.S.
0:03:02 I spent years living in Latin America and in Europe and in the Middle East, but the last two decades in D.C.
0:03:04 Surely a global citizen.
0:03:06 So let’s bust right into it.
0:03:11 For now, it appears the ceasefire between Israel and Iran continues to hold.
0:03:14 Trump says the war is done.
0:03:31 Give us your sense of the state of play, because I think one of the frustrating things about this conflict war is that I went back and I looked at headlines the first few days after a war began or a conflict.
0:03:35 And what they were reporting then was oftentimes just not accurate.
0:03:38 And it feels even less.
0:03:40 It feels like there’s even less veracity.
0:03:44 Like, have we set their nuclear program back seven days or seven years?
0:03:47 I literally don’t know who to turn to.
0:03:57 So I’d be curious to just get your kind of appraisal, no mercy, no malice overview of the state of play right now as it relates to this war.
0:03:58 Sure, Scott.
0:04:09 So first, let me give like one minute of historic context, which is that, you know, these two countries, Iran and Israel, in my view, are actually more natural partners than they are natural adversaries.
0:04:13 There’s an ancient history of affinity between the Persians and the Jews.
0:04:20 You know, Cyrus the Great, the ancient Persian king, is revered in the Old Testament for liberating the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
0:04:25 Prior to the 1979 revolution, the two countries had good partnership.
0:04:39 And even now, if you look at them, you know, in contrast to most modern geopolitical conflicts like China and Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, there’s no direct land or border disputes between Iran and Israel.
0:04:41 The two countries, in my view, have complementary interests.
0:04:43 Israel is a tech power.
0:04:44 Iran is an energy power.
0:04:47 And there’s natural basis for cooperation.
0:05:01 What happened in 1979 was that Iran went virtually overnight from a U.S. allied monarchy led by the Shah to a viscerally anti-American, anti-Israeli theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
0:05:07 And since then, there’s basically been three ideological pillars of Iran’s 1979 revolution.
0:05:17 It’s death to America, death to Israel, and the mandatory hijab, the veiling of women, which Khomeini called the flag of the Islamic revolution.
0:05:25 So going now to the present, the latest battle between Iran and Israel may be over for now.
0:05:34 But the war will continue so long as you have a regime in Iran whose entire identity is premised on replacing Israel with Palestine.
0:05:37 I bring a bias here.
0:05:50 And my bias is that I feel like one of the biggest unlocks that Americans don’t consider, it’s not in their lexicon or their dialogue, is the potential for the Iran and America to be allies again.
0:05:52 Because, and this is pure anecdotal evidence.
0:05:59 I grew up in Los Angeles, I went to UCLA, largest concentration of Iranians, I think outside of Tehran.
0:06:06 And several of my closest friends at UCLA were Iranian.
0:06:11 And it always struck me, my comment about Iranians was they were more American than Americans.
0:06:13 A love of education.
0:06:14 A love of money.
0:06:16 And I say that in a positive way.
0:06:17 Total capitalists, entrepreneurs.
0:06:19 A love of graduate education.
0:06:23 An appreciation for ambition and competitiveness.
0:06:27 I just always thought the most American kids we have here are Iranians.
0:06:47 And when I see the, when I see the lack of popularity of the Islamic regime or the Islamic Republic, what is your sense for whether or not when we took this military action, there’s always a fear that you have a rallying around the flag when you’re attacked.
0:06:54 What’s your sense of the Iranian, that kind of man or woman on the streets reaction to this military action?
0:06:56 It’s an important question.
0:07:16 And, you know, my view about this is that what tends to happen in these dramatic instances of, you know, military attack or military conflagration with an external power is that it tends to accentuate Iranians’ existing political views.
0:07:37 So, if last week or two weeks ago you were a supporter of the government, and I suspect government supporters represent about 15 to 20 percent of society, it’s not a popular regime, then you have even more fodder, obviously, to hate America and Israel for the military invasion of Iran.
0:07:54 If you were a critic or an opponent of the Iranian regime and you said, you know, this is a regime which always puts its ideological objectives over the national interests of us and the well-being of the Iranian people, then you have even more reason to dislike the regime.
0:08:01 I think in the near term, what happens is that the regime has gotten a kind of a, what I would describe as a temporary sugar high.
0:08:22 But when the dust settles, three months, six months, nine months from now, I think people will go back to living under this politically repressive, socially repressive police state, which is profoundly mismanaged, an economy which, you know, Iran could be, in my view, it should be a G20 nation.
0:08:30 Under proper management, this is a country which has enormous human capital, as you were referring to, has enormous natural resources.
0:08:34 It is not a country which just came to be in the 20th century.
0:08:38 It has a 2,500-year-old civilization and identity.
0:08:44 And, you know, I think Iranians will eventually revert back to that profound sense of discontent.
0:08:46 And I’ll give you a concrete example of that, Scott.
0:08:56 You may remember in January of 2020, Iran’s top Revolutionary Guard commander, Qasem Soleimani, was assassinated by President Trump.
0:09:05 And many people then said, well, this is, you know, the country is rallying around the flag and there were mass protests in Iran.
0:09:06 What happened two years later?
0:09:15 Two years later, there was a young woman called Masa Amini that was detained and killed in custody for allegedly showing too much of her hair.
0:09:24 And that set off massive nationwide protests in Iran, which persisted over six months and had the regime on its heels.
0:09:32 So, you know, I don’t doubt that, you know, many people took umbrage to the U.S. dropping 30,000-pound bunker bombs.
0:09:38 But ultimately, you know, vast majority of Iranians, as I say, they want to be South Korea.
0:09:40 They don’t want to be living under North Korea.
0:09:42 Let’s talk about the next generation.
0:09:46 So, Khomeini, 85-year-old theocrat.
0:09:56 And the next level down, I got to be thinking, when the Mossad is able to penetrate—I mean, people talk about how Israel rules the skies over Iran.
0:10:00 I think what’s probably more frightening for the leadership in Iran is it appears they ruled the ground.
0:10:14 And what I mean by that is that the signal I think they’ve sent is that on a moment’s notice, an email to a secure device, to an asset spy on the ground in Iran, we can kill any of you.
0:10:18 And so—and I think Americans even have trouble relating to that.
0:10:28 Imagine if all of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretaries of the Navy, every five-star general we have in the Air Force, within 30 minutes were all murdered.
0:10:31 And it’s clear, okay, they can take out anybody.
0:10:39 My question—I was—when I’ve been on corporate boards, my question is, the strength of a company is not based on the CEO.
0:10:44 It’s based on, do you have zero or eight people who could step into the CEO’s shoes?
0:10:47 That’s a sign of a strong corporate governance and a strong organization.
0:10:53 What do you think the next generation looks like in terms of the regime?
0:10:56 And is this a house of cards with an 85-year-old?
0:11:00 What happens when he dies, assuming he’s not overthrown?
0:11:01 He’s an old man.
0:11:04 What does the next generation look like?
0:11:08 And is there a chill of, what have I signed up for here?
0:11:10 It’s an important question.
0:11:14 And, you know, Ayatollah Khamenei is actually now 86.
0:11:17 He’s the longest-serving autocrat in the world.
0:11:18 He’s been ruling since 1989.
0:11:20 He hasn’t left Iran since 1989.
0:11:24 And, you know, you put yourself in his shoes right now.
0:11:25 He’s living in a bunker.
0:11:28 We all have known, you know, 85, 86 years old.
0:11:31 You have limited physical, mental stamina.
0:11:43 And he’s expected to lead this three-part war against the greatest superpower in the world, the United States, the greatest military power in the Middle East, Israel, and against his own population.
0:11:51 And he’s doing that at a time when you mentioned his top military commanders have been assassinated in their own bedrooms or in their own bunkers.
0:12:04 And so, as you mentioned, this really slows down the wheels of state when it’s a state which potentially needs to act quickly to address an external or internal security threat.
0:12:11 And when people get the notifications on their phones, they don’t know if that’s coming from their higher-up command or is coming from the Mossad.
0:12:15 So, in my view, what I would describe as a Swiss cheese regime.
0:12:19 It has so many holes in it penetrated by Israeli intelligence.
0:12:23 Now, what happens after the supreme leader’s passing?
0:12:33 You know, Ibn Khaldun, the great North African philosopher, sometimes called the father of sociology,
0:12:41 He came out with a theory centuries ago, in the 13th century, which he called asabia.
0:12:45 And it’s now known in kind of modern business literature.
0:12:47 You may be familiar with it as the power cycle theory.
0:12:52 And essentially what he said is that empires are built and destroyed over three generations.
0:12:55 The first generation, they have fire in the belly.
0:12:56 They come, they build it.
0:13:01 Second generation watched what the first generation did, so they managed to preserve it.
0:13:05 But by the third generation, by no fault of their own, you know, they’re soft.
0:13:06 They’re princelings.
0:13:07 They’re born in the palace.
0:13:09 They weren’t born with that fire in the belly.
0:13:14 You know, the example I commonly use in the American business context is Walmart, right?
0:13:19 Sam Walton, through his thrift and grit, built this amazing company.
0:13:22 You know, second generation has preserved it.
0:13:28 Now, you know, his grandchildren were born multibillionaires, so it’s clear, you know, they weren’t born with that same grit.
0:13:34 But now going back to the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini is the last of the Mohicans.
0:13:38 He’s the last of the first generation leaders in the Islamic Republic.
0:13:48 And they don’t have any great options for succession, in part because this is a society which is thoroughly secularized over the last 46 years.
0:14:00 You know, the best way to secularize a population is to rule them with a repressive, corrupt theocracy, which is ruling from a moral pedestal.
0:14:07 You know, that’s insulting to people in a way that living under your run-of-the-mill dictatorship is in some ways less insulting.
0:14:18 You know, Vladimir Putin doesn’t have any pretensions of being, you know, God’s representative on earth, whereas, you know, Islamic Republic’s leadership, they have these pretensions of moral superiority.
0:14:28 So the question is, you know, does, you know, does, if the regime manages to keep it together and they don’t implode like the Soviet Union did, which is, you know, a big question.
0:14:36 Is the next strong man in Iran going to be wearing a turban and being another ayatollah?
0:14:43 Or is it more likely to be someone from the security forces with a military or intelligence background?
0:14:54 My sense is that even if they try to anoint a cleric as the next supreme leader, that person is likely going to be a transitional figure, much like Boris Yeltsin was in the post-Soviet Union.
0:15:04 And that if the system manages to keep it together, more likely we’re going to see someone with a military and intelligence background, not someone wearing a turban.
0:15:07 We’ll be right back.
0:15:18 The new Mitsubishi Outlander brings out another side of you.
0:15:21 Your regular side listens to classical music.
0:15:25 Your adventurous side rocks out with the dynamic sound Yamaha.
0:15:27 Regular U owns a library card.
0:15:32 Adventurous U owns the road with super all-wheel control.
0:15:33 Regular side?
0:15:35 Alone time.
0:15:38 Adventurous side journeys together with third-row seating.
0:15:39 The new Outlander.
0:15:41 Bring out your adventurous side.
0:15:43 Mitsubishi Motors.
0:15:44 Drive your ambition.
0:15:49 With great deals coming this prime day, July 8th through the 11th, greatness is a deal away.
0:15:56 So if you love baking, you can get a deal on a new mixer, transforming you into the Lord of the Loaves.
0:15:59 Hear ye, hear ye.
0:16:06 Make way for the baron of brioche, the salting of sourdough, the Lord of the Loaves.
0:16:08 Prime member Dave!
0:16:11 Yeah, uh, hi?
0:16:15 Shop great deals this prime day, July 8th through the 11th.
0:16:21 I’m Julia Longoria, and this week on Unexplainable, things get a little personal.
0:16:25 With morning sickness.
0:16:31 What I saw in television shows and movies, people saying, ha, ha, ha, she’s pregnant.
0:16:33 She’s been barfing for an hour.
0:16:43 When I woke up, I ran to the bathroom, and I sort of laughed after, thinking, this is morning sickness, uh-huh.
0:16:49 But within a week, I realized that it was not very funny.
0:16:53 And it got bad really fast.
0:17:00 I just was like, okay, I have to work on this, because there’s nothing out there, and I need the answers.
0:17:05 Follow Unexplainable for new episodes every Monday and Wednesday.
0:17:18 I want to outline a thesis to you from someone who’s just, uh, obviously observing this from abroad, and has a limited view into it.
0:17:23 But my, generally, for someone said, all right, summarize what’s going on here.
0:17:26 Where you have someone who’s literally running to stay out of prison.
0:17:33 And the best way to stay in office is to get people to rally around the flag and the current administration.
0:17:37 And the easiest way to accomplish that is to go on a constant war footing.
0:17:47 Which results in whether or not you think it was the right idea to respond in Gaza, which I do believe it absolutely was the right decision.
0:17:55 And now, most people, including, I think, a very large segment of the Israeli populace and former prime ministers, are saying, it has just gone too far.
0:18:13 And then, after diminishing or neutering the proxies of Iran, which is understandable, going in and convincing your ally to come in behind you, who comes in behind you, with what I would describe as what looks to me like, increasingly, a performative attack.
0:18:20 Now, now there’s reports that the majority of the enriched uranium was transported out of these facilities.
0:18:35 And it was a little bit of a president, very focused on his image, jealous of the macho light that Netanyahu was basking under, so came in with a performative attack, which then inspired a performative response.
0:18:54 Where Khomeini ordered an attack on bases in Qatar and Iraq, and my understanding is, gave Qatar and U.S. forces a heads up that this was about to happen, such that he could flex and say, see, I responded, but not risk any real collateral damage that would inspire an escalation.
0:19:01 So, this whole thing, this whole thing, this whole chapter, the word I would use to describe the last two weeks, performative.
0:19:02 Your thoughts.
0:19:05 So, a couple things.
0:19:21 Number one, I’ve been teaching a class at Georgetown University for years in the Master’s School of Foreign Service, and I always joke on the first day with my students that if you really want to understand the Middle East, you’re better off studying psychology than political science.
0:19:32 Because so much of this region is shaped not by the national interests of states, but by kind of the manias and political ambitions of strong men.
0:19:53 And in the case of this current war, America, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, much of what’s transpired over the last few weeks is, I think, driven by the person of Donald Trump and his political imperatives, the person of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the person of Ayatollah Khamenei.
0:19:57 Not necessarily, as I said from the outset, the national interests of these places.
0:20:12 Now, one framework I used to think about, certainly the relationship between President Trump and Ayatollah Khamenei, there’s a wonderful essay which the British philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote in 1953, which is called The Hedgehog and the Fox.
0:20:15 And he essentially puts human beings into two buckets.
0:20:23 He said, you know, hedgehogs really have one big idea, one great passion, and foxes know many things.
0:20:24 They do many things.
0:20:28 And his example of the quintessential hedgehog was Karl Marx.
0:20:32 His example of the prototypical fox was William Shakespeare.
0:20:35 Now, how does that apply to Trump and to Khamenei?
0:20:38 Ayatollah Khamenei is the prototypical hedgehog.
0:20:46 He has basically one great passion, one big idea, resistance, resistance against America, resistance against Israel.
0:20:47 Death to America, death to Israel.
0:20:53 Trump, on the other hand, is someone who, I don’t think he knows many things, but he says many things.
0:20:59 And he’s had a profound, you know, I don’t know what you would describe it.
0:21:02 I call him the Jackson Pollock of foreign policy.
0:21:13 You know, he goes from one month ago, he was in Riyadh denouncing those previous administrations who engaged in military interventions in the Middle East.
0:21:23 He ridiculed them and he said, you know, there were regime changers who destroyed far more, I’m sorry, there were nation builders who destroyed far more nations than they built,
0:21:27 and interventionists who had no idea about the reality of their own society.
0:21:39 One month later, after Prime Minister Netanyahu had taken military action, as you said, Trump saw that it was perceived to be very successful.
0:21:45 Netanyahu is getting, you know, great reviews on Fox News, and, you know, he wanted to be associated with that.
0:21:48 And so, I think we will look back years from now.
0:21:57 And Scott, you know, when you’re watching these things in real time in the Middle East, as we’ve seen, you know, if we were having this conversation in spring of 2003,
0:22:00 we would say the Iraq war is, you know, a great success, right?
0:22:03 We took out Saddam’s army in three weeks.
0:22:05 Five years later, things look very differently.
0:22:07 So, years from now, things could look very differently.
0:22:17 But I do think when the history of this war is written, much of it will be about the psychology and political calculations
0:22:26 and domestic political expediences of these three men, Netanyahu, Trump, and Khamenei, rather than the interests of nation states.
0:22:38 So, another thesis I’d like to put forward and get your reaction to, I feel as if the unsung hero in this or the unsung force here is the Ukrainian army.
0:22:39 What do I mean by that?
0:22:54 If Russia had barreled into Kiev as Putin’s generals were guaranteeing, and immediately Ukraine fell, and Russia held this perception and reputation as this fierce fighting force,
0:22:56 not to be trifled with, to be very scared of,
0:23:04 that Syria would not have fell, and we would have thought twice, as would have Netanyahu,
0:23:12 and perhaps would have received more military, logistical, and perceptual support around its surface-to-air capabilities.
0:23:20 And neither Israel nor the U.S. would have had the confidence or the ability to do what they had done,
0:23:26 had Russia still been intact in terms of its actual and perceived power.
0:23:27 Your thoughts?
0:23:32 Well, I think that’s one important data point among others.
0:23:36 I mean, the other important data point is what happened on October 7th, 2023,
0:23:41 when Yahya Sinwar and Hamas invaded Israel,
0:23:47 which, you know, turned out to be one of the most profound miscalculations in modern history,
0:23:54 because, you know, they thought that that was going to delegitimize Israel and lead to its eventual demise.
0:23:58 And what we’ve seen in the last year and a half is exactly the opposite.
0:24:03 And, you know, Iran’s leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei was the only leader in the world
0:24:07 that praised the Hamas attack of October 7th.
0:24:10 And that led Israel.
0:24:14 And then, you know, Iran kind of unleashed its other proxies,
0:24:19 like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Yemen, to commence this multi-front war with Israel.
0:24:25 And those proxies have been decimated the last year and a half.
0:24:29 So that was also an important factor.
0:24:32 But back to Ukraine and Zelensky.
0:24:41 One of the most important observations that stayed with me over the years about geopolitics
0:24:46 is an observation which Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoirs that he said, you know,
0:24:52 before he went into government, when he became Secretary of State and National Security Advisor,
0:24:53 he was a professor at Harvard.
0:24:57 And he thought that history was driven by impersonal forces.
0:25:01 You know, nations basically follow their own interests, regardless of who’s in power.
0:25:05 And he said after he served in government, he reached the opposite conclusion,
0:25:09 which is that the individual profoundly shapes history.
0:25:13 Academics oftentimes don’t like this because they call it, you know, the great man theory of history.
0:25:21 But I’ve also come around Kissinger’s worldview, that the individual has a profound impact on history.
0:25:23 Leadership has a profound impact on history.
0:25:32 And so your point about Ukraine for me, you know, obviously the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people is critical.
0:25:43 But the person of President Zelensky is someone for me who has played an incredibly important role in the history of his nation.
0:25:49 And we saw, you know, just a year prior to that, and perhaps it was one reason why Vladimir Putin invaded,
0:25:59 was that in Afghanistan, you know, it was a country, a president who, he fled the country within, you know, 24, 48 hours, and the entire system collapsed.
0:26:06 So it just goes to, you know, both in business and in politics and geopolitics, the importance of leadership.
0:26:12 So I’ll go even further afield.
0:26:19 We had what was sort of a political earthquake with Zoran Mamdani winning the Democratic primary.
0:26:28 And I wonder how much of that is a new generation of American voters, quite frankly, very fed up with Israel.
0:26:35 And that this was not only an outstanding campaign run by someone who really understood new media,
0:26:41 representing youth, a pushback on the established Democratic machine.
0:26:50 What is your sense as you reverse engineer activities in the Middle East in terms of its impact on the U.S. political landscape,
0:26:54 what’s happening both in Iran and Israel and the dynamics there?
0:26:54 Do you think it will?
0:26:59 How do you see it reverse engineering to what happens here in the United States?
0:27:01 So that’s an important question.
0:27:03 Let me react in a couple of ways.
0:27:11 Number one, we’ve seen the impact that America’s failures in the last two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan
0:27:15 and the failure of the Arab Spring in 2011 to bring about democratic change.
0:27:24 The impact that’s had on American politics, whereby, you know, it used to be that Republicans were national security hawks
0:27:29 and more supportive of U.S. military interventions.
0:27:37 Now, you know, a strong wing of Trump’s base are, you know, they wouldn’t like the term isolationist.
0:27:39 They would call themselves restrainers or non-interventionists.
0:27:45 But that’s an important part of his political base now, including, I would probably put in that category, Vice President Vance,
0:27:48 and people like Tucker Carlson.
0:27:57 And so that is probably a majority view because it’s also, it’s a widely held view on the left as well,
0:28:05 that, you know, America should just kind of stay out of military interventions, especially in the Middle East.
0:28:13 Now, second, with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you know, when I first started doing this work,
0:28:16 Israel was a bipartisan issue in Washington.
0:28:20 You know, whenever there was a bill in Congress about Israel’s security,
0:28:28 it was oftentimes like, you know, 99 to one or 99 zero with one abstention in support of it.
0:28:30 And that’s starting to change a little bit.
0:28:34 And as I said, it’s not only on the left, it’s more predominantly on the left.
0:28:40 But even there are folks on the right, as I said, that wing of the party like Tucker Carlson,
0:28:45 who say, listen, Israel is a strong country.
0:28:51 We’ve been giving it many billions of aid over the years, and it can take care of itself.
0:28:53 We don’t need to be fighting wars for it.
0:28:59 The other important factor is how people consume media and news nowadays.
0:29:07 And the reality, Scott, is you have, what, 15 million, is it what, 1-5, 15 million Jews living in the world
0:29:13 between, you know, Israel and United States and diaspora communities and Europe and Australia.
0:29:16 And yeah, probably, what, 1.2 billion Muslims.
0:29:28 And so the disparity in terms of what is produced on TikTok and Instagram and Twitter about the news of the Middle East,
0:29:34 especially when the images and videos are so dramatic and they appear, you know, very one-sided.
0:29:43 And David versus Goliath, a Palestinian population which has suffered, you know, perhaps over 50,000, 60,000 casualties now.
0:29:52 And an Israeli prime minister who, you know, is widely disliked even within his own society, let alone globally.
0:30:05 And so I do agree with you that the Democratic primary, mayoral primary in New York is an important signpost for any supporter of Israel in the United States.
0:30:14 Because if you’re losing New York City and so much of the debate, political debate in that election was not about New York City, it was about Israel-Palestine.
0:30:21 You know, that is, in my view, if you’re a strong supporter of Israel, that’s a five-alarm fire.
0:30:25 You obviously, you teach, you’re in D.C.
0:30:30 You see kind of the human capital that goes into our foreign policy apparatus.
0:30:36 I’m always consistently impressed by the human capital that decides to go into U.S. foreign policy
0:30:42 and decides to not go into what would probably be much more financially lucrative careers.
0:30:50 At the same time, our security apparatus right now, I would argue, seems sclerotic and just, they can’t even get their own story straight.
0:31:04 What is your sense of the current state of our security apparatus and our foreign policy engine, if you will, as you see the human capital going into it, whether it’s, I would imagine it’s less attractive right now, but I bring a bias to the table.
0:31:11 But give us a sense for the strength or lack thereof of our foreign policy and to the extent you’re comfortable talking about it, our security apparatus.
0:31:21 So one place where, you know, I’ve always been very impressed by the human capital of our leadership is our military, you know, especially our military institutions.
0:31:29 The great, you know, in my view, these are great American institutions, West Point, you know, Annapolis, the Naval Academy and our top generals.
0:31:41 I’m always impressed by, you know, the fact that presidents and politicians change, but there’s a consistent level of excellence from those top military commanders.
0:31:50 And not only, you know, excellence in terms of their discipline and preparedness, but, you know, oftentimes their character.
0:31:51 So I would rate them highly.
0:31:55 I’ve also, you know, over the years when you, I’ve been in D.C. for many years.
0:32:02 So you interact with many different institutions, Pentagon, the intelligence community, State Department.
0:32:16 You know, I think one of the challenges we have, and it’s natural because the U.S. government is an enormous bureaucracy, but it’s, you know, getting talented people in is a challenge.
0:32:18 When, for example, I’ll give you some concrete examples.
0:32:22 I have very talented friends who are of Iranian origin.
0:32:29 You know, one in particular was born and raised in New York City, would be a huge asset to the U.S. government, wanted to serve in the U.S. government.
0:32:35 And for four years, he was waiting for security clearance, which never happened, never got that security clearance.
0:32:46 And the way they conduct these security clearances are totally antiquated, where, you know, you have one person going and interviewing 500 different people and asking them questions.
0:32:57 You know, my view, this is ripe for disruption from a company like Palantir, that, you know, to hand over all of your, you know, computer, your social media, and we can do this much quicker.
0:33:00 So that’s one example.
0:33:17 The other example is that the U.S. Foreign Service, for example, you know, it’s, you start off and you may go stamp passports and Bangladesh for a couple years, and then you’re, you know, off to another assignment.
0:33:31 And the pace of professional advancement can be quite slow, and it’s not the same excitement as, you know, going and joining a startup, AI startup or Silicon Valley startup.
0:33:41 So I think that people should feel that, you know, there is, you know, very high caliber people we have in government.
0:33:47 But, you know, a lot of the best minds these days, government is less attracted.
0:33:51 The final thing I’ll say on this, Scott, is that, you know, I’ll give you an example.
0:34:00 We have probably, in the U.S. government, there’s, you know, probably upwards of a billion dollars dedicated to strategic communications.
0:34:14 That is almost irrelevant now when you have a president who is essentially tweeting or, you know, putting on truth social his foreign policy positions and ambitions.
0:34:18 It’s, you know, it’s rendered virtually irrelevant.
0:34:30 So that, I think there’s a great sense of demoralization among many folks in government that the system isn’t functioning like it used to be and like it should.
0:34:33 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
0:34:42 This episode is brought to you by DAZN.
0:34:52 For the first time ever, the 32 best soccer clubs from across the world are coming together to decide who the undisputed champions of the world are in the FIFA Club World Cup.
0:34:57 The world’s best players, Messi, Holland, Kane, and more are all taking part.
0:35:02 And you can watch every match for free on DAZN starting on June 14th and running until July 13th.
0:35:05 Sign up now at DAZN.com slash FIFA.
0:35:08 That’s D-A-Z-N dot com slash FIFA.
0:35:12 There are two kinds of people in the world.
0:35:14 Backward thinkers and forward thinkers.
0:35:19 Forward thinkers have plans 15 minutes from now and 15 years from now.
0:35:21 They’re not just one step ahead.
0:35:23 They’re 1,000 steps ahead.
0:35:28 And when you’re a forward thinker, you need a platform that thinks like you do.
0:35:35 Workday’s AI illuminates decision making and reimagines how you manage your people and money for long-term success.
0:35:36 Workday.
0:35:38 Moving business forever forward.
0:35:42 It won’t take long to tell you Neutral’s ingredients.
0:35:45 Vodka.
0:35:46 Soda.
0:35:48 Natural flavors.
0:35:55 So, what should we talk about?
0:36:01 No sugar added?
0:36:01 No sugar added?
0:36:06 Neutral.
0:36:08 Refreshingly simple.
0:36:18 We’re back with more from Karim.
0:36:34 If you were going to make any bets around what’s going to happen in the Middle East, recognizing this is a almost an impossible region to predict, but do you have any general themes or outcomes that you think are more likely than not?
0:36:37 Let me venture a couple of broad thoughts.
0:36:51 Number one is that, in my view, this is a region which is never going to experience real stability and security so long as you have a government in Iran whose organizing principle is death to America and death to Israel.
0:36:59 As long as you have a government in Iran that, as Kissinger once put it, behaves as a cause rather than a nation state.
0:37:01 Because it’s a huge country, Iran.
0:37:03 It has enormous resources.
0:37:14 And if it wants to spend all of its capital and talent dedicated to the business of destruction and destabilization, it can continue to do that.
0:37:17 So, that’s one big prediction.
0:37:22 Second is that, in my view, there at some point will be a reckoning in Iran.
0:37:29 And there’s a wonderful book on revolutions, which a professor called Jack Goldstone wrote.
0:37:32 And Goldstone likens revolutions to earthquakes.
0:37:35 He said, you know, we know where fault lines lie.
0:37:43 We know which countries are highly seismic, but we can never say with certainty, you know, when an earthquake is going to happen.
0:37:46 And that’s true about Iran as well.
0:37:50 This is a regime which, in my view, it’s like the late-stage Soviet Union.
0:37:51 It’s a zombie regime.
0:37:53 It has a dead ideology.
0:37:55 It survives with the repression.
0:37:56 It’s on borrowed time.
0:38:00 At some point, there is going to be a reckoning inside Iran.
0:38:08 But, you know, I can’t tell you when exactly that’s going to happen, nor can you say for certainty what is going to be the outcome.
0:38:14 You know, we know from history that authoritarian transitions oftentimes don’t end in democracy.
0:38:17 Only about one in four cases end in democracy.
0:38:20 More often, it ends in another form of authoritarianism.
0:38:33 But even if that’s the case in Iran, you could have a system which, you know, evolves into a regime which is, or a government which is a nationalist government, much like, you know, the choice that Deng Xiaoping made in China in the 1970s.
0:38:39 Put the national interest and economic interest before cultural revolution.
0:38:45 And, you know, that is, in my view, the kind of the key to understanding the region.
0:38:52 The final thing I would say here is that a big question is Saudi Vision 2030.
0:39:02 And, you know, to the extent to which Saudi Arabia succeeds and Mohammed bin Salman succeeds in transforming his nation.
0:39:07 And I’ll tell you, you know, I wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs about this last fall.
0:39:19 That is a tall order for, you know, young man, modern leader, to try to take what was, you know, up until recently, very traditional society and rapidly modernize it.
0:39:23 And I think it’s in our interest and U.S. interest that he succeed.
0:39:31 But, you know, we have the example of the Shahi of Iran in 1979, also a modern leader trying to rapidly transform a society.
0:39:38 And what we know from history is that popular tumult doesn’t tend to happen when people feel most destitute.
0:39:45 Popular tumult tends to happen when people’s expectations have risen, but then those expectations are unfulfilled.
0:39:49 It’s called, you know, the J-curve theory, or revolutions of rising expectations.
0:39:56 So an ideal outcome, Scott, in the Middle East would be in Iran, which transforms into something modern,
0:40:01 and in Saudi Arabia, which succeeds in transforming and realizing Vision 2030.
0:40:09 A disaster outcome would be Vision 2030 failing and having an outcome similar to what happened in Iran in 1979,
0:40:16 and this current regime in Iran managing to kind of retrench itself and ruling for years to come.
0:40:22 I mean, be more direct. Isn’t there a much greater likelihood of peace and stability without Netanyahu or Khomeini?
0:40:26 Aren’t these two obstacles to a sustainable peace in the Middle East?
0:40:32 So I would add one more person there, which is the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas,
0:40:38 because what a lot of the Gulf leadership will tell you, especially, you know, even in Saudi Arabia,
0:40:48 you know, Saudis will tell you that prior to October 7, 2023, they were very close to doing a normalization deal with Israel,
0:40:54 and that was in part why Hamas invaded Israel when they did to sabotage those prospects.
0:41:03 And they succeeded because it became almost impossible for MBS to sell a normalization deal to his own people while Israel was, you know, bombing Gaza.
0:41:12 But I think that Khomeini has to go for Gulf countries to feel confident that, you know,
0:41:20 the Palestinians are capable of presenting themselves in a cohesive way and having strong leadership.
0:41:22 Mahmoud Abbas will have to go.
0:41:30 And I think many would also argue that so long as Prime Minister Netanyahu is in power,
0:41:35 that that normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia is unlikely to happen.
0:41:42 So, sort of a lightning round here, which is dangerous in geopolitics.
0:41:48 Increased U.S. intervention or additional U.S. intervention, more likely to happen or not happen?
0:41:59 I think it’s more likely to happen if we don’t get a clear account of where Iran’s highly enriched uranium is,
0:42:04 and we don’t have access to their nuclear facilities, because they may actually say,
0:42:07 now that you bombed us, we’re going to cut off access to the inspectors.
0:42:15 In six months, do you think the attack on these nuclear facilities will be seen as having been successful,
0:42:17 or that its success was inflated?
0:42:23 You know, Scott, I think applied history is useful here.
0:42:30 And unfortunately, over the last two decades, we look back at most military interventions in the Middle East
0:42:34 as having done more harm than good.
0:42:39 And, you know, I think there’s a real danger that that could be the case with this one as well.
0:42:44 So, we always like to end with, we have a lot of young people listening to the podcast.
0:42:47 It strikes me you have a really cool job.
0:42:53 That you found something, that you have this unique skill set for,
0:42:56 having been, lived all over the world, understanding these cultures,
0:42:57 obviously very intelligent,
0:43:03 and work at this interesting, you know, this interesting institution,
0:43:07 likely make a very good living, do really interesting things.
0:43:11 Like, how did you get from an 18-year-old,
0:43:14 you know, man,
0:43:18 what were sort of the pivot points?
0:43:19 How did you, how did you find,
0:43:22 how did you get in the seat you’re in now?
0:43:28 What were the seminal forces decisions that gave you the opportunity to kind of land where you are right now?
0:43:29 Because I look at,
0:43:32 I bet there’s a lot of young men and young women who look at what you’re doing and think,
0:43:33 you know what, that’s just,
0:43:37 that’s just a really interesting, rewarding way to make a living.
0:43:40 How did you get from there to here?
0:43:43 So, had you asked me at age,
0:43:45 you know, 13,
0:43:48 what I envisioned for my work,
0:43:54 I, genuinely, this would have not been in the top thousand things I thought I would do,
0:43:58 because I had zero interest in the Middle East and zero interest in Iran.
0:44:02 You know, despite the fact that my, my parents are Iranian,
0:44:04 it was, it was not easy to,
0:44:06 you know, you were not being,
0:44:11 you’re not proud of growing up Iranian in the 1980s in the United States, right?
0:44:13 In the aftermath of the hostage.
0:44:14 Pause there.
0:44:21 The amount of outright bigotry against Iranians in the U.S. after the hostage crisis was staggering.
0:44:26 I remember being in Westwood when I was at UCLA and walking down and there was this,
0:44:28 I think it was a disco called Dillon’s.
0:44:29 We had a disco.
0:44:31 And they put up a sign that said,
0:44:32 Iranians not welcome.
0:44:37 And fortunately, our institutions held and they were forced to take that sign down.
0:44:41 But that’s how comfortable a retail establishment was of being that bigoted back then.
0:44:42 I’m sorry.
0:44:42 Go ahead, Karim.
0:44:47 No, no, you know, and Scott, that wasn’t my experience as a young kid,
0:44:50 because I grew up in a community, very friendly community.
0:44:54 And, you know, my father used to tell us from the time we were small,
0:44:59 my father emigrated to U.S. in the late 1950s and he loved Iranian culture.
0:45:05 He was a great patriot, Persian patriot, but he also loved the United States.
0:45:08 And from the time we were small, he would tell us, you know,
0:45:10 you live in the greatest country in the world.
0:45:13 And the reason why I think he said that is, you know,
0:45:17 the reason why a lot of immigrants have, because they have something else to compare it to, right?
0:45:19 It wasn’t that they took it for granted.
0:45:22 He had lived in a different context.
0:45:26 But, you know, I grew up with no interest in the Middle East and Iran because, you know,
0:45:27 what did it represent?
0:45:33 It was Ayatollah Khomeini and burning American flags, death to America.
0:45:35 I was, you know, interested in basketball.
0:45:37 I went to University of Michigan.
0:45:38 I played soccer there.
0:45:44 And for me, what happened was, you know, I started to get experiences living abroad.
0:45:48 I lived in Mexico as an exchange student when I was in high school.
0:45:52 I spent my junior year in college in Italy, where, as I mentioned, my mom grew up.
0:46:00 Then when I was 22, I received, I won an essay competition from an organization which I believe
0:46:01 is still around.
0:46:03 I would recommend young people to Google it.
0:46:05 It’s called the Circumnavigators Club.
0:46:07 This was 1999.
0:46:13 And I won a scholarship, a grant, to travel around the world, to actually circumnavigate
0:46:13 the globe.
0:46:19 And my research project in 1999 was called the Internet’s Impact on Global Communication.
0:46:24 One of the places that they wanted me to go, I had actually no interest in visiting the Middle
0:46:24 East.
0:46:29 And up until then, I had not been to Iran because the war with Iraq had happened.
0:46:33 And, you know, I would have been recruited into the Iranian army.
0:46:36 So I never had gone to Iran, but I went to Egypt and I loved Egypt.
0:46:38 That was an eye-opening experience for me.
0:46:42 And I became really enthralled in the Middle East after that.
0:46:46 And then I worked at National Geographic.
0:46:47 That was my first job out of college.
0:46:55 And, you know, that, you know, it kind of continued to fuel my love of adventure and the world.
0:47:00 And then I spent the summer of 2001 in Iran, my first summer there.
0:47:02 And I lived with my 99-year-old grandmother.
0:47:05 I traveled all over the country.
0:47:06 It was a wonderful experience.
0:47:13 And then fast forward about a month later, September 2001 was my first semester in graduate
0:47:15 school, studying Middle East affairs.
0:47:16 9-11 happens.
0:47:23 And it then became kind of very clear to me that this is something I wanted to dedicate my
0:47:30 career and my life to, in part because, as you said from the outset, Scott, Iran is a nation
0:47:32 with enormous potential.
0:47:34 It should be a G20 nation.
0:47:37 And America and Iran should be natural partners.
0:47:39 They are not natural adversaries.
0:47:44 So, for me, that is what has fueled my passion.
0:47:50 And I remember when I was at Michigan, I was a classmate of Tom Brady, an undergrad.
0:47:52 He was the first guy I met in freshman orientation.
0:47:59 And we had a biology professor who said to us on the very last day, I was meant to be pre-med,
0:48:01 but I failed my pre-med classes.
0:48:03 So, I went into political science.
0:48:05 And we had this biology lecture.
0:48:10 I don’t remember much about the class, but I just remember the thing he said on the last
0:48:11 day of class.
0:48:15 He said, you know, he said, don’t cliche that if you find something you’re really passionate
0:48:18 about, then you’ll never have to work a day in your life.
0:48:23 And he said, you know, sometimes I’m waiting for calls from the lab, you know, for pending
0:48:25 experiments, and I’ll leave my lawnmower going.
0:48:27 You know, I just forget about it.
0:48:28 I’m so passionate about it.
0:48:33 And, you know, this career, it can be very emotional.
0:48:43 You’re constantly talking about repression and war and, you know, very hard, hard topics.
0:48:48 But, you know, it’s something which at the end of the day, also, it provides real meaning.
0:48:54 So, what I’d say to people is, you know, going abroad is, if you’re interested in a career in
0:48:57 international affairs, that’s one way to distinguish yourself.
0:48:59 You know, get ground experience.
0:49:03 It’s important to learn other languages and master those languages.
0:49:07 And then, final thing I’d say, Scott, is that I think it’s critical for young people to
0:49:09 read books, read history.
0:49:16 Those are the kind of the macro nutrients of kind of a great scholar or analyst.
0:49:21 If you’re constantly just reading tweets or watching TikTok videos, that’s, you know, nourishing
0:49:22 yourself with candy.
0:49:27 And it’s not going to sustain you or distinguish you from your peers.
0:49:29 Read books.
0:49:33 Kareem Sajjapur is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
0:49:34 specializing in Iran and U.S.
0:49:35 foreign policy.
0:49:42 Kareem, right away, we were getting so many muddled messages about what to believe or not
0:49:44 believe around this conflict.
0:49:49 And your name came up independently from different sources two or three times.
0:49:54 So, whatever you’re doing, you’ve established a reputation as a real honest broker.
0:49:56 So, well done.
0:49:59 Very much appreciate you coming on and hope that you’ll join us again.
0:50:00 Absolutely.
0:50:02 Thank you for having me, Scott.
0:50:02 Love being with you.
0:50:07 This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez.
0:50:09 Drew Burrows is our technical director.
0:50:12 Thanks for listening to the Prof. G. Pot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

0:00:09 So that article tells a story of multiple 80-something-year-old guys who own publications that are making—that are fine businesses.
0:00:14 Maybe they make six figures a year in profit, but they can’t find anyone to take it over, so they’re literally just shutting it down.
0:00:18 I feel like I can rule the world. I know I could be what I want to.
0:00:21 I put my all in it like my days off.
0:00:23 On the road, let’s travel, never looking back.
0:00:25 Should we start with this? This tweet?
0:00:30 It’s Media Gazer, which I guess some media commentary on media companies.
0:00:35 It says, small-town newspapers are shutting down due to lack of a succession plan, not financial issues.
0:00:38 In nearly a dozen U.S. states, this is a growing problem.
0:00:48 And so that article tells a story of multiple 80-something-year-old guys who own publications that are making—that are fine businesses.
0:00:53 Maybe they make six figures a year in profit, but they can’t find anyone to take it over, so they’re literally just shutting it down.
0:00:57 And here we have a tweet from Matthew Prince, I think his name is.
0:01:00 Matthew is worth, I think, something like $4 or $5 billion.
0:01:02 He’s the CEO of Cloudflare.
0:01:04 Do you want to kind of read what he says?
0:01:05 Yeah. So he says,
0:01:09 Actually, this is a recipe for a really rewarding life.
0:01:16 If you’re a recent college grad and not sure what to do, find a small town you could love with a local newspaper whose owners are ready to retire.
0:01:17 Raise the capital to buy it.
0:01:19 Run it with the community’s interest at heart.
0:01:21 You’ll not get too rich, but you’ll do well.
0:01:25 More importantly, you’ll be a hero to the community and have influence even early in your career.
0:01:30 You’ll meet the love of your life at some point at some event you otherwise wouldn’t get invited to.
0:01:35 You’ll have kids who will proudly call you their parent and make this corner of the world meaningfully better.
0:01:39 If anyone wants to seriously follow this recipe and just lacks the capital, happy to talk.
0:01:42 So I think that’s an amazing insight, but the true insight.
0:01:46 So someone chirps at him and they say something like, go ahead.
0:01:46 What do they say?
0:01:47 I can’t read it all.
0:01:51 So literally the guy’s name who’s replying is some guy.
0:01:53 So I’m not even disparaging this guy.
0:01:55 Some guy tweets at him and says,
0:02:13 This is the sort of unwittingly funny stuff that wealthy people say that 130 IQ guys should be content with an imaginary small town life lived in anonymity near, I don’t even know what this word is, being 180 degrees from their own choices, which deliver untold wealth and influence.
0:02:14 What is this guy saying?
0:02:15 I don’t even understand the tweet.
0:02:22 He’s basically saying like, this is something that wealthy dudes say that’s so funny because it’s so wrong that a guy would be happy doing this.
0:02:23 Is that what he’s saying?
0:02:24 And here’s why I like Twitter.
0:02:28 So Matt, Matt Prince, I don’t, he’s not high profile.
0:02:32 He’s not like an average, like the average person has no idea who this is, but he’s worth $5 billion.
0:02:36 And it’s so interesting to get his insight.
0:02:38 So this is, this is the tweet that I really care about.
0:02:40 And I just, the rest was for context.
0:02:41 Read this next one.
0:02:42 All right.
0:02:44 So he says, I have, he just replies to some guy.
0:02:48 He goes, I have untold financial wealth and I own a local newspaper.
0:02:49 So I have some perspective.
0:02:55 Like Warren Buffett likes to say, surprisingly little changes when you move from upper middle class to truly rich.
0:02:58 Houses are houses, cars are cars, and watches are stupid.
0:03:00 That’s so good.
0:03:03 What’s more important is meaning.
0:03:06 I feel lucky to have achieved financial wealth while chasing meaning.
0:03:07 That is super rare.
0:03:08 And I feel incredibly fortunate to have gotten both.
0:03:16 But if you’re early in your career and decide I’d rather optimize for meaning than financial wealth, I think this is a better path than most would consider.
0:03:17 Example, volunteer for the Peace Corps.
0:03:22 It will actually make you a good living and you’ll have incredible influence and meaning within your community.
0:03:30 And if you later decide to go for untold financial wealth, always remember, Rupert Murdoch’s empire began with the Adelaide Advertiser, which he bought when he was 21.
0:03:31 How fantastic is that?
0:03:33 This is really great.
0:03:39 Although, you know, not to be a reply guy, but like Cloudflare is not the Peace Corps or owning a small town newspaper in a community.
0:03:43 So like, is he saying that Cloudflare was his meaning thing or he did something before that?
0:03:43 Do you know?
0:03:44 That’s his meaningful thing.
0:03:49 But the point is, for one, he has another one.
0:03:53 So he’s like, some guy goes, how is one supposed to make a good living from a small town newspaper?
0:03:55 Do you have a new model for profitability?
0:03:56 Blah, blah, blah.
0:03:57 I want to hear a breakdown.
0:04:02 And he said, Matthew Prince says, the local paper we bought cash flowed around $600,000 when we bought it.
0:04:04 We wanted to run it as a nonprofit.
0:04:06 So we plowed it all back into expanding coverage.
0:04:08 But it is not the case that these are bad businesses.
0:04:10 They’re just not big businesses.
0:04:12 So the takeaway is multiple, multiple things.
0:04:14 One, newspapers are dying.
0:04:20 Local newspapers, we’re talking towns that have 5,000 people, 10,000 people, 30,000 people.
0:04:21 They are not dying.
0:04:28 And if you read the replies, you’ll see people who are saying, I own a local newspaper that does $500,000 in EBITDA.
0:04:31 Like there are replies here.
0:04:35 And Matthew, Matt just said one of those replies where he explains the numbers.
0:04:44 But two, it’s just so fascinating to hear this guy’s perspective who has so much.
0:04:45 And I actually agree with him.
0:04:50 And I also think that there is a big opportunity to buy a bunch of these.
0:04:52 But you can just start with one.
0:04:56 And I don’t think local newspapers are going to go away anytime soon, to be honest.
0:04:59 I think that they have a very stable subscriber base.
0:05:09 And what Matt says in there, he says something like hospitals and other local businesses, they are dying to advertise in local newspapers.
0:05:14 And that business, while small, is doing great and it’s a monopoly.
0:05:19 All right, this episode is brought to you by HubSpot.
0:05:20 They’re doing a big conference.
0:05:22 This is their big one they do called Inbound.
0:05:28 They have a ton of great speakers that are coming to San Francisco, September 3rd to September 5th.
0:05:29 And it’s got a pretty incredible lineup.
0:05:31 They have comedians like Amy Poehler.
0:05:35 They have Dario from Anthropic, Dwarf Cash, Sean Evans from Hot Ones.
0:05:42 And if you’re somebody who’s in marketing or sales or AI and you just want to know what’s going on, what’s coming next, it’s a great event to go to.
0:05:43 And hey, guess what?
0:05:43 I’m going to be there.
0:05:48 You can go to inbound.com slash register to get your ticket to Inbound 2025.
0:05:51 Again, September 3rd through 5th in San Francisco.
0:05:52 Hope to see you there.
0:05:54 Okay, I love this one.
0:05:55 10 out of 10, fine.
0:05:56 Good job.
0:06:03 I gave a talk at Berkeley that was about starter businesses or called white belt businesses a few months ago.
0:06:04 Wait, let’s reflect on that.
0:06:05 That’s pretty cool.
0:06:06 What?
0:06:07 Giving a talk?
0:06:08 At Berkeley?
0:06:08 I don’t know.
0:06:09 That sounds cool to me.
0:06:11 Like I never got to go to fancy colleges.
0:06:12 It was hilarious.
0:06:14 So I’m like, I’m going to give this talk.
0:06:19 And I think I’ve told this story before, but my entire life shifted because I was in a random class at Duke.
0:06:21 I planned to be a doctor.
0:06:23 I’d taken the MCATs, all of it.
0:06:27 And then I took this one class by this amazing woman, Lisa Keister.
0:06:33 And she had, she was, she herself had graduated 10 years earlier and gotten, gotten wealthy, lived an interesting life and came back to teach.
0:06:37 And she decided like, what class did the kids actually need?
0:06:39 And the class was called getting rich.
0:06:40 It’s kind of like this podcast.
0:06:44 My first million is like sort of a pretty crude title.
0:06:46 Her class was called getting rich.
0:06:47 And actually it was two things.
0:06:48 It was personal finance.
0:06:51 So you’d learn about like mortgages and savings and how that all worked, compounding, shit like that.
0:07:06 And then secondly, she would invite speakers in just so that we would get exposed to other ideas of what a life could be besides doctor, lawyer, consultant, banker, which was like, you know, at a school like Duke, that’s where 90% of the students are devoting their energy.
0:07:11 And a guy came in and he gave a talk and it literally changed my life.
0:07:12 It’s not even something he said.
0:07:14 I just kind of was like, this guy seems like he’s having fun.
0:07:18 He’s doesn’t seem like he’s that much smarter than me.
0:07:21 Like, you know, maybe smarter now, but he’s, you know, he’s saying at the beginning, he didn’t know shit about shit.
0:07:23 And that’s where I am today.
0:07:26 And like, why don’t I just do what, what this guy’s doing?
0:07:36 And the last thing he had said was like, he’s like, look, if you go try to do something entrepreneurial or interesting and it doesn’t work out, this is America that maybe like the story is, is a currency for you.
0:07:39 And look, I hire kids like you.
0:07:39 And guess what?
0:07:42 You all have the same top three fourths of the resume.
0:07:51 You go to school, you got a three point something GPA, you have some stupid extracurricular activities, you got an internship at some big corporation where you didn’t really make an impact.
0:07:55 The only thing that differentiates any of you guys is the other section at the bottom of your resume.
0:07:56 Like, have you done anything?
0:07:58 Have you gone on any interesting quests?
0:08:00 And so he’s like, go on an interesting quest.
0:08:01 You have nothing to lose right now.
0:08:02 You don’t have kids.
0:08:03 You don’t have a mortgage.
0:08:04 Just go try some shit.
0:08:06 And if you fail, if it works, fantastic.
0:08:07 If it fails, don’t worry.
0:08:09 It creates a great story that guys like me like to hear.
0:08:12 So that like really shifted my life.
0:08:17 And so I get, I get invited to go give this talk at Berkeley and I’m like, I’m going to do this, man.
0:08:18 I’m going to change someone’s life.
0:08:20 I’ll be going to be a life changer today.
0:08:22 And I prepped my ass off.
0:08:23 Like I really tried.
0:08:25 I like, I like thought about it.
0:08:30 I spent two days really, really like full, like just 10 hours a day, just working on this one talk.
0:08:35 Two days doesn’t sound like a lot, but like I show up to these podcasts pretty cold.
0:08:37 Like I can wing it with the best of them.
0:08:44 So for me to really put 20 hours into one talk I’m going to give to 50 kids, that didn’t, you know, that was unusual for me.
0:08:47 You sound like the Kenny Powers of giving a talk, man.
0:08:48 You’re like, get ready, kids.
0:08:50 I’m going to make you piss tears.
0:08:53 Exactly.
0:08:56 Hold on to your butts.
0:08:57 I’m about to rock your world.
0:09:04 So I go in and guess what?
0:09:07 These kids really just don’t give a fuck.
0:09:11 Within two minutes of the talk.
0:09:13 And again, I’m trying to fire on all cylinders.
0:09:14 It’s interactive.
0:09:16 I’m cracking jokes.
0:09:17 I got a story.
0:09:19 I’m doing, I have a big promise at the beginning.
0:09:22 And I look around and I just remembered vividly in that moment.
0:09:26 I was like, oh, I remember being 19.
0:09:28 You’re not even out of school yet.
0:09:33 Like the whole, the real world is a, it’s a distant land far away at this point.
0:09:37 You’re just trying to, you’re like, okay, I have to be here till five.
0:09:38 And then I’m going to go eat.
0:09:40 And then I have that paper to write.
0:09:42 Three years out of your target demo too.
0:09:43 Like they’re Indian.
0:09:46 They go to Berkeley and you’re like, they could like, all right, perfect.
0:09:47 This is my demo.
0:09:48 And then you’re like, shit, there’s still 19.
0:09:50 I need to wait till they’re 21 until they have heard of me.
0:09:51 Exactly.
0:09:54 So honestly, it was a kind of a giant waste of time.
0:09:55 I don’t think I shifted anyone’s life.
0:09:59 I think I changed exactly zero lives, but I really tried.
0:10:03 And one of the principles in there was like, when you get out of Berkeley, instead of getting
0:10:06 a job, like consider doing a company.
0:10:09 But for most of you, you don’t have the next Facebook.
0:10:10 You don’t have the next big idea.
0:10:13 And maybe you’re not even talented enough to handle.
0:10:17 That’s kind of like if, if, you know, Jessica Alba walked through that door and she’s like,
0:10:21 you, it’s like, dude, you couldn’t handle Jessica Alba right now.
0:10:22 Anyways, don’t worry about it.
0:10:23 That’s not your problem.
0:10:28 Like you need to go, you know, put your hand under Mindy’s shirt in the bag behind the bleachers
0:10:28 over there.
0:10:30 Like that’s the level you’re at right now.
0:10:34 And so I basically was like, you need a starter business, a white belt business.
0:10:37 And I was giving them ideas for what simple starter businesses are.
0:10:38 But was this your analogy?
0:10:41 Did you just, no, I just did that one just now.
0:10:42 I thought you might like that.
0:10:42 That’s pretty good.
0:10:42 Yeah.
0:10:46 Well, see, the funny thing is I have you and I’m like, Sam’s going to love this.
0:10:47 He’s going to love, hate this.
0:10:50 And then I’m like, Ari’s just going to hate this.
0:10:54 And sure enough, as I’m saying it, that’s what I got.
0:10:56 I got Sam laughing, but facepalming.
0:11:00 And Ari just looking off into the distance, wondering, how did I end up here?
0:11:01 Why do I have this job?
0:11:01 Oh my God.
0:11:06 No, that’s a, that’s a fantastic analogy because it’s very true.
0:11:09 Everyone dreams of like the Jessica Alba doing that.
0:11:11 And you’re like, wait, what do I do?
0:11:12 What do I do with my hands?
0:11:13 You know what I mean?
0:11:14 It’s perfect.
0:11:14 Exactly.
0:11:17 You are not prepared for Jessica Alba yet.
0:11:18 And that’s okay.
0:11:19 You just need some reps.
0:11:23 And so what’s, what’s the point of this?
0:11:23 What are you going to show me?
0:11:29 Oh, I guess the tie to that was, I think owning a local newspaper is a fantastic version of
0:11:30 a starter business to run.
0:11:34 Was that not obvious?
0:11:37 That was so crystal clear to me, the connection.
0:11:41 Show me this, um, the story about Steve Ballmer.
0:11:42 And then also I want to see the Gary Vee one.
0:11:44 Okay.
0:11:45 Two great choices.
0:11:46 Excellent choices off the menu.
0:11:47 All right.
0:11:51 This is from, I believe Steve Ballmer goes on the Acquired podcast.
0:11:52 It was really good.
0:11:53 It was so good.
0:11:53 I agree.
0:11:54 I didn’t watch it, but I agree.
0:11:56 And the clips have been good.
0:12:01 And so he’s telling the story and they go, do you guys know the story of Key Lou at Microsoft?
0:12:03 He was one of the most pivotal things at Microsoft.
0:12:05 And then the hosts go, why?
0:12:05 Why?
0:12:07 I mean, I knew he’s important, but please tell the story.
0:12:11 And Steve goes, he was pivotal in a way that you won’t even know.
0:12:13 So he goes, first of all, he’s a brilliant guy.
0:12:13 Great guy.
0:12:19 He’s at Yahoo, and he went to grad school with the head of Microsoft Research, Harry.
0:12:27 And so the setup here is that Satya Nadella, who’s now the CEO of Microsoft, was running Bing at the time.
0:12:28 Bing is trying to compete with Google.
0:12:31 And Harry runs the research program there.
0:12:35 And Harry comes and he goes, look, this guy, Key is a genius.
0:12:36 We have to hire Key.
0:12:38 I don’t know if Key wants to work for us.
0:12:39 We’ve got to learn from this guy.
0:12:40 We’ve got to hire this guy.
0:12:46 So he’s like, Satya Nadella, Steve Ballmer, and Harry all fly down to California to meet with this guy, Key Lou.
0:12:48 And they talk to Key, and they’re like, dude, you’re right.
0:12:49 This guy’s brilliant.
0:12:50 And we’re learning about him.
0:12:53 And then at one point, Key walks away, leaves the room, goes to the restroom or something.
0:12:56 And he goes, Satya throws out this idea.
0:12:59 He goes, we should hire Key, and I should work for him.
0:13:02 He goes, so Harry, who’s all in because he worked for them.
0:13:04 Harry works for Satya.
0:13:09 And Satya’s like, we should not only hire this guy, I should work for him.
0:13:10 I should report to him.
0:13:12 Like, gives up power, basically.
0:13:15 So they call him, and they’re like, Key, listen.
0:13:19 You know, he was thinking about taking a job somewhere else, but he ends up joining.
0:13:23 And he goes, and the host goes, so what did Key do at Microsoft?
0:13:25 He goes, what I just told you.
0:13:27 He told me about Satya.
0:13:28 He goes, I love Satya.
0:13:31 And we were giving him more and more responsibilities anyways.
0:13:38 But when I saw that this guy would do the right thing for the company, he would give up power to bring in a more talented person and agree to work for him.
0:13:40 He didn’t have ego that got in the way.
0:13:43 I knew that Satya was the guy.
0:13:49 And now Satya has become the CEO of Microsoft and led Microsoft on this incredible run.
0:13:50 That’s so good.
0:13:51 That’s a great story.
0:13:52 It’s up 1,000%.
0:14:04 And for a company as big as Microsoft to go up 1,000% and now is a $3 trillion company, all under Satya’s kind of regime, I thought that was just a badass story, right?
0:14:07 And later on in the podcast, Steve Ballmer talks about philanthropy.
0:14:11 And he, I don’t know how rich he is, but I think $100 billion or plus.
0:14:18 And he was like, the acquired guys were like, your wealth is growing, I think, 20% a year, you know, $20 billion, whatever.
0:14:20 He goes, yeah, I’m trying to give it all away.
0:14:22 And he goes, you’re forgetting about something.
0:14:24 And the host goes, what?
0:14:26 He goes, you know, Microsoft pays a dividend.
0:14:31 So just my dividends are making me $1 billion a year.
0:14:39 And he’s like, he goes, I’m trying to give it all away and I can’t find enough people who can accept the money.
0:14:44 Well, Steve, we would love to help you with this problem.
0:14:46 We’re a helpful bunch over here.
0:14:46 Yeah.
0:14:53 He was talking about how, he’s like, I forget the capital appreciation of this or the stock appreciation.
0:14:55 Lately, it’s been what, 15% a year?
0:14:55 I forget.
0:15:00 It’s something like magnificent where he’s earning tens of billions of dollars from that.
0:15:03 And yeah, he corrected the guys when they said how wealthy he is.
0:15:06 He goes, you’re forgetting about our dividend, which pays me $1 billion.
0:15:09 You know, he’s just been sitting on that, by the way.
0:15:12 You know, he’s like, these motherfuckers out here don’t know.
0:15:14 They don’t know how I’m Baldwin.
0:15:16 It was a really great podcast.
0:15:18 It was like three hours long and it was fantastic.
0:15:24 And he gets made fun, or Balmer gets made fun of a bunch for that one video where he just looks goofy.
0:15:31 But he’s a great salesman and he’s way more technical than people realize.
0:15:31 Balmer’s a genius.
0:15:32 That’s cool.
0:15:34 I mean, you gotta be special.
0:15:40 I mean, luck is involved, but I think it’s so easy to write people off.
0:15:43 And he’s a great example of enthusiasm as a skill.
0:15:48 I’ve talked about this in a bunch of other podcasts, but enthusiasm is a actual skill.
0:15:52 And that video that people make fun of them, the developers, developers, developers, developers.
0:15:57 To me, that’s like watching, you know, Vince Carter dunk or something like that, right?
0:16:02 It’s like, this is a guy who probably brought a shit ton of energy and enthusiasm and belief
0:16:08 to the team in an unwavering way and at an unusual level.
0:16:10 And yeah, that was obviously funny to laugh at.
0:16:11 I get it.
0:16:12 I thought it was funny as shit too.
0:16:15 But enthusiasm is a skill.
0:16:17 And I love it because people don’t even think of it as a skill.
0:16:19 But we all know it when we see it.
0:16:23 Like if you’ve ever worked with somebody who’s really enthusiastic and is a believer in what
0:16:27 you’re doing and brings good energy every day and doesn’t get like, doesn’t get worn down
0:16:31 and doesn’t get buckled by adversity, you love that person.
0:16:32 That person’s clearly valuable to the team.
0:16:34 You would hate if that person left your team.
0:16:40 Yet nobody talks about enthusiasm as a skill or something you could practice or develop or
0:16:42 at least even celebrate that you have.
0:16:44 It’s something that, you know, seems like something sort of for dumb people.
0:16:49 This episode is brought to you by HubSpot Media.
0:16:53 They have a cool new podcast that’s for AI called The Next Wave.
0:16:54 It’s by Matt Wolfe and Nathan Lands.
0:16:58 And they’re basically talking about all the new tools that are coming out, how the landscape
0:17:00 is changing, what’s going on with AI tech.
0:17:04 So if you want to be up to date on AI tech, it’s a cool podcast you could check out.
0:17:06 Listen to The Next Wave wherever you get your podcasts.
0:17:10 What’s this Gary Vee one?
0:17:12 This is very funny.
0:17:13 All right.
0:17:16 I love Gary Vee.
0:17:17 Gary, I love you.
0:17:19 This is also hilarious.
0:17:22 So they’re playing a game called Bullish and Bearish, where the host is going to tell
0:17:25 him a company name and he has to decide, is he a bull or a bear on it?
0:17:26 Watch this.
0:17:26 Meta.
0:17:27 Bullish.
0:17:28 Reddit.
0:17:29 Bullish.
0:17:30 Alphabet.
0:17:31 Bullish.
0:17:32 Waymo.
0:17:35 I’m not educated enough to give an answer on that, to be honest.
0:17:36 NVIDIA.
0:17:40 I feel like if I spent 10 hours educating myself, I’m like, okay, this is not sustainable to be
0:17:41 this crazy.
0:17:41 Disney.
0:17:42 Disney?
0:17:43 Very bullish.
0:17:48 I think intellectual property is one of the most underrated businesses of the future,
0:17:49 VR and everything.
0:17:52 I don’t think people understand how big owning IP is going to be.
0:17:52 Tesla.
0:17:54 Bullish.
0:17:55 Microsoft.
0:17:56 Very bullish.
0:17:57 Open AI.
0:17:58 I’m bullish.
0:17:58 Amazon.
0:18:00 Very bullish.
0:18:00 Zoom.
0:18:01 Bullish.
0:18:03 Alibaba.
0:18:04 Bullish.
0:18:05 ByteDance.
0:18:06 TikTok’s kind of company.
0:18:07 Bullish.
0:18:09 Even though it might be banned.
0:18:10 Bullish.
0:18:12 Bitch, I’m bullish, okay?
0:18:18 Before that word gets out of your mouth, I’m bullish.
0:18:19 What am I going to do?
0:18:20 I’m bullish.
0:18:25 Dude, how funny is this?
0:18:27 I love Gary.
0:18:29 It sucks because she picked like.
0:18:32 Honestly, I can’t hate.
0:18:38 I’m also pretty bullish on all the tech companies, all the best companies in the world.
0:18:39 I’m pretty bullish on them too.
0:18:41 Amazon and ChatGPT.
0:18:44 So funny.
0:18:46 Dude, people forget.
0:18:51 I think VaynerMedia, I track it because I like Gary.
0:18:55 And I think that it’s easy to dismiss him as like a guru.
0:18:59 But, you know, VaynerMedia is doing something like $300 million a year right now.
0:19:00 I did not know that.
0:19:03 And when you say you track it, where are you getting this information from?
0:19:09 So I actually, do you remember how I told you I had this document where I track companies
0:19:15 and I like, I track people where I will make a timeline of their life.
0:19:18 And like at different ages, they do different things.
0:19:20 I track it with a variety of companies as well.
0:19:22 And VaynerMedia, I was curious about their trajectory.
0:19:26 And he was growing the company like at a really good clip.
0:19:29 Like it was doubling for a couple years and it was still growing at like 50% for a couple
0:19:29 years.
0:19:33 And so I just wanted to check in and add to my document.
0:19:37 And over the last three or four years, he’s grown it to something like $250 million a year
0:19:37 in revenue.
0:19:42 And if you Google VaynerMedia revenue, he actually is fairly public about it lately of where it’s
0:19:42 at.
0:19:44 But it’s in the $200, $300 range.
0:19:46 $200 to $300 million a year?
0:19:47 Yeah.
0:19:49 And what do they do now?
0:19:52 Is it just marketing services or what’s going on?
0:20:00 So VaynerX, which is now the holding company, in 2024 was on track to do $300 million in revenue
0:20:02 and this was written in December of 24.
0:20:07 So yeah, you could assume that in the $300 million range.
0:20:07 Yeah, it does.
0:20:08 They do social media.
0:20:09 It’s the same shit.
0:20:12 Just they manage people’s social media stuff.
0:20:14 I mean, it’s got to be more of that.
0:20:15 Manage people’s social media stuff.
0:20:15 It’s got to be more of that.
0:20:17 I think that’s the bulk of it.
0:20:20 They do social media advertising and campaigns.
0:20:25 So like if you’re Samsung and you want to run ads on Facebook and you want to make really good ads, I believe they…
0:20:37 What is the most interesting thing that’s come out of your tracking people manually, year by year, borderline creepy stalker thing that you’re doing?
0:20:41 What’s interesting to me is a few things.
0:20:45 One, the ability to grow, it gets harder and harder.
0:20:49 But the people who are really big animals, they just figure out how to do it.
0:20:51 And that’s really fascinating to me.
0:20:57 But occasionally, even companies that are growing quickly, they’ll have two or three years of no or little growth.
0:21:02 And the reason why I like to do this research is it helps me understand…
0:21:09 I think that it’s the same way when you talk to your rich friends and you talk about money with them, you start to normalize money.
0:21:11 And that’s why I do this stuff where like…
0:21:21 It sounds like it’s almost like an emotional regulation because entrepreneurship is this long, longer than you want, more up and down thing than you want.
0:21:34 And seeing that the people, the things you admire today, either A, took a long time or had multiple flat years, it makes you not feel like shit when you’re in one of those periods.
0:21:35 Is that it?
0:21:36 Yeah.
0:21:37 Yeah, exactly.
0:21:45 Because I think I showed you the revenue chart or no, I’ve shown you charts before of Business Insider, which is a company I also used to do this for.
0:21:47 And they’ve grown like crazy.
0:21:51 But there was like three years where every single month, they actually didn’t grow.
0:21:54 And I was like, this chart looks great because we’ve zoomed out to 15 years.
0:21:59 But zoom in on those three years and imagine feeling that way for nearly a thousand days.
0:22:00 That doesn’t feel good.
0:22:02 That doesn’t feel good at all.
0:22:04 The whole life of the company right now is three years.
0:22:06 Imagine this whole time just flat.
0:22:08 I’ll give you another example.
0:22:09 Replit.
0:22:13 You know, we’ve had Amjad on the podcast and that was one of our biggest ones.
0:22:17 They just announced the other day that they hit $100 million in revenue.
0:22:18 That’s huge, right?
0:22:27 Well, what he kind of said, like in a small comment, like in a reply, is that I believe last year or the year before, they’re at $10 million in revenue.
0:22:33 So they went from $10 million to $100 million in record time, like one year or two years, something like that.
0:22:40 But what he told us on the podcast is that he started the company eight years ago, which means from years zero to eight, he got to $10 million in revenue.
0:22:42 Which is not impressive.
0:22:44 That’s not, that’s, that’s neat.
0:22:45 That’s not impressive.
0:22:49 And what’s, that’s just insane to me that he kept at it for eight years.
0:22:54 And then, and tell me if I’m getting my numbers wrong, but he kept at it for that long.
0:22:56 And then success was like in two years.
0:22:58 Yes and no.
0:23:02 I think you’re right, but it’s not like it was just failing that whole time.
0:23:10 Because if you look at the user growth of developers, and I think I tweeted this out with it, I’ll find it.
0:23:17 But like, basically, they grew, they were growing exponentially in number of users who were developers.
0:23:21 So that was, you know, that was also happening at that same time.
0:23:28 And so it’s not as, it’s not as like, oh, man, you know, it’s just, you know, suddenly it starts to work.
0:23:29 Like, I mean, look at this.
0:23:36 This is Paul Graham tweeting about Replit before, before they even turned on monetization.
0:23:37 This is back in 2020.
0:23:38 But like, look at this tweet.
0:23:38 What year does that go to?
0:23:45 This is 2015 to 2020, like midway through 2020, like, or end of 2020.
0:23:46 It’s basically 2021.
0:23:51 And so they had 5 million developers, programmers using their thing.
0:23:57 And he, Paul, Paul talks about, he says, this graph is impressive, not just for the perfect exponential shape, but the numbers.
0:24:00 5 million users is a lot when those users are programmers.
0:24:10 Imagine how many users their users will have, and I think the crazy thing about Replit is that basically they pivoted the entire company when they’re at a billion-dollar valuation.
0:24:22 I invested in Replit, I think at an 800 million-ish valuation, I invested in Replit, I think at an 800 million-ish valuation, I invested in the fund and I invested personally because I was like such a big believer in this.
0:24:26 And they had pretty much no revenue at the time, but it was this type of growth.
0:24:27 And I loved the product.
0:24:28 I loved Amchad.
0:24:29 I was like, this guy’s a savage.
0:24:35 And they have a, they built an incredible product that I think will have a network effect over time.
0:24:47 And then they pivoted the entire business to say, it’s not about like young programmer, because I thought, oh, they’re getting young programmers to start coding on Replit, and maybe those people will never leave.
0:24:48 They’ll code their whole career on Replit.
0:24:55 And then when AI happened, they pivoted basically the entire company to now it’s not even for programmers.
0:24:59 It’s for people who don’t code typically to make things, right?
0:25:06 It’s for non-engineers to suddenly be able to be engineers, to be able to write, create software for software creators.
0:25:12 And now that’s ramped to 100 million at 10x, they’re 10x their revenue in one year.
0:25:19 So now I look like a genius investing in this thing, but I really didn’t even invest in this because they pivoted.
0:25:21 They like basically shifted the entire user.
0:25:25 Who is the user and what is the use case, you know, afterwards?
0:25:27 Yeah, I mean, this is just insane.
0:25:31 I use Replit probably three or four times a week.
0:25:32 It’s really fun.
0:25:34 I just asked ChatGPT to make this.
0:25:36 This is Sam stocking all these businesses.
0:25:39 Dude, I do this like crazy.
0:25:41 I’m going to have to share this doc.
0:25:42 I just, I like tracking numbers.
0:25:43 You sent it to me when we first met.
0:25:49 You were like, I took every billionaire, and I tried to figure out what they were doing at age 30.
0:25:50 And I was like, what?
0:25:54 And you were like, Jack Dorsey, you know at age 30, his net worth was only, whatever.
0:25:55 And I was like, how do you know this?
0:25:56 And why do you know this?
0:25:56 What are you doing?
0:25:58 And you were like, by the time I’m 30, my goal is to have X.
0:26:03 I think we were, well, we probably met when we were 24, 25 years old, something like that.
0:26:03 25, yeah.
0:26:08 And you were like, when I’m 30, I want to have $20 million in the bank.
0:26:09 That was your number.
0:26:11 And you were like, look at this.
0:26:15 I’ll be ahead of Jeff Bezos and Jack Dorsey and these guys.
0:26:18 And I was like, yo, this guy’s a sicko, but I like it.
0:26:23 It was the, I should call, like, if I teach a class, it’s going to be called, like, how to become an economic animal.
0:26:26 Unfortunately, like, there’s way levels.
0:26:33 There’s many levels to this, and there’s many people who are way above me, and I didn’t understand, like, how exponential growth works.
0:26:37 But, hey, you know, I think I got in the arena of what I was aiming for.
0:26:44 All right, so we got to talk about the new mayor, not because it’s a politics podcast.
0:26:45 I don’t know.
0:26:48 Actually, I didn’t even know this guy existed until three days ago, to be honest with you.
0:26:57 But you’re moving to New York, and you seem to know about this guy, and I am following him only from a business and marketing perspective.
0:26:59 I have a business and marketing take on this guy.
0:27:05 But can you first set the context for people like me who are not following who this New York City, he’s the mayor, right?
0:27:07 That’s what he just became?
0:27:09 He’s going to be the Democrat who’s running for mayor.
0:27:12 So it was the Democrats were – I don’t even know the right terms.
0:27:13 Not a nation.
0:27:14 And he won.
0:27:18 So basically, it was him and Cuomo.
0:27:21 And because New York is very Democratic, he’s most likely to win.
0:27:23 Is that why people are freaking out?
0:27:25 Because normally, if he’s just a candidate, you know.
0:27:26 More likely than not.
0:27:29 The issue has a bunch of issues.
0:27:31 Basically, every politician is corrupt.
0:27:33 So Mayor Cuomo is running for mayor.
0:27:34 He was previously the governor.
0:27:37 He got in trouble for, like, asking his coworkers to have sex with him.
0:27:40 And he was the guy running against this guy.
0:27:44 The current mayor, Mayor Adams, he has accepted bribes.
0:27:46 He is going to be running as an independent versus this guy.
0:27:49 And so we’re kind of, like, stuck with, like, a bunch of, like –
0:27:54 Yeah, it’s like, you know, South Park, it’s like a douche or a turd sandwich.
0:27:55 Who are you going to vote for?
0:27:56 That’s kind of like what we’re working with here.
0:28:01 The gist of this guy is that he’s incredibly charismatic.
0:28:02 He’s 32 years old.
0:28:05 He believes in a lot of crazy things.
0:28:07 That’s my opinion, crazy.
0:28:09 But basically, a lot of socialist things.
0:28:19 So, for example, he wants to freeze rent, meaning you can’t raise rent on, I think, something like 2 million different apartments, different rent-stabilized apartments.
0:28:25 He also wants to create government-owned grocery stores and a handful of things like that that are very controversial to people who don’t like socialism.
0:28:33 But amongst young people who are very angry about a lot of things that they should be angry about, like housing costing a lot of money versus the wage growth.
0:28:39 But he’s super charismatic, and so he won over young people’s votes.
0:28:41 Okay, great.
0:28:41 Great summary.
0:28:48 Now, again, I don’t care about the politics of this, and I don’t live in New York, but I’m fascinated by this guy.
0:28:51 Like, I literally had never heard of this guy, and then I watched this video.
0:28:53 I saw this tweet.
0:28:53 He killed it.
0:28:57 So, this tweet right here has 3.7 million views.
0:28:59 That’s just the Twitter part of this.
0:29:03 Forget Instagram, TikTok, anywhere else that I’m sure he’s posting this type of content.
0:29:05 But first of all, the branding.
0:29:11 So, like, that was the first thing that stood out to me, like, literally the branding of this guy, like, the font, et cetera.
0:29:12 So, what is this video?
0:29:16 It starts like he’s a TikTok content creator.
0:29:22 It says, New York is suffering from a crisis, and it’s called halalflation.
0:29:33 And then he talks about how halal from, like, the, like, food trucks, you know, chicken and rice halal from, like, a halal food truck now cost $10, but it used to cost $8.
0:29:36 And he basically goes, and he’s interviewing them.
0:29:38 He’s like, you know, how much do you sell for $10, $10, $10, whatever.
0:29:39 We’ll play the video.
0:29:42 The park is suffering from a crisis, and it’s called halalflation.
0:29:48 Today, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.
0:29:52 How much does a plate of halalflation cost right now from this truck?
0:29:53 $10.
0:29:53 $10.
0:29:53 $10.
0:29:54 $10.
0:29:54 $10.
0:29:55 $10.
0:29:56 $10.
0:29:56 $10.
0:29:57 $10?
0:29:57 $10.
0:29:57 $10.
0:29:57 $10.
0:29:57 $10.
0:29:58 $10.
0:30:03 When you’re a street vendor, you have to pay for the food, the plates.
0:30:05 How much do you have to pay for your permit?
0:30:05 $10.
0:30:06 Before, it was $22,000.
0:30:09 $217,000.
0:30:11 How much does a license cost if you get it from the city?
0:30:12 I think $400,000.
0:30:13 And who are you paying?
0:30:14 The permit owner.
0:30:16 You’re not paying the city?
0:30:16 No, no, no.
0:30:21 You pay the permit owner $22,000 just so you can sell this food?
0:30:21 Yes.
0:30:22 And who is this?
0:30:24 A random guy.
0:30:25 Have you ever applied for a permit?
0:30:29 Yeah, I’m applying, and no come anything.
0:30:30 It’s long wait.
0:30:33 I’m number $3,800-something.
0:30:35 After two years, you’re number $3,800.
0:30:36 Yes.
0:30:41 These are the four bills that are sitting in the city council right now,
0:30:45 which would give these vendors their own permits and make your halal more affordable.
0:30:48 But Eric Adams hasn’t said a single word about them.
0:30:51 If you own the permit, then how much would you charge for the plate?
0:30:51 $7.
0:30:52 $8.
0:30:53 $8.
0:30:56 Would you rather pay $10 for a plate of halal or $8?
0:30:57 $8.
0:30:58 $8.
0:30:59 I think $8 is the way to go.
0:31:04 If I was the mayor, I’d be working with city council from day one to make halal $8 again.
0:31:05 Oh, how would you pay?
0:31:08 Tastes like $10 for the should be $8.
0:31:21 So I was blown away because I have never really seen a politician doing this type of, like, I want to call it, like, kind of natural influencer content.
0:31:22 I don’t know.
0:31:23 What do you even call this?
0:31:25 But this is not what politicians typically did.
0:31:28 He’s making, like, a Vice documentary, but in two minutes.
0:31:29 It’s very good.
0:31:32 Well, you’re doing UGC content.
0:31:33 Okay, I think that’s the way I would put it.
0:31:37 So the same thing happened in business, especially e-commerce.
0:31:47 So, Sam, I don’t know if you remember, like, in the earlier days of e-com, right, like, let’s say 2012, 2014, you know, you mostly did just static images, okay?
0:31:51 There was not really a lot of video on, let’s say, Facebook or Google at the time.
0:32:00 So you would do static images for your ads, but those images you would pay a professional designer to make, and they would make it look slick, and then that’s what people would click.
0:32:02 And then when video came out, people tried to do the same thing.
0:32:05 They would basically film professional-looking videos.
0:32:06 You’d hire a videographer.
0:32:11 You’d have somebody holding the camera, and then you would have a good background, good lighting, and you would say your thing.
0:32:21 But it turns out that commercials didn’t really work as well on the internet as me picking up my phone and just making something that looks very raw.
0:32:29 Like, I’m doing my, you know, it would be a girl doing her makeup while talking about a different product, right, and it just feels like it’s a get-ready-with-me video.
0:32:34 Or it’s, you know, a mom who’s in a rush who’s just being like, y’all, I got to tell you, this is a lifesaver.
0:32:45 Like, my husband can’t believe how much happy I am since I got this thing, and then they ruffle in their bag and grab something out.
0:32:50 And it’s ads that don’t look like ads, and they call this UGC, user-generated content.
0:32:58 And that’s the new style that works best in ads for the last, I would say, five years that’s dominated most of e-commerce advertising.
0:33:01 This is the first time I’ve seen a politician do this.
0:33:15 So, like, if you compare, I don’t know, like, Kamala and how perfectly manicured everything was, like, her image, her, you know, pantsuit, her, like, professional photography, her, like, fake phone call with somebody.
0:33:18 But then you see that the phone wasn’t even on, and she’s just chuckling to nobody.
0:33:21 Like, it was all super, super fake and polished.
0:33:26 And this guy’s doing, like, man-on-the-street interviews, holding the microphone.
0:33:31 You can literally hear, like, you know, it kind of rubbing against his jacket sometimes accidentally.
0:33:33 Like, it’s wabi-sabi, dude.
0:33:37 It’s the perfection in the imperfection to go full circle there.
0:33:38 This kind of blew me away.
0:33:40 I don’t know if I’m just, like, overly nerding out about this.
0:33:52 But from the topic, like, halal chicken and rice is $10, it should only be $8, to the style of the video, I immediately was like, I get why this guy won.
0:33:56 And on Saturday, the election was taking place yesterday.
0:34:04 He was, he spent the whole day walking around New York and, like, doing, like, these very raw-looking videos talking to people.
0:34:12 And I think that this is just proof, which we already have had this proof, that charisma matters more than ideas and reality.
0:34:20 And this is not, like, a takeaway that, like, this is a very obvious takeaway, but this is just another example.
0:34:24 Because his charisma is off the charts, and he has just been, like, killing it.
0:34:28 When his ideas, in my opinion, are just absolutely insane.
0:34:31 But because of the style of marketing, it’s done wonderful.
0:34:33 Young people react to this stuff.
0:34:35 And, by the way, this is what we need.
0:34:40 Like, Mayor Cuomo, or Governor Cuomo, the guy who was running for him, he’s an old guy.
0:34:41 He’s in his 60s, maybe 70s.
0:34:45 And he would never in a million years grab his cell phone and just start talking to it.
0:34:46 But that’s what you need.
0:34:50 I think my friend, or our friend Austin Reif, tweeted something out.
0:34:56 And he said, the next politicians and the next presidents are going to be podcasters and sub-stackers.
0:34:58 And that sounds like a ridiculous statement.
0:35:01 People who write newsletters and people who have podcasts, that sounds ridiculous.
0:35:02 It’s not ridiculous.
0:35:04 And I totally buy into it.
0:35:06 Yeah, definitely.
0:35:08 There’s going to be a podcaster president.
0:35:08 Why?
0:35:11 Because they’re going to have, A, built a following before they run.
0:35:14 So they’re going to build the audience before they go run.
0:35:22 Two, they’re going to be trained with 10,000 hours of storytelling, communication, of, you know, how to make a point.
0:35:26 So, you know, I think that’s going to be one archetype.
0:35:27 The other one is going to be short-form video creators.
0:35:29 I think Roberto, our friend, said this thing.
0:35:32 He goes, whether this guy’s agenda is good or bad for New York is irrelevant.
0:35:34 He told the best story.
0:35:37 This is why Steve Jobs said that the storyteller is the most powerful person in the world.
0:35:42 A lie told us a good story can never, can never beat the truth trapped in a bad story.
0:35:45 Or I think it’s can always be the truth trapped in a bad story.
0:35:47 And then I had, because I tweeted this thing.
0:35:50 So when I saw this, I saw the second video.
0:35:53 I don’t know if you’ve seen this one, but can you hear this?
0:36:01 Dude, you know, what’s funny is I don’t have to hear what he’s saying and I could sense the charisma.
0:36:20 Well, so, okay, so he’s speaking Hindi in this video and I think he does actually speak Hindi, but I, it made me realize, oh, dude, 11 labs is going to make like a billion dollars next election cycle because every politician is going to translate everything they’re saying into all languages using AI instantaneously.
0:36:21 Like, you know, why would you not?
0:36:22 You’re just going to pick up free views.
0:36:26 Like we did this, we started doing this with our MFM episodes.
0:36:32 Ben was like, hey, I think I can get more views if we dub our episodes into another language.
0:36:41 So now if you’re on YouTube and you click the settings wheel and you click like audio track, you could select Spanish or Hindi on, on, on some of the episodes.
0:36:44 And it’s going to be all the episodes soon because we went to 11 labs.
0:36:47 We’re like, hey, dude, will you guys help us like translate this?
0:36:54 And immediately we now get tens of thousands of views a month that we weren’t getting before in Spanish and in Hindi.
0:36:59 And there’s probably people in Mexico right now that think we just speak Spanish, that we’re their favorite Spanish podcast.
0:37:02 And if they meet us, they’ll be sorely disappointed.
0:37:04 That’s a really good insight.
0:37:06 I didn’t, I have not seen this video of him.
0:37:08 Is he, is this video dubbed?
0:37:09 Is this a fake video or an AI video?
0:37:10 This I think is real.
0:37:13 He kind of looks like he might speak at the, or maybe it’s stuff.
0:37:15 I can’t tell exactly, but I guess that’s the point.
0:37:16 I wouldn’t know.
0:37:18 AI tools have gotten so good that I would never know.
0:37:19 And I actually tweeted this out.
0:37:25 I said, I could a thousand percent create an AI politician that could win over, you know, a city election.
0:37:28 Now, of course you can’t actually run if you’re not a human being, but whatever.
0:37:30 And I said, here’s how I would do it.
0:37:34 You know, I would make a likable sort of guy next door character like this guy.
0:37:42 Um, I would create a hundred X more video content than, than my opponent because Andrew Cuomo is not going to be able to keep up with my AI engine.
0:37:44 I don’t know if you’ve seen people who do this.
0:37:46 They basically, they create an AI workflow.
0:37:50 That’s an agent that scrapes, like, uh, it comes up.
0:37:52 It’s there’s one agent that’s just brainstorming topics.
0:37:53 It’s like looking at Reddit.
0:37:55 It’s looking at TikTok trends, et cetera.
0:37:56 And it’s brainstorming topics.
0:38:00 Then they have a scripter agent that writes the, writes a one minute TikTok script.
0:38:09 Then they have an, a video generation agent that creates a video that does that, that has your, your AI avatar speaking it like, Hey Jen, or, or 11 labs.
0:38:10 Who’s doing this?
0:38:12 There’s people that are doing this.
0:38:14 They run what they call faceless channels.
0:38:18 They run channels on Instagram and TikTok that get millions of views.
0:38:19 Like with B roll and narration.
0:38:21 But it doesn’t have to be B roll anymore.
0:38:23 Cause now they use an AI avatar.
0:38:24 So they just put a person there and they’re like, cool.
0:38:25 I don’t want to be an influencer.
0:38:30 I don’t want to wake up and get ready and have a nice house, all this, but I’ll just tell the, I’ll just make an AI character that does this.
0:38:33 And you can just create an AI character that does exactly this.
0:38:43 And then, but the cool thing is they automated the entire workflow from coming up with the idea, scripting it, recording it, and then actually like scheduling it, posting it, analyzing the data.
0:38:45 And feeding that back into the engine.
0:38:46 Who, what’s an example?
0:38:50 And it’s almost like, dude, if you guys applied your talents to something useful, this would, you’d be incredible.
0:38:52 I, but, but it’s amazing that you could even do this.
0:38:55 I’m reading, um, uh, a book called a promise land.
0:38:58 It’s Obama’s biography or autobiography.
0:38:59 He wrote it, but it’s, it’s, it’s old.
0:39:02 It’s 10 years old, but I was at the airport and it’s looked cool.
0:39:08 I’m at the point in the book where he was like, I was getting my ass beat in the election because I was too long winded.
0:39:14 And my campaign manager criticized one of my debates and he’s like, dude, you’re answering the question.
0:39:16 Um, and he’s like, yeah, they asked me a question.
0:39:18 I’m giving them an answer.
0:39:20 And like, it’s kind of nuanced and it’s long and like a thorough answer.
0:39:21 Yeah.
0:39:22 I’m giving you like a good answer.
0:39:24 And he goes, yeah, that’s bullshit.
0:39:25 That’s not how you would a debate.
0:39:26 And that’s not how you win votes.
0:39:27 You don’t give an answer.
0:39:29 You’re not answering the question.
0:39:30 The question is irrelevant.
0:39:33 All people want to know is, can they trust you with their vote?
0:39:35 And like, do you, are you a brand that they want to get behind?
0:39:39 Stop answering the question and tell a story that lets them know that they can get behind you.
0:39:44 And he was like, he, he goes, um, that rubs me the wrong way, but that’s the game.
0:39:45 And I will play that game.
0:39:49 And there’s like a distinct difference in like, oh, you know, we know him now.
0:39:51 Obama is regarded as a fairly charismatic, good storyteller.
0:39:53 He was like, that was the change.
0:39:54 Yeah, exactly.
0:39:55 Uh, do you know Lulu?
0:39:56 No.
0:39:59 Uh, she’s, uh, she’s really cool.
0:40:00 She’s a very interesting person to follow.
0:40:01 On Twitter and whatnot.
0:40:07 So Lulu, I think she was the head of comms at like Palantir or something like that.
0:40:07 I don’t know.
0:40:09 Or Anderil, I think it was, but she does a good job.
0:40:15 What she posts regularly is basically comms advice, communication advice, PR slash how executives
0:40:16 should communicate.
0:40:18 And I think Anderil was always an interesting one.
0:40:23 Cause like, instead of trying to conform as this like boring government contractor, you
0:40:25 know, they let their freak flag, uh, fly.
0:40:26 So she, she tweeted this out.
0:40:29 She goes, it sounds so basic, but he is too likable to lose.
0:40:32 Friendly demeanor, smiles with his eyes, seems earnest.
0:40:36 Being liked outweighs policies, experience, and nonsensical plans.
0:40:40 Quote, I just have a good feeling about that person can override almost anything.
0:40:44 And then Harley, the CEO of Shopify, uh, Shopify said vibes.
0:40:47 It’s like, Oh man, we’re, we’re sort of vibe voting now.
0:40:50 And it’s like, actually we’re kind of always, we’ve always been doing that, man.
0:40:52 We’ve always been doing that.
0:40:57 You know, JFK was one of the most, um, JFK had like a 70% approval rating when he was murdered.
0:40:59 Um, and he was well-loved.
0:41:02 He was our princess Diana or whatever for that generation.
0:41:06 Like he, he was well-loved and he was well-loved because he was incredibly likable.
0:41:10 That’s like, uh, his policies were fine, but it was because he looked great.
0:41:13 He had a beautiful wife who was poised.
0:41:15 He had a lovely family with really white teeth.
0:41:19 Like that is why he won because he was very likable and he could, and good looking.
0:41:25 So you guys know this, but I have a company called Hampton.
0:41:26 Joinhampton.com.
0:41:28 It’s a vetted community for founders and CEOs.
0:41:32 Well, we have this member named LaVon and LaVon saw a bunch of members talking about the
0:41:37 same problem within Hampton, which is that they spent hours manually moving data into a PDF.
0:41:40 It’s tedious, it’s annoying, and it’s a waste of time.
0:41:44 And so LaVon, like any great entrepreneur, he built a solution and that solution is called
0:41:44 Moku.
0:41:49 Moku uses AI to automatically transfer data from any document into a PDF.
0:41:54 And so if you need to turn a supplier invoice into a customer quote or move info from an application
0:41:59 into a contract, you just put a file into Moku and it auto-fills the output PDF in seconds.
0:42:02 And a little backstory for all the techners out there.
0:42:05 LaVon built the entire web app without using a line of code.
0:42:07 He used something called Bubble I.O.
0:42:11 They’ve added AI tools that can generate an entire app from one prompt.
0:42:12 It’s pretty amazing.
0:42:16 And it means you can build tools like Moku very fast without knowing how to code.
0:42:20 And so if you’re tired of copying and pasting between documents or paying people to do that
0:42:22 for you, check out Moku.ai.
0:42:25 M-O-L-K-U.ai.
0:42:27 All right, back to the pod.
0:42:32 So likable might not even be the word because you might look at Trump and be like, wow,
0:42:34 is he, would you say he’s likable?
0:42:35 Well, he’s funny.
0:42:36 He’s funny.
0:42:37 He’s charismatic.
0:42:44 So did I ever tell you about the time where, so I had this friend who’s like a billionaire,
0:42:45 successful tech guy.
0:42:49 And he sends me a Google doc one day called The President.
0:42:51 And I’m like, okay, what’s this?
0:42:53 And I open it up and I have no idea what to expect.
0:42:54 I think he might be running for president.
0:42:55 I don’t know what this is.
0:42:58 And it was basically a pitch for a television show.
0:42:59 And he laid out a case.
0:43:04 And he basically said, if you look at the last, I forgot what it was like, but I’m just going
0:43:04 to make up some numbers.
0:43:07 If you look at the last 10 elections, you would look for a pattern.
0:43:08 You’d say, is it always Democrats?
0:43:09 Is it always Republicans?
0:43:11 Is it, does it always switch between Democrat and Republican?
0:43:13 Is it based on the economy?
0:43:15 Is it based on the person’s height?
0:43:17 Like if you tried to look for a correlation, where would you find it?
0:43:20 And he goes, the highest correlation you could find is that the more charismatic candidate
0:43:21 wins.
0:43:27 And he goes, ever since the advent of radio and television, when our primary way of getting
0:43:33 messages out, scaled up like crazy, the more charismatic candidate wins, whether this was
0:43:38 Clinton or Reagan, it wasn’t Reagan like an actor or something like this.
0:43:38 Yeah.
0:43:39 And he was good looking, he dressed great.
0:43:40 He was going through history.
0:43:44 And basically 2020 was kind of the only exception where Biden won.
0:43:47 And I would say Biden was the less charismatic candidate than Trump.
0:43:49 It seems to be like the outlier.
0:43:53 But the guy’s case was basically, he’s like, I think in his case, he didn’t, he didn’t
0:43:54 want Trump to win.
0:43:57 And he’s like, problem is Trump is incredibly charismatic.
0:44:00 He is able to capture people’s attention.
0:44:01 He says things that are very memorable.
0:44:05 He says things that excite certain people and inflame certain people, but it’s all attention
0:44:07 that he gets free earned media.
0:44:10 So he had this idea to create a television show.
0:44:15 And he’s like, this sounds a little bit silly, but he’s like, I think for the Democratic
0:44:18 party, which is the party he was a part of, he’s like, I think we need to start
0:44:20 nominating more charismatic candidates.
0:44:23 And if you look at the last few, they have not been the most charismatic.
0:44:27 And he’s like, we’re sort of, it’s a captured party and we lack putting forward charismatic
0:44:29 candidates since Obama.
0:44:32 Obama was the, one of the most charismatic candidates.
0:44:35 And he said, here’s what I think we should do.
0:44:39 Just like, you know, American Idol or The Voice or whatever, there’s The Apprentice even.
0:44:44 There’s been proven shows where you can have like, let’s say an eight to 12 week period
0:44:46 where you start with 10 people and then they get eliminated.
0:44:47 And in the end, you have a winner.
0:44:50 He’s like, what if we did this for presidential candidates?
0:44:54 So you would take 12 candidates, not random people off the street, but people that genuinely
0:44:56 are thinking that they want to run.
0:44:59 And so you’d get Pete Buttigieg and others in this batch.
0:45:03 And he’s like, week by week, you know, let’s say they go, they go to a small town in Pittsburgh
0:45:07 and they’re going to actually meet with the car manufacturers there, whatever, like, you
0:45:10 know, some, some like presidential type of shit that they do.
0:45:12 And they have to present a plan.
0:45:17 And then it’s actually like, and the judges for that week will be the car manufacturer people.
0:45:21 And then they’ll sort of pick which candidate they felt best understood them and was able
0:45:22 to, to address their needs.
0:45:25 And week by week, you sort of eliminate candidates.
0:45:29 He’s like, by the end of this 12 week thing, we’ll have captured so much attention and hopefully
0:45:31 found a candidate that’s like won the hearts of people.
0:45:32 People will know their backstory.
0:45:34 They’ll know what they’re all about.
0:45:35 They’ll have seen them in a more human light.
0:45:40 And we will have filtered out the less charismatic candidates for the more charismatic candidates.
0:45:43 He’s like, I’m not saying charisma is the end all be all.
0:45:47 Like ideally at the beginning, you try to screen people that you think are worthy, you know,
0:45:53 candidates to lead, but amongst that worthy pool, give a boost to the most charismatic candidate.
0:45:57 I thought this was fascinating and I really wanted him to do it.
0:46:02 And he had, he was friends with Mark Burnett, the guy who created Survivor and,
0:46:07 maybe Bachelor or whatever, like a bunch of other major, major reality shows.
0:46:10 And he’s like, I’m going to talk to Mark and I think we’re going to do this.
0:46:14 And I hit him up recently and I was like, whatever happened to that idea?
0:46:19 And he’s like, I just decided I didn’t want, I didn’t want an avalanche of problems in my
0:46:21 life for creating this.
0:46:25 And I decided it wasn’t worth, I have a great life and it really wasn’t worth the, you know,
0:46:27 what it was going to do.
0:46:28 And Biden won in 2020.
0:46:30 And so he felt like maybe, maybe I was wrong.
0:46:33 Maybe there’s not as much of a need for this, but isn’t that interesting, dude?
0:46:34 Yeah, that’s pretty fascinating.
0:46:37 I, um, I wish, I wish he would have done that.
0:46:38 I feel like that would work too.
0:46:41 Like, it sounds like an, it’s an idea that I think is easy to make fun of.
0:46:45 It’s also an idea that I think would be effective at the stated mission.
0:46:49 It’s easy to make fun of because we don’t want it to be true, but it is true.
0:46:53 Like, um, you know, who’s a really good example of this is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
0:46:54 Yep.
0:46:58 He was just, he’s a, he was such a charismatic, interesting person.
0:46:59 He was good to look at.
0:47:03 Like you wanted to look like he looked like even the people who aren’t, even the people
0:47:06 who become our leaders who aren’t really good looking, they’re still sort of interesting
0:47:07 to look at.
0:47:08 Like Donald Trump is intriguing to look at.
0:47:11 He looks like remarkable in a weird way.
0:47:12 You know what I’m saying?
0:47:15 Uh, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a perfect example of this.
0:47:18 Can I show you one last thing that I think is funny?
0:47:23 So I found this and I don’t, I think I’ve talked to this guy, Brian, and he was cool.
0:47:28 So I don’t want to shit on him, but I’m more so shitting on people who this line of thinking,
0:47:30 maybe this line of thinking.
0:47:33 And, uh, let’s, let’s explain what it is.
0:47:39 Guy Brian says, he says, I asked quote, what company is worth less than 10 billion today
0:47:42 that you could be worth 500 billion plus in a few decades.
0:47:44 I received 710 answers.
0:47:47 Here’s the top 20 picks that have 50 X potential.
0:47:51 And this tweet has 18,000 likes, you know, it was probably, I don’t know how many views,
0:47:53 but like, what year was this over a million?
0:47:57 This is in 2021, July of 2021.
0:48:01 When times were good, when everybody was making a ton of money in the stock market.
0:48:05 And he lists, uh, 20 companies.
0:48:11 Um, and, uh, and these are ones that this guy who I think he has a whole YouTube channel towards
0:48:12 picking stocks.
0:48:19 And I don’t know if these were his picks necessarily, or if they were, uh, his, uh, his audience’s
0:48:19 picks.
0:48:22 But, and this guy has 600,000 followers.
0:48:27 His bio says, I teach investors how to analyze businesses, stock fundamentals and valuation
0:48:27 teacher.
0:48:31 DM Buffett for premium courses, free ebook in my description.
0:48:31 Okay.
0:48:32 That’s, that’s this guy.
0:48:39 So this was in 2021 and I just was curious, like how it was, he right?
0:48:40 Like, what’s his deal?
0:48:50 I’m almost positive that not only did none, none of them 50 X, I am pretty sure that most
0:48:57 of them are down from, from down, even from this tweet, but of the, of the 20 that he hand
0:49:03 selected, somebody, somebody says, this has to go down in history as the best case of stupidity
0:49:04 of the crowds.
0:49:05 Here’s where we’re at three years later.
0:49:11 So three years later, only one company is up and it’s up 6%.
0:49:19 The average company is down 70% on this list with several of them, minus 95%, minus 95%,
0:49:24 minus 98%, minus 90%, minus 97, minus 86, minus 99.
0:49:29 And of course, Ozan, which was an e-commerce platform in Russia, which is delisted.
0:49:31 And I think open door is now.
0:49:34 And so this tweet that you’re looking at, that was even six months ago.
0:49:40 I’m almost positive that open door, uh, is delisted and virgin is down even more.
0:49:44 I think lemonade is delisted or out of business.
0:49:48 Uh, context logic, I think is out of business, which is wish.
0:49:49 All right.
0:49:50 We should post an update here.
0:49:51 And now we’re at five years later.
0:49:55 Here’s how the stupidity of the crowd has done.
0:49:58 And my point in bringing this up, isn’t the actual results.
0:49:59 The results are not good.
0:50:00 That’s the summary.
0:50:01 The results are actually really bad.
0:50:07 Um, but it’s just crazy how hard it is to pick winners.
0:50:09 It’s very challenging.
0:50:12 Uh, this guy has 600,000 followers.
0:50:18 I assume that he does this all the time for his job and you still can’t nail it.
0:50:20 It’s just so challenging.
0:50:23 Is it though?
0:50:28 Okay.
0:50:36 I’m going to tell you what I did back in 20, I graduated in 2010 and I started my stock portfolio,
0:50:45 I think right around like senior year of college and I, um, I bought, I believe six stocks and
0:50:50 my dad was telling me just buy the index, but I’m like, dad, I got this right.
0:50:52 I had the Dunning-Kruger effect.
0:50:53 I thought I knew a lot more than I knew.
0:50:56 And I think I bought five or six stocks.
0:50:58 How much money?
0:51:01 I mean, I didn’t have any, but I had $25,000.
0:51:04 Uh, I had probably $60,000 total.
0:51:05 That’s a lot of money.
0:51:10 Well, I guess what I’m saying is even though the results were great, it didn’t, you know,
0:51:13 on a very small base that doesn’t, doesn’t do a whole lot for you.
0:51:17 I bought Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Tesla.
0:51:18 What years?
0:51:22 These were, it was basically 2010, 2011.
0:51:24 Uh, when I bought those stocks.
0:51:26 So I did the thing you’re not supposed to do.
0:51:29 I picked, I didn’t pick with any sort of brilliance.
0:51:34 I was like, these are like, obviously just seemed like the good companies of the world.
0:51:35 To me at the time.
0:51:39 And, uh, you know, I did make a mistake because I sold Tesla earlier.
0:51:42 Like I sold it probably 2014 or something like that.
0:51:45 Um, so that would, and that would have been a much bigger return.
0:51:50 So, you know, I think I still, I still am in the case study of like, it’s really freaking
0:51:50 hard to do.
0:51:52 Even if you buy, right, you’ll sell wrong and shit like that.
0:51:56 Like I bought Bitcoin early and sold some early and then bought it back again and sold
0:51:57 it again, bought it back again.
0:51:58 You know, I’m not saying I’m smart.
0:51:59 I do dumb things.
0:52:02 But I guess what I’m saying is sometimes it’s actually kind of obvious.
0:52:06 I think one of the reasons that what this guy did was so hard was he was looking for a 50X.
0:52:08 And he’s like, what company small today?
0:52:09 That’s going to be massive tomorrow.
0:52:11 Which of course, if you knew that’d be fantastic.
0:52:17 But there is a simple way of looking at things like right now, for example, I put my money
0:52:19 into what my own little AI index.
0:52:21 And I didn’t spend much time on this.
0:52:23 And I’m going to go back and do a little more research.
0:52:24 But basically it’s very obvious.
0:52:31 I think at this moment in time in the world that AI is going to be a very big deal, uh,
0:52:35 that the biggest winners over the next five to 10 years are going to be ones that are benefiting
0:52:40 from AI in some way, whether they’re NVIDIA, they’re selling chips, whether they’re, uh,
0:52:44 companies like Google or Facebook that are able to use AI in order to make all their services
0:52:49 better and slash tens of thousands of employees that they don’t need, uh, shit like that.
0:52:49 Right?
0:52:51 Like, I think it’s pretty obvious that AI is a big deal.
0:52:55 And I think if you put in the time to just think about like, instead of buying the generic
0:53:01 S and P 500, like what’s the equivalent of the AI 50 or the AI 20.
0:53:05 And it’s like 20 companies that I believe are well-positioned.
0:53:09 It’s hard for them to lose given the AI tailwind.
0:53:14 And again, it’s a little bit naive because you might say, well, NVIDIA today, they have 90%
0:53:16 gross margins and that they’re going to get competed away and blah, blah, blah.
0:53:17 I’m not saying it’s like easy.
0:53:23 I’m just saying, I think an index of AI, of AI focused, um, companies, that doesn’t mean
0:53:28 companies that are like, you know, all chip makers or whatever, but companies that are
0:53:32 going to disproportionately benefit from AI and are going to adopt AI and get the benefits of it.
0:53:34 I just feel like that’s an obvious thing today.
0:53:39 That’s the version of me in 2010 being like, I don’t know, me and all my friends use the
0:53:39 internet like crazy.
0:53:42 I think I should just like own the, the big internet companies.
0:53:43 That seems like a good idea.
0:53:46 The issue is not, can you pick winners?
0:53:52 Because I think that like, we, when we saw Facebook was valued at, when it was hit a low,
0:53:57 I think a year and a half ago, everyone who has ever bought any Facebook ads was like,
0:53:58 yeah, this is under value.
0:53:59 This is a great company.
0:54:03 The issue is the amount of times that you have lost using that same logic.
0:54:09 Um, like, and so if you were to take a lump sum of money and you would buy and sell, uh,
0:54:15 like occasionally or rather often versus just letting it sit and ignoring, like if you average,
0:54:19 I’m actually going to go back and just backtest this for me, me specifically.
0:54:20 And I’ll publish my result.
0:54:23 I’ll bring up, I’ll bring it to the next episode because I, I’m curious.
0:54:29 I, and I would say, I think there’s a more likely chance that I buying and selling has buying
0:54:30 and selling and picking has underperformed.
0:54:32 I would, I would assume that to be true.
0:54:36 I think there’s a chance it’s not been for me, but, um, I’m, I really want to go get the
0:54:41 exact answer because I, and I’ll include, I think I should include crypto.
0:54:44 Cause I think that was kind of like buying and selling, picking.
0:54:49 And I want to see the returns of if I had just, uh, in just the same amount of money
0:54:52 in the same times in just the index versus my picking.
0:54:55 I just want to see for myself what I’ve done and give it honest,
0:54:59 be able to look reality in the face of like, you know, how’s this working for me?
0:55:00 So let me tell you this.
0:55:03 Let me tell you this crazy stat that Anker, uh, told me.
0:55:07 So Jerry bus, the guy who, um, owned the Lakers that, you know, they, they recently just sold
0:55:08 the Lakers for $10 billion.
0:55:17 So he bought the Lakers for $67 million in 1979, and he sold it, uh, for 150 times his money at
0:55:19 $10 billion in 2025.
0:55:26 And yet had he taken that $60 million and instead just invested it in the S and P 500, he would
0:55:28 have been able to have had $13 billion.
0:55:31 Uh, so he would have had more money now.
0:55:33 That’s stupid, that’s stupid.
0:55:34 It’s not stupid.
0:55:37 But listen, the top comment was, think of all, it’s not incorrect.
0:55:39 I mean, it’s just, it’s just math.
0:55:43 It’s acting like he didn’t take money every year in gains from the business.
0:55:45 He could have lost money every year.
0:55:46 The Lakers spit off cashflow every year.
0:55:47 Do they?
0:55:50 Most winning teams do not make a profit.
0:55:54 Most winning teams, they could show paper losses.
0:55:55 I know team owners.
0:55:56 I talked to them about this.
0:55:57 I was like, is this true?
0:55:59 Do you guys actually lose money on this thing?
0:56:01 And they’re like, no, most years we’re making money.
0:56:04 Occasionally, if we’re way over the luxury tax, we get it.
0:56:05 We get a huge penalty.
0:56:07 Then yes, we could lose money in that one year.
0:56:08 But no, we’re not idiots.
0:56:12 We’re not burning hundreds of like people say like, oh, they lost $200 million.
0:56:15 He’s like, I’m not losing $200 million every year.
0:56:19 Some of the top comment was like, yeah, but are you adding into the P and L all the women
0:56:23 that he was able to get because of he, because of him owning the Lakers, forgetting the joy
0:56:28 of owning the Lakers, which is already congratulations.
0:56:31 You own the S and P 500 versus you own the Lakers.
0:56:36 Forgetting that the Lakers are a business that has been generating cash.
0:56:41 And so all he’s taking into account is just the exit price and none of the 30 years of cash flow.
0:56:46 Well, I don’t really look at the facts whenever I’m making a statement.
0:56:49 But I think it did make for a good headline.
0:56:54 And it is kind of stunning what, I don’t know, 11% compounding over 40 years actually does.
0:56:55 It’s pretty crazy.
0:56:58 I like doing this.
0:57:12 All right.
0:57:16 So when my employees join Hampton, we have them do a whole bunch of onboarding stuff.
0:57:20 But the most important thing that they do is they go through this thing I made called Copy That.
0:57:23 Copy That is a thing that I made that teaches people how to write better.
0:57:27 And the reason this is important is because at work or even just in life,
0:57:32 we communicate mostly via text right now, whether we’re emailing, slacking, blogging,
0:57:34 texting, whatever.
0:57:37 Most of the ways that we’re communicating is by the written word.
0:57:41 And so I made this thing called Copy That that’s guaranteed to make you write better.
0:57:43 You can check it out, copythat.com.
0:57:46 I post every single person who leaves a review, whether it’s good or bad.
0:57:47 I post it on the website.
0:57:51 And you’re going to see a trend, which is that this is a very, very, very simple exercise,
0:57:53 something that’s so simple that they laugh at.
0:57:55 They think, “How is this going to actually impact us and make us write better?”
0:57:57 But I promise you, it does.
0:57:59 You got to try it at copythat.com.
0:58:01 I guarantee it’s going to change the way you write.
0:58:05 Again, copythat.com.

0:00:03 People are still trying to figure out how everything works.
0:00:09 What I love about the vibe writing concept actually is it’s a place in which full autonomy can be fulfilled today.
0:00:15 You’re prompting, although it’s English-like, it turns out you’re just programming.
0:00:17 And you’re just programming in prompt.
0:00:22 I’ve had so many conversations with product managers over the last two years about the death of product management.
0:00:25 It’s the end of the field, why we need PMs.
0:00:29 It was extreme in 1990, and it’s extreme today.
0:00:33 Where are we really in the AI computing shift?
0:00:37 Is this the Windows 3.1 moment or more like the 64K IBM PC?
0:00:46 In this episode, part of our This Week in Consumer series, I’m joined by A16Z general partner Anisha Charya and board member Stephen Sanofsky,
0:00:50 former Microsoft president and one of the most influential product thinkers in tech,
0:00:54 to unpack where we are in the AI platform cycle and what’s coming next.
0:00:59 We dig into the framework shaping this moment, partial autonomy, jagged intelligence,
0:01:02 Vibe coding versus vibe writing, what builders are wrong about agents,
0:01:05 what Google’s I.O. signals about platform strategy,
0:01:09 and why the future might be less about killer apps and more about control sliders.
0:01:14 We begin by discussing this week’s talk from Andre Karpathy on why software is changing again.
0:01:16 Let’s get into it.
0:01:21 As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only.
0:01:24 Should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice,
0:01:27 or be used to evaluate any investment or security,
0:01:31 and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
0:01:37 Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
0:01:40 For more details, including a link to our investments,
0:01:44 please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.
0:01:54 Anish, Steven, we were having such a good conversation offline that I wanted to get this on the podcast.
0:01:55 There are a few topics we wanted to discuss.
0:02:00 First, we were all fascinated by Andre Karpathy’s talk at Startup School.
0:02:02 Steven, what did you find so interesting?
0:02:04 What were your takeaways or reactions from it?
0:02:07 Well, I totally loved the talk.
0:02:12 He did an unbelievable, like a philosopher king version of where we are.
0:02:16 And I just found his metaphors really compelling.
0:02:21 In fact, what I might do is even take it further back and just say,
0:02:24 since he used an analogy of like where we are in computing,
0:02:27 I’m talking about the Windows 3 era and stuff like that.
0:02:35 And having lived through all of them, I tend to think we’re at the 64K IBM PC era of the microcomputer.
0:02:39 And the reason I think that is actually a technical one,
0:02:44 which is that we’re at the point where people are still trying to figure out how everything works.
0:02:54 And all the coding and all of the energy is working around like these very basic working problems.
0:02:57 Like with the PC, it was like, okay, we have 64K of memory.
0:02:58 And our programs are all too big.
0:03:00 And we have no display and all these problems.
0:03:03 And with AI, people are like, it’s going to replace search.
0:03:05 It’s going to replace Excel.
0:03:06 And it’s going to replace all these things.
0:03:08 But it doesn’t add very well.
0:03:10 It gives you a lot of errors.
0:03:14 Like the thing that you say it’s going to do, it just doesn’t even do yet.
0:03:19 So I feel like we’re at a point that is just so, so early.
0:03:24 And he did a fantastic job of sort of making that arc.
0:03:26 You know, the thing that struck me the most was
0:03:29 he talked a lot about our relationship with this new tool.
0:03:32 You know, and in a sense, we want to use it in the same way that we’ve used
0:03:35 all the other computing tools and technologies we’ve used in the past.
0:03:40 But he really talked about this kind of inversion of the relationship of LLMs as people,
0:03:43 spirits, the fact that they have jagged intelligence.
0:03:46 So to me, that sort of meta point he made was one of the most interesting.
0:03:51 We have to relearn how to use this type of tool before we know how to be productive with it.
0:03:55 I think tools is a super interesting point because the talk is anchored in tools,
0:03:57 but the world itself is anchored in tools.
0:04:01 And the early stages of a platform are always about tools.
0:04:04 And so you kind of get a little confused.
0:04:07 Like right now, of course, he was talking about vibe coding, clearly,
0:04:10 because he pioneered the term, invented the concept, and is living it.
0:04:14 And it’s very interesting because I actually think coding is one domain
0:04:17 that always works best early in a platform because, well,
0:04:20 all the customers of the platform are developers,
0:04:23 and they’re going to make their tooling kind of work and come along.
0:04:26 But I really think that the most interesting thing for me,
0:04:30 what’s being underestimated in the near term is sort of vibe writing.
0:04:33 I mean, it seems weird to say anything with AI is underestimated
0:04:36 because Lord knows that’s not where we are.
0:04:40 But the thing is, is that vibe writing is so here.
0:04:44 Like if you’re in college, you’re already vibe writing.
0:04:48 And businesses are still working through the, well, can we use this?
0:04:49 Doesn’t seem appropriate.
0:04:52 And that’s a thing I’ve definitely lived through with word processors.
0:04:55 You know, I had to get permission from the dean in college
0:04:56 to use a computer to write papers.
0:05:00 But this vibe writing is absolutely a thing.
0:05:04 And it is really, really no different than when calculators showed up
0:05:08 and all of a sudden just doing math homework involved using a calculator.
0:05:11 And people are like, well, you’re not going to know how to do math in the future.
0:05:13 And it’s like, I won’t have to know how to do math.
0:05:15 That’s like the whole point of a tool.
0:05:20 Like I have a power drill, so I do not know how to use like one of those Amish drill things,
0:05:22 you know, and the world moves up the stack.
0:05:24 And so that’s where we are.
0:05:25 And it’s just super exciting.
0:05:28 What I love about the vibe writing concept actually is
0:05:31 it’s a place in which full autonomy can be fulfilled today.
0:05:35 So you can ask the model to vibe write something, you know,
0:05:38 really detailed and compelling, and it’ll do a great job.
0:05:41 Whereas with vibe coding, I think there’s a ton of constraints
0:05:44 as to what the model can actually do versus what it can conceptually do.
0:05:47 And understanding those boundaries and constraints
0:05:50 is going to define a lot of the text-to-code stuff for the next two years.
0:05:52 Well, I’d push back a little bit on that
0:05:54 because, of course, I agree on the coding side.
0:05:58 And I think one of the things developers do early in a platform is they love to tell you
0:06:03 that they’re doing something every day and it’s working, but it actually just isn’t.
0:06:05 And that’s just what happens early in a platform.
0:06:09 They tell you all these things that they say are easy and they’re actually not.
0:06:12 And they spent 18 hours struggling with something that didn’t work.
0:06:17 But on the vibe writing side, it also hits a point that I just think is so, so important,
0:06:21 which is, yeah, you can prompt it to spew out a bunch of stuff.
0:06:26 But if you have a job and your salary depends on you submitting that,
0:06:28 or you’re a student and your grade depends on you submitting that,
0:06:30 it actually better be right.
0:06:34 And you can’t just say, look, vibe wrote this and here you go.
0:06:37 And I think people don’t get confused when it comes to like math.
0:06:40 Like everybody knows you have to go check to the math if you ask it to do a table
0:06:42 and then add a column that does math.
0:06:49 But we’re going to just see endless, endless human wasn’t in the loop vibrating things.
0:06:53 And it’s just that with programs, you can’t really see that right away
0:06:56 because in order to actually distribute it or get someone to use it,
0:06:58 you have to at least fix the initial bugs.
0:07:02 We’ll only see them later when there are security bugs, authentication bugs,
0:07:05 passwords stored in plain text, or a zillion other problems
0:07:07 that are going to happen from vibe coding.
0:07:08 In a sense, we’ve seen this already, right?
0:07:12 We saw a bunch of lawsuits that were citing case precedent from cases that don’t exist.
0:07:16 So maybe this is actually the operative point, which is there’s full autonomy,
0:07:17 there’s partial autonomy.
0:07:21 I mean, maybe partial autonomy in writing is moving us from writer to editor,
0:07:22 but you still have to be the editor.
0:07:24 Yeah, we should also give him credit.
0:07:28 Many people have talked about this, but he did a fantastic job using the Iron Man analogy
0:07:34 of how we’re going to have autonomy, partial autonomy, and a slider to control what you want.
0:07:38 I actually think that’s a fantastic analogy and a way of thinking
0:07:40 that gives you a very clear picture from the movies.
0:07:46 But at the same time, people are very, very aggressive on their timeline of agents.
0:07:50 And there’s a very, very long history in trying to automate things
0:07:54 that turn out to be very, very difficult to automate.
0:07:56 And he did a fantastic job.
0:07:58 He said, people are talking about like the year of agents.
0:08:01 Yeah, that’s a good consultant phrase.
0:08:03 Just like he said, we’re in the decade of agents,
0:08:10 and it’s going to take a decade for things to be anywhere near living up to agentification as a meme.
0:08:12 It’s an interesting point.
0:08:14 I think a lot about agents as applied to financial services.
0:08:19 And I think there’s a set of problems in financial services that are high friction, low judgment.
0:08:23 So for example, when I want to go refinance my personal loan,
0:08:26 I don’t really feel attached to any specific brand of a personal loan provider.
0:08:28 I just want the cheapest rate.
0:08:30 So it’s actually a very low judgment decision.
0:08:34 But going and researching and applying for a personal loan is a high friction process.
0:08:36 That’s something I would love to delegate to an agent.
0:08:38 I think it can do a nice job.
0:08:42 Whereas doing my taxes, wow, like, Stephen, how much risk do you want to take on your taxes?
0:08:44 How many things do you want to report or not report?
0:08:46 That requires an enormous amount of judgment.
0:08:48 And of course, it also is high friction.
0:08:51 So when I think of the two by two of where is automation going to come first,
0:08:53 I think a lot about high friction, low judgment.
0:08:57 I want to build on that because I actually think it’s super important to also consider
0:09:01 that for anyone to offer the alternatives to the market,
0:09:05 there has to be an ability to differentiate, to explain.
0:09:08 And so you end up with this kind of thing where I just want the cheapest flight.
0:09:13 And of course, for 20 years, all of the flight searches and stuff has worked on the cheapest.
0:09:16 But it turns out that’s not actually what you want.
0:09:16 That’s right.
0:09:21 Plus, a lot of people want to intervene in presenting your choices to you.
0:09:21 Yes.
0:09:27 And so this idea that all choice in life is going to be reduced to some headless API.
0:09:27 Right.
0:09:28 I don’t understand.
0:09:31 People have to go build that and make a living building those things.
0:09:36 So to your example of refinancing a home, like the only reason that it can exist as a search
0:09:42 problem today is because the different people who want to refinance you can target you with an ad
0:09:46 and attract you as a customer and differentiate themselves on that offering.
0:09:51 And if you can’t do that, then your ability to actually automate that task isn’t going to exist
0:09:54 because there’s no economic incentive to just be,
0:09:59 hi, I’m the headless, faceless, nameless, low-priced mortgage leader.
0:09:59 That’s right.
0:10:00 It’s not really a business.
0:10:02 There’s nothing there.
0:10:05 Just headless, faceless, nameless food isn’t a thing.
0:10:07 It doesn’t show up in a white can labeled food.
0:10:10 And then you consume it and you’re, okay, all good.
0:10:11 I have food now.
0:10:13 Well, maybe Soylent, but yes.
0:10:16 In the future, in the dystopian future of Repo Man, that’s where we end up.
0:10:17 But that’s not going to happen.
0:10:20 I want the cheapest flight as long as it’s not on Spirit Airlines.
0:10:20 Right.
0:10:23 I want the cheapest flight, but I’m traveling with a family of three.
0:10:24 I don’t want to leave at 5 a.m.
0:10:25 No red eye.
0:10:25 Yeah.
0:10:27 Like, I want miles on this airline.
0:10:31 A lot of things don’t add up to that.
0:10:32 This is a real thing in business.
0:10:35 It’s a thing on the producer and the consumer side.
0:10:39 Consumers really, really want much more choice than they often think they do.
0:10:44 And anyone who’s bought anything on Amazon knows they complain about the choice, but they
0:10:48 really don’t want just, like, phone case to show up as the thing because it was $6.
0:10:54 I think this is a real through line through the talk, which is partial autonomy, jagged
0:10:55 intelligence.
0:11:00 Karpathy is just talking a ton about the constraints of the technology, which I think is the right
0:11:02 thing for us to be thinking through trade-offs around as builders.
0:11:06 And he does a great job, very much as this philosopher that I love.
0:11:08 His delivery, his tone.
0:11:09 Don’t just go read the summaries.
0:11:11 Don’t read a post.
0:11:13 Go just watch the video immersively.
0:11:18 Well, I want to get to automation and employment, particularly on the entry-level side.
0:11:23 But first, I just want to ask the broader question of, there was this idea of AI plus human,
0:11:26 I think it was chess, could beat AI for some period of time.
0:11:28 And that was kind of the co-pilot view of the world.
0:11:30 Human plus AI will have a better product.
0:11:33 And then it turned out, I think it was chess, maybe it was Goic, or maybe it was both, that
0:11:36 actually that was a temporary thing and AI is just better.
0:11:42 And then there’s the question as to how much of the world is like chess, where a human plus
0:11:47 AI is only better for a certain period of time and then the models get better, or how much
0:11:48 the world is like something else.
0:11:51 We’re always going to want that human plus AI is just better, or we’re just always going
0:11:52 to want humans to do it.
0:11:56 Look, my view is that in a domain in which you have a formal definition of correctness,
0:12:00 the path will be no autonomy, partial autonomy, full autonomy.
0:12:05 In domains where you don’t have a formal definition of correctness or where a ton of human judgment
0:12:10 is necessary and human choice and sort of a human direction, we’re just the right product
0:12:12 design is not to go all the way to full autonomy.
0:12:15 I would argue that chess and Go do have a formal definition for correctness.
0:12:18 So it makes sense that those were fully automated over time.
0:12:23 We’re back to the early stages of where things are, which means that a bunch of programmers
0:12:26 are sort of defining what success looks like.
0:12:31 And programmers are very good at either works or it doesn’t work, or I just want to automate
0:12:36 this, or I’m going to reduce your job to a tiny shell script kind of mentality.
0:12:40 And I just look at the world as everything is gray.
0:12:45 And everything is much harder than it looks when you don’t actually have to do it.
0:12:51 Ages and ages ago, I visited a really giant hospital in Minnesota to help them figure out
0:12:54 how to use Excel within the medical profession.
0:12:58 And the doctor just looked at me and he’s like, I don’t think you understand.
0:13:02 He was like, my job is all uncertain.
0:13:05 Every aspect of what I do is uncertain.
0:13:12 So adding something that pretends to be certain, like a spreadsheet, to my uncertainty doesn’t
0:13:13 actually help me.
0:13:18 And so fast forward, first, I’ve spent 25 years with a doctor, but that’s a different, but
0:13:21 if there was a story this week about radiologists.
0:13:26 And so very early, actually, if you go to ImageNet, everybody was immediately radiology is doomed.
0:13:29 Oh, like you never need to get a skin cancer biopsy.
0:13:32 You’ll just take pictures of your mole and it will just tell you.
0:13:34 And then you find out, wow, there’s judgment there.
0:13:38 And there’s even judgment in doing the biop, in how to do the biopsy, and then what to biopsy,
0:13:39 and all this.
0:13:43 But it turns out the radiologists have, like, fully embraced AI.
0:13:50 But they embraced it no different than they embraced the latest MRI technology or the latest
0:13:53 software update from GE for a CAT scan.
0:13:59 Like, I just think there are so many things like that, and so many jobs are either very,
0:14:05 very uncertain, or most of the job is basically exception handling.
0:14:05 Right.
0:14:08 And, like, people are like, oh, we’re going to automate our taxes.
0:14:13 Okay, taxes are literally a giant cascading if and switch statements of exceptions.
0:14:14 Yes.
0:14:20 And so the idea that you will just automate that, well, you have to know the answer to
0:14:20 all the exceptions.
0:14:25 And if you’re going to prompt it with the answer to all the exceptions, then you’re doing your
0:14:26 taxes manually.
0:14:30 It’s sort of like once you reach a certain income, you have to get help from an accountant
0:14:30 to do your taxes.
0:14:34 And the first thing the accountant does is ask you for your tax planner.
0:14:38 And as a software person, I look at it, I’m like, the tax planner really, really looks like
0:14:42 the input fields of the software you’re using.
0:14:46 So maybe I could just buy that software and then type it in.
0:14:50 And I said that, and he’s like, well, you’re welcome to, but you will go to jail.
0:14:55 And he explains, because every time I give him a number is a whole decision about where
0:14:56 to apply it.
0:14:57 Does it work?
0:15:00 And I’m like, well, you’re not really a farmer, so don’t fill anything in on that form and stuff
0:15:01 like that.
0:15:03 Automation is extremely difficult.
0:15:08 And it’s exception bound, it’s judgment bound, and it’s all uncertain.
0:15:12 You know, a field in which this question comes up a ton is product management.
0:15:16 I’ve had so many conversations with product managers over the last two years about the
0:15:17 death of product management.
0:15:20 It’s the end of the field, why we need PMs.
0:15:25 And I think our sort of developer generation has developed a real resentment towards product
0:15:26 managers, which is a different conversation.
0:15:31 With that said, I think that the product management job is the job of addressing ambiguity.
0:15:34 And it’s ambiguity that prevents progress from being made.
0:15:37 Sometimes it’s execution, decision making, product design.
0:15:39 That will not change.
0:15:44 The nature of business and human interaction and companies is these complex adaptive systems
0:15:46 where there will always be ambiguity.
0:15:49 I think you’ll always need judgment, and you’ll always need somebody who looks like a product
0:15:50 manager.
0:15:54 Yeah, I think that really gets to the vibe coding challenge we’re dealing with, which
0:15:57 is like, how fast can we go text to app?
0:16:03 And I think here, what’s so interesting in the long arc of platform transitions is that we’re
0:16:08 also having this platform transition happen not just out on the open.
0:16:09 We’ve had that before.
0:16:13 Like back when, in the earliest days of computing, these platform transitions happened in user group
0:16:17 meetings, like at the Cumberly Community Center down the street, or in magazines or newsletters,
0:16:20 and then with news groups, then the internet and so on.
0:16:24 The whole internet was all ICQ, and it was all in the open.
0:16:27 But now it’s like happening on CNN, on the nightly news.
0:16:33 Everyone knows about the platform transition that’s happening, in particular on social,
0:16:34 in Discord.
0:16:38 And so what’s happening is you’re getting a lot of like vibe coding for clout.
0:16:44 And so you’re getting a lot of this, I had an idea, I prompted it, and it worked.
0:16:45 And here I am.
0:16:47 At some point, I just go, I’m calling BS on that.
0:16:48 That’s like not a thing.
0:16:50 And then I sound like an old person.
0:16:54 And because some people think I am, I don’t, but some people think I am.
0:16:54 I don’t either.
0:16:57 It looks like, hey, you’re just being old.
0:16:57 Yes.
0:17:02 But then you dig in and you find out like, wow, you’re prompting.
0:17:06 Although it’s English-like, it turns out you’re just programming.
0:17:06 Yes.
0:17:08 And you’re just programming in prompts.
0:17:08 Yes.
0:17:12 And people are like, oh, this is what we’re going to do is we’re just going to get
0:17:15 the model to require a little bit more structure.
0:17:17 And I’m like, you’re writing a new programming language.
0:17:18 Yes.
0:17:22 And this path of text to app and vibe coding is just developing a new language,
0:17:24 which is super cool.
0:17:27 Lord knows the world is built on programming languages.
0:17:32 In the 80s, if you drove slowly past the computer science department trying to get a PhD,
0:17:35 they would just invent a new programming language right then and there
0:17:37 if you stood outside the building for too short a time.
0:17:42 But we can’t lose sight of the fact that the arc of programming has been one of basically
0:17:44 over-promise and under-deliver.
0:17:49 When I was in college, like, the theory was the market was going to need so many programmers
0:17:53 that the whole employment force, the whole workforce would just be software people.
0:17:55 And that never happened.
0:17:57 And now here we are, we’re not going to need any.
0:17:58 They’re all just going to go away.
0:18:02 And I think it was extreme in 1990 and it’s extreme today.
0:18:07 And I think that the big thing is this over-promising at each transition.
0:18:09 Even just most recently, low-code.
0:18:11 Who even says that word anymore?
0:18:13 Like, we’re not allowed to even mention it.
0:18:17 And it’s because it’s always the same thing, which is, yes, if all you’re doing
0:18:21 is a very straightforward app that looks like all the other straightforward apps,
0:18:24 but with a domain spin or a branding logo or something.
0:18:28 We see this with Wix and with website templates, like it’s possible.
0:18:31 But you’re not going to run a company on any of those.
0:18:33 I totally agree.
0:18:37 Where I disagree, actually, is I think that the language, the language model in this case,
0:18:42 but the language in your metaphor, is improving at a dramatic rate underneath these things.
0:18:46 So while I think almost all these products today, they’re good at prototyping,
0:18:50 they’re trying to push into refinement, they’re not really usable as things that you can actually
0:18:52 deploy to production at all.
0:18:55 In fact, most of the cool demos you see on Twitter don’t work three days later.
0:18:59 So they’re very much in the prototyping phase, but the programming language in the metaphor
0:19:01 is improving dramatically.
0:19:06 I think we’ll get there, at least make more progress than we think, versus a traditional
0:19:10 programming language like object-oriented, it didn’t feel like it 100x the number of programmers
0:19:13 or 1 100th the amount of time to ship something to production.
0:19:17 We just got new tools and sort of new problems to solve.
0:19:19 Well, of course, you’re benefiting from hindsight.
0:19:20 Yes.
0:19:21 And that’s a key thing.
0:19:22 First, I agree.
0:19:26 We’re in an exponential improvement cycle with the models.
0:19:26 Yes.
0:19:29 So any predictive power goes out the window.
0:19:29 Correct.
0:19:33 And anyone who says like something negative, you’re going to be the next person who says
0:19:36 the internet is going to be a faxing fad like a fax machine.
0:19:39 And that’s a bad, you just don’t want to be there.
0:19:43 And it turns out also, that’s a case where having lived through them, you get very shy
0:19:48 about making predictions because you see how foolish people look for a long time.
0:19:50 But take something like object-oriented.
0:19:53 I mean, this thing was hyped to the moon.
0:19:55 This is a wave of programming languages.
0:19:58 Just to give you an idea, again, how the speed things move.
0:20:00 They started in 1980.
0:20:05 And by 1990, they finally reached like peak hype.
0:20:05 Right.
0:20:07 So it was like 10 years of incremental improvement.
0:20:10 And by then, they were also over.
0:20:15 Like any programmer would have kind of said, eh, it’s sort of just changing the old programming
0:20:18 paradigms of abstraction and polymorphism and stuff like that.
0:20:23 But meanwhile, the magazines, which was the key measure of success at the time, there was
0:20:27 one magazine that had a picture of a baby of diapers, not a picture, a drawing, on the
0:20:28 cover of programming.
0:20:30 How programming will get made easy.
0:20:35 I remember seeing it at the newsstand, and I was working on the C++ compiler at the time.
0:20:40 C++ was a brand new language in 1990, and it didn’t work yet.
0:20:46 And here was a baby who was going to make programming possible for other babies at baby care or something.
0:20:52 And whether it was that or all the database programming languages like Delphi or PowerBuilder,
0:20:56 in algorithmic sense, they were all constant improvement.
0:21:01 Like just, they added a constant factor, like plus seven, onto programming.
0:21:04 None of them changed the mathematical order of magnitude.
0:21:09 And what I believe is, with writing right now, it’s changing order of magnitude.
0:21:11 And so it’s here, it’s happening.
0:21:13 Accuracy isn’t there.
0:21:18 But one of the things about writing is, like, actually, when you read it, most of it in business
0:21:19 is not really accurate already.
0:21:21 It’s very much like autocorrect.
0:21:27 Like autocorrect fixed all the common typos, like T-E-H to T-H-E in English, and just replaced
0:21:32 them with these wild new autocorrects that just replaced what you typed with a word that
0:21:36 has no meaning in the context of the sentence, which is what we face on phones all the time.
0:21:41 So what we’re going to see is a whole different set of errors in business writing or academic
0:21:46 writing in schools that just replace other errors that have always creeped in.
0:21:46 Totally.
0:21:49 I remember Smalltalk was the hot language, right?
0:21:51 Well, Smalltalk was the start of it, and it was called Smalltalk 80.
0:21:52 Yes.
0:21:56 And then it really didn’t ever achieve any momentum outside of Palo Alto.
0:21:57 Yes.
0:21:59 But then C++ came along.
0:21:59 Yes.
0:22:02 And there were 50 languages in the middle that people don’t talk about.
0:22:02 Yes.
0:22:06 Like Objective-C being one of them, that was the iPhone language, which was really one Steve
0:22:06 Jobs.
0:22:11 There was Object Pascal and Pascal, Pascal with a relational database attached.
0:22:13 But this was my master’s degree.
0:22:14 Then I quit grad school.
0:22:17 I could go on about this one for far too long, so I’ll just stop now.
0:22:22 Do you think there will be best-selling novels that are entirely AI-generated or nearly entirely
0:22:23 in the next few years?
0:22:24 A hundred percent.
0:22:28 I don’t think Stephen King is going to do that, but I think there’ll be some new writer who
0:22:29 will probably write it under a pseudonym.
0:22:34 And a year after the novel is written and has been made into a movie, they’ll say, oh, by
0:22:39 the way, I got the plot idea from a prompt, and then I just started having writing and I
0:22:40 was editing it along the way.
0:22:41 Absolutely.
0:22:45 The copyright suit that follows from training models and stuff, that’s a different issue.
0:22:48 I think there’s two things on this, actually, that are really interesting.
0:22:52 So one is these language models are these averaging machines.
0:22:56 And with art, you almost definitely don’t want the average of all the novels or all the writing
0:22:57 or all the authors.
0:22:59 You want something that’s at the edge.
0:23:04 So how do we actually point them in a direction such that they can be at the edge of culture,
0:23:06 which I think is important for making great art?
0:23:11 I think the other thing is a lot of the artists don’t yet know how to use any new tools, and
0:23:13 we’re going to see artists that are native in the technology.
0:23:17 Instead, what we’re seeing a lot out there, what’s called the slop, has just been a lot
0:23:22 of this low barrier to entry art that’s being created, which is great because it gives people
0:23:24 the sort of fulfillment of creative generation.
0:23:29 I think what we’re talking less about is, hey, how is the ceiling being raised for artists
0:23:30 because they have access to these technologies?
0:23:36 Without going all de champa on what is art, I mean, bad sitcoms are part of society too,
0:23:38 but I think it’s important.
0:23:44 We tend to focus on like the very, very best of things, but most everything isn’t only the
0:23:45 very best.
0:23:47 In business writing, it’s all slop.
0:23:48 Yeah.
0:23:53 I mean, this is why, look, I’ve written a lot of business writing, so I can say this confidently
0:23:56 about what I’ve written and what gets written.
0:24:01 But take something completely mundane that a lot of people in Silicon Valley spend a lot
0:24:04 of time working on, like the enterprise software case study.
0:24:12 I’m telling you, GPT generates a better enterprise case studies faster than the typical marketing
0:24:15 associate does at a company in like one millionth effort.
0:24:16 Yes.
0:24:18 And does the content need to exist?
0:24:19 It actually does.
0:24:21 It’s just an important part of the selling process.
0:24:22 Yes.
0:24:26 And so at the extreme, like with something like medical diagnosis, we tend to think about
0:24:32 the most obscure diseases, the most difficult to understand problems, with the finest hospitals,
0:24:33 with the most resources.
0:24:39 But you have to remember, like 80% of the world has no access to anything.
0:24:39 Right.
0:24:40 Yes.
0:24:48 So wherever you think of medical LLM is, as in the slop scale, most people don’t have access
0:24:50 access to anything average.
0:24:55 So we have to just make sure that the whole debate does not center around, like, what is
0:24:58 Francis Ford Coppola using as the book?
0:24:59 And who are the actors?
0:24:59 Yes.
0:25:01 And who is the cinematographer?
0:25:06 Because that corporate case study, well, they often go and interview the person and film it.
0:25:09 Well, like, all of a sudden, we see it today.
0:25:10 Those things are done over Zoom.
0:25:11 Yes.
0:25:17 So suddenly, flying in or getting a satellite and booking, we’ve changed our view of excellent
0:25:19 because we wanted more access.
0:25:22 And I think that’s absolutely going to happen.
0:25:24 Should you get graded on slop in school?
0:25:25 That’s a different problem.
0:25:27 But most stuff is pretty average.
0:25:29 The world needs more slop, says Stephen.
0:25:33 I feel like this is an oppressed interview where you can put words in my mouth like that.
0:25:33 Yeah.
0:25:34 The world needs more slop.
0:25:35 That’ll be the title.
0:25:37 Well, so actually, Mark makes this point.
0:25:40 I think it’s a really good one, you know, which is, is the bar for success perfection?
0:25:43 Is the bar for success what people can do today?
0:25:46 Or is the bar for success just something that’s better than the alternative?
0:25:50 And in your case of 80% of the world that has access to no medical knowledge,
0:25:54 no medical services, no medical opinion, of course, this is dramatically better.
0:25:54 Yeah.
0:25:58 I look at it like when I had to get permission to use a word processor in college,
0:26:05 one of the stumbling blocks was that my printer was like an Epson MX80 dot matrix printer.
0:26:09 And it looked like a printer, like a computer printer,
0:26:13 which the rules for the papers were they had to be written on a typewriter.
0:26:13 Yes.
0:26:17 And then the Macintosh came out in the spring and only had an image writer,
0:26:19 which is another dot matrix printer.
0:26:25 So all of a sudden the standard changed because the value of being able to revise and edit and
0:26:32 update and copy paste and use fonts was just so much higher than the fidelity of the teacher
0:26:35 reading it on bond paper with courier.
0:26:37 And that’s going to happen with content as well.
0:26:41 What I would love to talk to you about, Stephen, is actually just hearing your take on I.O.
0:26:44 And if you felt like a Google I.O.
0:26:46 Oh, yeah, yeah.
0:26:51 So essentially there was a lot of conversation around Google and how Google had sort of fallen
0:26:54 behind and lost their ability to make new things.
0:26:57 They released a ton of new software at every part of the stack in I.O.
0:27:00 What do you think that says for Google about Google?
0:27:02 Do you think the sort of demise of Google is overstated?
0:27:06 Well, of course, I think the demise of Google is an absurd proposition.
0:27:11 The demise of a giant company is a crazy thing to say.
0:27:17 Driving in, I was listening on CNBC, some investor or whatever talking their book, talking about IBM
0:27:19 is the one to buy.
0:27:24 I almost wanted to pull over to the side of the road and think, what universe am I in
0:27:28 where this company that has died like nine times in my career?
0:27:28 Right.
0:27:30 And so death of is just such a done thing.
0:27:34 Losing a position of influence, however, is a very real thing.
0:27:40 In these platform transitions, big companies have an enormous asset, which is the shock and
0:27:41 awe asset.
0:27:46 And so they have the ability to tell the story called we’re pivoting our whole company around
0:27:49 this and we’re a zillion dollar in whole company.
0:27:59 And here is like a full assault across the board for every single asset we have and every
0:28:04 single category the world is talking about that matters.
0:28:06 And that’s what you could do.
0:28:11 Someone was asking me on Twitter yesterday about this event Microsoft held in 2000 called
0:28:12 Forum 2000.
0:28:18 And it was when we announced like a whole bunch of internet stuff and the early cloud stuff.
0:28:21 It wasn’t called cloud, but early cloud stuff.
0:28:24 And nobody in that room understood what we were talking about.
0:28:25 Not a person.
0:28:32 But they all left like, oh my God, there is so much stuff here, which is a repeat of five
0:28:35 years earlier when we did what was called Internet Strategy Day.
0:28:39 And like the headlines were literally sleeping giant awoke.
0:28:46 And so it was totally predictable that Google would show up with like literally the B2 bombers
0:28:48 of software.
0:28:52 But the question is really much deeper than that.
0:28:59 And it’s really, will they alter their context of how they build products and their go-to-market?
0:29:03 Because that’s really what undermines the big technology companies.
0:29:09 And so with Microsoft, the interesting thing was all those products that got announced over
0:29:13 that five-year span or 10-year span, none of them are around today.
0:29:15 I should be very careful every time I say something like this, I get assaulted.
0:29:22 But like the big announcement at Forum 2000 was the .NET framework in C Sharp, which by
0:29:26 almost any measure, one would call a legacy platform today.
0:29:30 So it like came and went in six or seven years.
0:29:36 And everything was about virtual machines and clustering and all this stuff that VMware was
0:29:36 doing.
0:29:38 And that’s not where anything was.
0:29:42 And on top of all that, the economic model became SaaS.
0:29:49 And so what I’m looking at with Google is not, can they present all the technologies in the
0:29:56 context of Google search and ads, but can they transform the way they think to something
0:29:56 new?
0:29:59 Because that’s really where the disruption is going to happen.
0:30:00 I love that point.
0:30:00 Cool.
0:30:01 Awesome.
0:30:03 Anish, Stephen, thanks so much for this weekend.
0:30:03 Sure thing.
0:30:04 Thank you.
0:30:04 Super fun.
0:30:09 Thanks for listening to the A16Z podcast.
0:30:14 If you enjoyed the episode, let us know by leaving a review at ratethispodcast.com slash
0:30:15 A16Z.
0:30:18 We’ve got more great conversations coming your way.
0:30:19 See you next time.

0:00:04 Imagine a delicious ring of dough with a sweet, mouth-watering spread on top.
0:00:06 Sounds like a donut, right?
0:00:12 Well, if you spread New Philadelphia Blueberry or New Philadelphia Pineapple on top of your bagel,
0:00:14 your bagel almost becomes a donut.
0:00:15 It becomes a bow-nut.
0:00:21 Turn your bagel into a bow-nut with New Philadelphia Blueberry and Philadelphia Pineapple.
0:00:22 Made with real fruit.
0:00:27 Welcome to Office Hours with Prop G.
0:00:30 This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship,
0:00:32 and whatever else is on your mind.
0:00:33 What’s happening?
0:00:39 Today, we’re continuing our special series, Prop G, on marketing, where we answer your marketing questions.
0:00:44 And just a reminder, Office Hours now drops every Monday and Friday, twice a week, twice the Prop G.
0:00:50 So if you’d like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to officehours at propgmedia.com.
0:00:52 Again, that’s officehours at propgmedia.com.
0:00:59 Or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in our next episode.
0:01:00 That’s right.
0:01:01 You’re welcome.
0:01:02 All right, first question.
0:01:08 Our first question comes from BoxerTheHorse on Reddit.
0:01:13 They ask, is advertising on Meta platforms worthwhile?
0:01:19 Considering Meta openly admits using AI bots for engagement, are most of the people clicking on my ads even real?
0:01:23 Furthermore, isn’t that click fraud when I might be paying for bots to engage with my paid advertising?
0:01:25 I appreciate your insights.
0:01:28 I think Meta is a cancer.
0:01:37 I think that essentially when you have 6.5% of American teens are addicted to drugs or alcohol and 24% are addicted to social media, we have a problem.
0:01:47 And whether it was Sheryl Sandberg saying we need to do better or Mark Zuckerberg saying that he’d heard or read studies that social media was actually good on the psychological well-being of young people,
0:01:51 they have lied to the American public over and over and over.
0:01:59 There’s really few people who’ve done more damage to global youth than Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg while making more money.
0:02:00 I used to own the stock.
0:02:01 It’s an amazing stock.
0:02:02 He’s a brilliant businessman.
0:02:05 I think the stock has probably quadrupled since I sold it.
0:02:08 But I’m not strongly ethical about my financial positions.
0:02:11 Strongly ethical, judgmental, whatever the term is.
0:02:13 I just want to make money, so I’ll buy stocks I think they’re going up.
0:02:17 But I had trouble holding on to this stock, so I sold it.
0:02:21 See above, missed out on probably 200% or 300% gains.
0:02:22 He’s an absolutely brilliant businessman.
0:02:23 Back to your question.
0:02:25 Oh, yeah, it’s so worth it.
0:02:30 And the notion that there’s some click fraud and some waste, what percentage of people who see your ad on television
0:02:34 are technically fraud in the sense that they have absolutely no interest in your product?
0:02:41 You have what is probably, and I hate to say it, the most efficient marketing vehicle in the world.
0:02:45 It’s probably the ad stack and the ad tech brought to you by Meta.
0:02:50 If you think about AI, we tend to think of it through valuation or how it’s consumer-facing,
0:02:52 ChatGPT, Anthropic.
0:02:56 And then we think about the background, the infrastructure, NVIDIA.
0:03:00 You could argue that potentially the biggest winner from AI is Meta.
0:03:10 They’re the second largest purchaser of NVIDIA chips behind Microsoft, and they have, I think it’s 1.7 trillion tokens.
0:03:14 That’s basically Latin for who has the most information to feed into and feed the LLMs.
0:03:20 To give you a sense, Reddit, where we get a lot of these questions, has 1.3 trillion tokens.
0:03:24 So they have the most information and the second most processing power.
0:03:25 And how are they using it?
0:03:29 Are they, is it LLMA, their consumer-facing AI, LLM?
0:03:29 No.
0:03:35 The way they’re making money is that they can figure out how to target you at exactly the right time with the right offer.
0:03:49 And they’re also talking about going upstream and doing some of the creative work and also producing commercials that can, on the fly, automatically transition to a young couple if you just had a baby driving their Toyota Sequoia or a Toyota Camry.
0:03:56 If they’ve since you’re 70 and are looking for just an economical car and don’t care about having any sort of game, see above Camry.
0:04:06 So they are moving upstream into creative and into media buying and can, you know, create sort of real-time, on-demand creative.
0:04:08 So, yeah, does it work?
0:04:09 Absolutely.
0:04:13 And the notion that it’s fraud, just think of it as leakage or waste.
0:04:21 But there’s a reason why this is one of the fastest-growing media companies, if not the fastest-growing company in history.
0:04:22 What do you do?
0:04:24 You just set up, you kind of decide what is it you want.
0:04:25 Do you want to create awareness?
0:04:28 Do you want to create traffic to your website?
0:04:31 Do you want to inspire foot traffic into a car dealership?
0:04:35 And you set apart metrics, and then you do a bunch of different tests.
0:04:40 And there’s even AI media and tracking models, and you figure out which platform is working for you.
0:04:42 Now, there is a cumulative test.
0:04:47 I find that most successful marketers don’t isolate their media spend to any one medium.
0:04:55 That when you see ads or offers across different mediums, it creates more of a loyalty effect or a cumulative effect or a whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts.
0:05:02 But if you’re just a small business just starting out, I say, all right, try and get some awareness.
0:05:04 Try and build some awareness with just content marketing.
0:05:14 Create your own content, your own Instagram on social, and then try and monetize it with direct response advertising, buying some Google keywords, buying some ads on Meta.
0:05:21 But set up really strong metrics and hold yourself accountable or the people accountable who are spending your precious dollars on what’s working and what isn’t.
0:05:32 In sum, yeah, the reason why this company is one of the most valuable companies in the world, and Mark Zuckerberg is, I think, the fourth wealthiest person in the world right now, is because, yeah, the bottom line is this shit works.
0:05:34 And when I say shit, see above, I mean Meta.
0:05:38 Our second question comes from Bruin Aggie on Reddit.
0:05:38 They say,
0:05:46 What books and material do you recommend if you don’t have time or money to get another degree outside of marketing?
0:05:49 Well, it kind of depends what you’re interested in, boss.
0:06:06 Well, first of all, I would read the four or five most important or type in into AI four or five most similar books on history, like lessons from history or guns, germs, and steel, just like four or five basics to get rooted in history.
0:06:13 Because I think that gives you a sense for, which is funny, because in college, I didn’t take a lot of history, and I wish I had.
0:06:23 I would think about doing a couple courses online, and there’s just, you know, whether it’s Khan Academy or I think Masterclass is not really what I call college.
0:06:24 I think it’s more entertainment.
0:06:33 But there are a lot of courses now you can take for free that anyone from Harvard to Berkeley offers, and just be curious.
0:06:41 And then also, I do think some of the online courses that test you, such that you hold yourself accountable to learning certain things,
0:06:52 the reason why there’s, you could probably string together a reasonable facsimile of an MBA from Wharton or Tuck, like a really high-priced elite MBA, using just what’s free online.
0:06:57 If you’re into finance, you want to go to DeMotorin’s blog.
0:06:58 Is it On Valuation?
0:07:04 Anyway, ask about DeMotorin and read his posts every day and start just getting up to speed and reading a bunch of financial blogs.
0:07:10 But I would set a base of trying to learn some history.
0:07:14 I think a basic biology and science courses.
0:07:23 And then if you’re interested in business, I think you need to understand some basics around accounting, which is sort of the language of business, and some basics around finance evaluation.
0:07:27 But it’s sort of what you’re interested in, and then trying to hold yourself accountable.
0:07:29 And also, there’s just no getting around it, reading a lot.
0:07:36 Reading, you know, when you read a book, you’re sort of a mini-expert for about five minutes after you finish the book.
0:07:39 But I’d say the most important thing is just to stay curious.
0:07:41 And I like deadlines.
0:07:46 I give myself a deadline whenever I’m trying to learn something or get a certain amount of information.
0:07:52 I was thinking about going back and actually taking another accounting course, specifically, or a distressed credit course.
0:07:53 I’m really interested in credit and bankruptcy.
0:07:55 Huh, amazing.
0:07:57 Amazing I don’t have more friends.
0:08:05 But, yeah, there’s a lot of great resources for learning if you want to learn a language, do a lingo, Khan Academy.
0:08:07 There’s just a ton of great ways to learn.
0:08:21 But, again, I think the most fun way to learn, the easiest way to learn and replace or supplant your college degree is just to read wonderful authors on subject material that gives you more of a global perspective.
0:08:22 Thanks for the question.
0:08:25 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
0:08:34 What’s better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue?
0:08:40 A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door.
0:08:45 A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool.
0:08:49 Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered.
0:08:54 Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders.
0:08:57 Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply.
0:08:58 Instacart.
0:09:00 Groceries that over-deliver.
0:09:05 Welcome back on our final question from DDXV.
0:09:12 Professor, what’s the difference between how the political right and the political left market podcasts?
0:09:14 As a kid, my mom drove us around a lot.
0:09:20 And she always listened to the far right and radio shows despite being an old hippie.
0:09:22 She said it was more engaging, and I frankly have to agree.
0:09:27 Lately, since the election, I started listening to a few right shows and noticed the differences.
0:09:29 Let’s take Steve Bannon’s War Room.
0:09:30 It’s four hours a day.
0:09:31 Wow.
0:09:33 It comes out as four separate podcasts each day.
0:09:38 His cold opens of playing unedited liberal talking points, sometimes for up to five or ten minutes.
0:09:39 It’s quite bold.
0:09:41 I can’t imagine a left podcast getting away with that.
0:09:52 Then I listened to my liberal favorites like Ezra Klein and its much calmer, deeply focused discussions, no random interrupts or cheesy music, much less of an ad for pillows.
0:09:56 Anyways, I’d love to know what you think about the marketing differences between the right and left podcasts.
0:09:59 That’s a super interesting question.
0:10:15 So first off, I think on the left, we need to acknowledge that the majority of the people controlling media up until the 80s and 90s were college-educated urban professionals who skew more progressive.
0:10:22 And as a result, there was a huge swath of America, maybe even half of America, that felt that they had been ignored and that no one was really speaking to them.
0:10:27 And then the rise of AM radio and podcasts basically filled that void.
0:10:31 And the real juggernaut or the tanker to fill that void was Fox.
0:10:43 They realized, okay, this liberal, sappy, virtue-signaling, kind of corporate elitist bullshit of Democrats who pretend to give a fuck once they already have their own money.
0:10:49 People were sick of it, and they just drove a freight train through this opening.
0:10:51 And podcasts have kind of done the same.
0:11:09 Now, where things really came off the track, and this is true of the left and the right, is that back in the 70s and the 80s, what you had was ABC, NBC, and CBS would print money running Jiffy ads on the Partridge family, which was genius.
0:11:13 70 or 80 percent of America was tuning into the same three channels for five hours a day.
0:11:15 And they were just printing money.
0:11:22 And as a public service, they would take a small amount of their profits, and they’d do this really boring, shitty show called The News, The Evening News.
0:11:31 And then on The Evening News, they started this two- or three-minute segment called, what I remember, Senator Jim Tunney and Bruce Hershenson called Point Counterpoint.
0:11:38 And what they found is that was the most engaging and entertaining part of the show, where they pit two people with different political views against each other.
0:11:39 And it would get personal.
0:11:44 It was kind of fun to watch these two grown men treat each other like fucking children or act like children, I should say.
0:11:46 And then they decided, okay, that’s it.
0:11:50 And Murdoch recognized this isn’t news, it’s entertainment.
0:12:06 And the problem with news is it’s really boring and not that entertaining because you have to fact check it, be more thoughtful, slow down, use your critical thinking, look at sort of, you know, angles of truth that there is, there is a truth, if you will, trying to pursue it.
0:12:10 They realized that news could be entertainment.
0:12:13 And the way you entertain people was to find people who already agreed.
0:12:14 They didn’t want illumination.
0:12:16 They wanted support.
0:12:19 They wanted validation or they wanted to cement their existing views.
0:12:24 And also filling it up all day long with 24-hour news required a lot of quote-unquote entertainment.
0:12:28 What you have is novelty is just more interesting.
0:12:36 And Democrats like to appeal to their college-educated brethren and they want a virtue signal and clutch their pearls and just be indignant.
0:12:51 And just be indignant and a little bit more thoughtful and slow things down, which is, okay, and then Sean Hannity comes on and starts spreading conspiracy theory that, I don’t know, Joe Biden is a woman.
0:12:59 If the left were more entertaining, all they would be talking about is the fact that Melania Trump fucking hates her husband and hasn’t spent, I mean, effectively their divorce.
0:13:03 I think she likes going to fashion shows and being invited to everything.
0:13:15 And her grift, her mini grift, her not-so-successful grift, the Melania coin, it would just be, if the left were the right in podcasting, they would just be covering nonstop how much Melania hates Donald Trump.
0:13:26 But they do a better job of catering to an audience that is more conspiratorial, more interested in stories, more interested in support than illumination.
0:13:28 The left goes wonky.
0:13:31 The left goes deeper, which is more appropriate, more fact-checking.
0:13:33 But quite frankly, it’s just not as entertaining.
0:13:35 So, what do we have?
0:13:40 We have gone from that three minutes of point-counterpoint to 24 by 7.
0:13:42 And news is no longer news.
0:13:42 It’s entertainment.
0:13:47 Anyways, they do a better job on the right than we do on the left.
0:13:51 They’re servicing a community that, quite frankly, has been underserved traditionally.
0:13:56 And they’re not afraid to stretch the old, what’s that thing, that old tea thing, the old true thing.
0:13:58 Thanks for your question.
0:14:02 That’s all for this episode.
0:14:06 If you’d like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehoursofproftmedia.com.
0:14:09 Again, that’s officehoursofproftmedia.com.
0:14:16 Or, if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in an upcoming episode.

0:00:05 The following is a debate between Scott Horton and Mark Dubowitz on the topic of Iran and Israel.
0:00:12 Scott Horton is author and editorial director of antiwar.com, host of The Scott Horton Show,
0:00:19 and for the past three decades, a staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy and military interventionism.
0:00:24 Mark Dubowitz is a chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
0:00:34 host of the Iran Breakdown podcast, and he has been a leading expert on Iran and its nuclear program for over 20 years.
0:00:39 And now, a quick few second mention of his sponsor.
0:00:44 Check them out in the description or at lexfreedman.com slash sponsors.
0:00:46 It’s the best way to support this podcast.
0:00:53 We got Hampton for a private, highly vetted community for founders and CEOs,
0:00:58 Notion for team collaboration and note-taking, Shopify for selling stuff online,
0:01:02 Oracle for cloud computing, and Element for your health.
0:01:03 Choose who is it, my friends.
0:01:06 And now, on to the full ad reads.
0:01:07 They’re all here in one place.
0:01:12 I try to make them interesting by talking about some random things I’m reading or thinking about,
0:01:15 but if you do skip, please still check out our sponsors.
0:01:16 I enjoy their stuff.
0:01:17 Maybe you will, too.
0:01:22 To get in touch with me, for whatever reason, go to lexfreedman.com slash contact.
0:01:23 All right, let’s go.
0:01:31 This episode is brought to you by a new sponsor, an incredible community called Hampton.
0:01:36 It’s a private, highly vetted community for high-growth founders and CEOs.
0:01:39 It is lonely to be a leader.
0:01:49 Every CEO I know, every founder I know, especially in the early days, are truly on an emotional rollercoaster.
0:01:53 So, Hampton provides a great community for the founders to meet.
0:02:01 Every month, eight founders, face-to-face, having real conversations about daily struggles entailed in being a founder,
0:02:04 and entailed in being human, quite frankly.
0:02:11 Groups are forming in New York City, Austin, San Francisco, L.A., Miami, Denver, and other top cities nationwide.
0:02:18 I’m going to be more and more part of this community because there’s very few things that will make me happier
0:02:24 than building a company that does something useful in this big world of ours.
0:02:34 If you’re a founder who’s tired of carrying it all alone, visit joinhampton.com slash lex to see if it’s a fit for you.
0:02:37 That’s joinhampton.com slash lex.
0:02:45 This episode is brought to you by Notion, a note-taking and team collaboration tool that is superpowered by AI.
0:02:50 It integrates AI into the note-taking process better than basically anything I’ve tried,
0:02:54 and that’s certainly true in the case of teams.
0:02:59 So, it’s doing things like collecting all the information from the meeting you just had.
0:03:06 It captures everything, can make it searchable, summarized, there’s transcriptions, all of that,
0:03:09 and it’s all automatically saved in Notion.
0:03:19 And they do search across multiple apps, so across the whole Microsoft ecosystem, Google, like Gmail Drive, everything.
0:03:25 And by the way, they integrate many of the latest language models, Claude, GPT.
0:03:31 If you want to try a piece of software that integrates AI extremely well, like I’ve said many times,
0:03:34 it’s not just about the intelligence of the model.
0:03:40 It’s about the integration of that model into a system, into an interface,
0:03:46 that actually allows you to maximally leverage that intelligence for a particular set of tasks.
0:03:50 Try Notion AI for free when you go to Notion.com slash Lex.
0:03:56 That’s all lowercase, Notion.com slash Lex, to try the power of Notion AI today.
0:04:04 This episode is brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great-looking online store.
0:04:07 I have a store on there, LexFreeman.com slash store.
0:04:12 I’m probably going to be doing an episode on the Silk Road, history of the Silk Road.
0:04:18 The actual Silk Road, not the modern-day digital kind.
0:04:25 Any history that gives us an inkling of the transformation between the very early humans
0:04:30 to the more modern, advanced technology humans.
0:04:31 Any of that.
0:04:39 Silk Road is one of those technologies that gives you a glimpse of what it was like in the tribal life before,
0:04:45 and what was it like in a fully integrated network of cities after,
0:04:48 into the transformational periods of human history.
0:04:49 All of that.
0:04:50 I love studying it.
0:04:57 But humans interacting, whether it’s through conflict and war, or peacetime trade,
0:04:59 that has always been fascinating to me.
0:05:04 Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash Lex.
0:05:05 That’s all lowercase.
0:05:11 Go to Shopify.com slash Lex to take your business to the next level today.
0:05:14 This episode is also brought to you by Oracle,
0:05:20 a company providing a fully integrated stack of cloud applications and cloud platform services.
0:05:30 More and more of the digital intelligence that has taken over our lives and the functions of society
0:05:33 is going to be taking up more and more compute.
0:05:39 And of course, a large fraction of that, especially for the smaller players, will be in the cloud.
0:05:52 So it’s great to have companies like Oracle who are delivering a huge amount of compute and storage in the cloud and doing it affordably.
0:05:57 Cut your cloud bill in half when you switch to OCI.
0:06:00 That’s Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.
0:06:05 Offers for new U.S. customers with a minimum financial commitment.
0:06:10 See if you qualify at Oracle.com slash Lex.
0:06:12 That’s Oracle.com slash Lex.
0:06:15 This episode is also brought to you by Element,
0:06:20 my daily zero-sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
0:06:22 I’m going to be traveling a bit,
0:06:24 and I’m going to bring a bunch of Element with me,
0:06:26 because it’s one of the sources of happiness for me.
0:06:30 Once again, I brought Element packets to the Amazon,
0:06:37 where the taste of water provided one of the greatest experiences of my life.
0:06:39 It’s the yin and yang of life.
0:06:45 Not having something, craving it, waiting for it, and then finally having it.
0:06:47 That’s a great feeling.
0:06:51 I almost never, no matter the distance, drink water when I run.
0:06:55 Especially for the longer runs, if it’s like 12, 15 miles.
0:06:59 When I get back, especially in the Texas heat,
0:07:01 you know, I’m a bit dehydrated,
0:07:04 so get a cold water bottle with Element in it.
0:07:05 Ah, it’s a good feeling.
0:07:11 Get a free eight-count sample pack for free with any purchase.
0:07:15 Try it at drinkelement.com slash Lex.
0:07:18 This is the Lex Freedman Podcast.
0:07:20 To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description,
0:07:23 or at lexfreedman.com slash sponsors.
0:07:26 And consider subscribing, commenting,
0:07:29 and sharing the podcast with folks who might find it interesting.
0:07:32 I promise to work extremely hard
0:07:36 to always bring you nuanced, long-form conversations
0:07:38 with a wide variety of interesting people
0:07:40 from all walks of life.
0:07:42 And now, dear friends,
0:07:46 here’s Scott Horton and Mark Dubowitz.
0:08:05 Gentlemen, all right, it’s great to have you here.
0:08:09 Let’s try to have a nuanced discussion slash debate
0:08:12 and maybe even steal man-opposing perspectives
0:08:13 as much as possible.
0:08:15 All right, as it stands now,
0:08:17 there’s a barely stable ceasefire
0:08:18 between Iran and Israel.
0:08:22 Let’s maybe rewind a little bit.
0:08:25 Can we first lay out the context
0:08:27 for this Iran-Israel war
0:08:29 and try to describe the key events
0:08:30 that happened over the past two weeks?
0:08:34 Maybe even a bit of the deep roots of the conflict.
0:08:35 Sure.
0:08:37 First of all, thanks so much for having me on.
0:08:38 Great to be on with Scott.
0:08:40 I know he and I don’t agree on a lot,
0:08:41 but I certainly admire the passion
0:08:45 and the dedication to stopping wars.
0:08:47 So that’s something we want to talk about.
0:08:49 So let’s talk about how we got to this war.
0:08:51 So President Trump comes into office
0:08:55 and immediately lays out that his Iran strategy
0:08:58 is maximum pressure on the regime
0:09:00 and he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
0:09:03 And he makes that clear consistently.
0:09:06 I think he made it very clear during his first term,
0:09:07 made a clear threat throughout his career
0:09:12 and thus begins this process with the Iranians,
0:09:14 which has kind of multiple tracks,
0:09:17 but the one that Trump sees most interested in at the time
0:09:18 is the diplomatic track.
0:09:20 And he makes it very clear from the beginning
0:09:22 and a sort of Oval Office remark.
0:09:24 He says the Iranians can either blow up
0:09:27 their nuclear program under U.S. supervision
0:09:29 or someone’s going to blow it up for them.
0:09:32 And even though, you know, at the time,
0:09:35 we think Netanyahu is really trying to push the president
0:09:36 into a military campaign.
0:09:39 Well, I’m sure we’ll talk about that throughout the podcast.
0:09:43 The president authorizes his lead negotiator
0:09:45 and close friend, Steve Witkoff,
0:09:47 to begin outreach to the Iranians
0:09:49 and thus begun the Oman round.
0:09:51 And it’s Oman round because it’s taking place in Oman
0:09:54 with mediation efforts by the Omanis.
0:09:58 There are five rounds of negotiations with the Iranians.
0:10:00 And through the course of those negotiations,
0:10:05 the U.S. finally puts on the table an offer for Iran.
0:10:07 We’ll talk about the details of that.
0:10:08 The Iranians reject that offer.
0:10:11 And we’re now into the sixth round,
0:10:14 which is supposed to take place on a Sunday.
0:10:17 On the Thursday before the Sunday,
0:10:21 the Israelis strike and they go after
0:10:23 in a rather devastating campaign
0:10:26 over a matter of now 12 days,
0:10:29 they go over and go after Iran’s nuclear program,
0:10:31 the key nuclear sites,
0:10:34 going after weapons scientists
0:10:35 who are responsible for building
0:10:38 Iran’s nuclear weapons program,
0:10:41 and also go after top IRGC,
0:10:42 Islamic Revolutionary Guard commanders,
0:10:44 as well as top military commanders.
0:10:48 And yet there’s still this one site
0:10:50 that is the most fortified site.
0:10:51 It’s called Fordow.
0:10:52 It’s an enrichment facility.
0:10:54 It’s buried under a mountain,
0:10:56 goes about 80 meters deep.
0:10:57 It’s encased in concrete.
0:10:59 It has advanced centrifuges
0:11:00 and highly enriched uranium.
0:11:03 The Israelis can do damage to it,
0:11:04 but it’s clear it’s going to take
0:11:07 the United States and our military power
0:11:09 in order to severely
0:11:11 degrade this facility.
0:11:13 And Trump orders
0:11:14 the United States Air Force
0:11:16 to fly B-2 bombers
0:11:19 and drop 12 massive Ordens penetrators,
0:11:21 which are these 30,000-pound bombs
0:11:24 on Fordow in order to,
0:11:25 as he said,
0:11:27 obliterate it more realistically
0:11:29 to severely degrade it.
0:11:30 So that happens.
0:11:33 And then he offers the Iranians,
0:11:34 as he’s been offering all the way through,
0:11:36 you have an option.
0:11:37 You can go back to Oman.
0:11:38 I told you Oman,
0:11:40 and you decided to force me
0:11:41 to go to Fordow.
0:11:42 But now we can go back
0:11:43 for negotiations.
0:11:46 And he forces a ceasefire
0:11:47 on the Iranians,
0:11:48 gets the Israelis to agree.
0:11:50 And that’s where we are today.
0:11:51 That’s right, as you say,
0:11:52 a tentative ceasefire
0:11:54 that just came into effect.
0:11:55 And we’ll see now
0:11:57 if the Iranians decide
0:11:58 to take President Trump
0:12:00 on his repeated offers,
0:12:01 join him in Oman
0:12:03 for another round of negotiations.
0:12:04 Scott, is there some stuff
0:12:05 you want to add to that?
0:12:06 Sure.
0:12:09 Well, he started with January, right?
0:12:10 Trump’s second term here
0:12:12 in the maximum pressure campaign.
0:12:13 Essentially,
0:12:15 as should be clear to everyone now,
0:12:17 all these negotiations
0:12:18 were just a pretext for war.
0:12:20 Trump and his entire cabinet
0:12:22 must have known
0:12:23 that the Ayatollah
0:12:24 is not going to give up
0:12:26 all enrichment.
0:12:28 That is their latent
0:12:29 nuclear deterrent.
0:12:31 Their posture has been
0:12:32 heavily implied,
0:12:34 don’t attack us
0:12:35 and we won’t make a nuke.
0:12:37 While America’s position was,
0:12:38 if you make a nuke,
0:12:39 if you start to,
0:12:40 we’ll attack you.
0:12:42 So it’s the perfect standoff.
0:12:43 But what happened was,
0:12:44 and you might remember
0:12:45 a few weeks ago,
0:12:46 there was some talk about,
0:12:47 well, maybe we could find a way
0:12:49 to compromise on some enrichment.
0:12:50 Maybe they could do a consortium
0:12:51 with the Saudis.
0:12:53 Maybe there’s some way that we,
0:12:53 and then nope,
0:12:55 the pressure came down.
0:12:56 No enrichment,
0:12:57 zero enrichment.
0:12:58 But that’s a red line.
0:13:00 Everyone knows that there’s,
0:13:01 and even now,
0:13:04 it’s probably less likely than ever
0:13:06 that they’re going to give up enrichment.
0:13:07 Sure, they bombed Fordo,
0:13:08 but they didn’t destroy
0:13:09 every last centrifuge in that place.
0:13:12 And the Iranians are already announcing
0:13:14 that they’re already begun construction
0:13:15 on another facility
0:13:17 under a taller mountain,
0:13:18 buried even deeper.
0:13:19 And, you know,
0:13:20 they figured out
0:13:22 how to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas,
0:13:23 you know,
0:13:24 what, 20 years ago now.
0:13:27 And they will always be able to.
0:13:29 And this is the slippery slope
0:13:31 that we’re on with these wars.
0:13:32 Is, in fact,
0:13:35 I saw a friend here on TV the other day,
0:13:37 as he almost pretty much
0:13:38 just implied there,
0:13:38 saying, well,
0:13:40 now Trump has to go in.
0:13:41 You know,
0:13:42 we were told,
0:13:43 it’s just Israel doing it.
0:13:43 Don’t worry.
0:13:44 But then, no,
0:13:45 Trump has to
0:13:47 hit Fordo,
0:13:49 or else now
0:13:50 they’ll break out
0:13:51 toward a nuclear weapon.
0:13:52 So, in for a penny,
0:13:53 in for a pound,
0:13:54 in for a ton.
0:13:55 And now,
0:13:56 once we bomb
0:13:57 Fordo again,
0:13:58 and Natanz again,
0:14:00 and the new facility again,
0:14:01 then it’ll be decided that,
0:14:01 no,
0:14:04 as Benjamin Netanyahu said the other day,
0:14:04 you know,
0:14:05 it would really solve this problem
0:14:07 if we just kill the Ayatollah.
0:14:09 Then everything will be fine.
0:14:11 Then we’ll have a regime change.
0:14:11 And then what?
0:14:13 Then we’ll have a civil war
0:14:14 with Bin Ladenites
0:14:15 again in the catbird seat,
0:14:17 just like George Bush
0:14:18 put them in Iraq
0:14:19 and Barack Obama
0:14:20 put them in Libya
0:14:21 and in Syria.
0:14:23 And we’ll have Aziris
0:14:24 and Baluki suicide bombers
0:14:26 and Shiite,
0:14:27 you know,
0:14:28 revolutionaries
0:14:28 and whoever
0:14:30 all vying for power
0:14:31 in the new
0:14:32 absolute chaos stand.
0:14:34 If you listen to the administration
0:14:35 and Mr. Duis,
0:14:37 they’re essentially just implying that,
0:14:37 like, oh yeah,
0:14:38 mission accomplished.
0:14:39 We did it.
0:14:40 Their nuclear program’s destroyed.
0:14:41 Now we don’t have to worry
0:14:41 about that anymore.
0:14:42 But that’s not true.
0:14:43 Now there’s
0:14:45 every reason to believe,
0:14:46 and we don’t know for sure,
0:14:48 there’s every reason
0:14:48 to believe
0:14:49 that at least
0:14:51 it’s much more likely now
0:14:52 that the Ayatollah
0:14:53 will change his mind
0:14:55 about God changing his mind
0:14:56 and will say that actually
0:14:57 maybe we do need
0:14:58 a nuclear deterrent.
0:15:00 That’s really what it’s been for
0:15:00 this whole time
0:15:01 is a bluff.
0:15:03 We have bullets in one pocket,
0:15:04 revolver in another.
0:15:05 Let’s not you and me fight
0:15:06 and escalate this thing.
0:15:07 It’s the same position,
0:15:07 by the way,
0:15:09 as Japan and Germany
0:15:10 and Brazil.
0:15:11 Two of the three of those
0:15:12 are under America’s
0:15:12 nuclear umbrella,
0:15:13 I admit,
0:15:13 but still,
0:15:15 where they’ve proven
0:15:16 they’ve mastered the fuel cycle
0:15:17 and they can make
0:15:17 nuclear weapons,
0:15:18 but hey,
0:15:19 since nobody’s
0:15:20 directly threatening them now,
0:15:21 why escalate things
0:15:22 and go ahead
0:15:22 and make atom bombs?
0:15:24 That has been their position
0:15:25 the whole time
0:15:25 because after all,
0:15:27 they could not break out
0:15:28 and make a nuke
0:15:29 without everyone in the world
0:15:30 knowing about it.
0:15:31 And that’s why,
0:15:31 Lex,
0:15:32 and I’m sure you can vouch
0:15:32 for me on this,
0:15:33 if you’ve been watching TV
0:15:34 over the past few weeks,
0:15:36 you’ll hear Marco Rubio
0:15:37 and all the government officials
0:15:38 and all the Warhawks say,
0:15:38 oh yeah,
0:15:39 60%,
0:15:39 60%,
0:15:41 what do you think
0:15:41 they need
0:15:42 with that 60%?
0:15:43 Implying that,
0:15:44 oh yeah,
0:15:44 see,
0:15:45 they’re racing toward a bomb.
0:15:46 But you see how
0:15:47 they always just imply that?
0:15:48 They won’t come right out
0:15:49 and say that
0:15:50 because it’s a ridiculous lie.
0:15:52 they could have enriched
0:15:53 up to 90 plus percent
0:15:55 uranium-235 this whole time.
0:15:56 The reason they were enriching
0:15:57 up to 60%
0:15:58 was in reaction
0:15:59 to Israeli sabotage,
0:16:00 first of all,
0:16:01 assassinating their nuclear scientists
0:16:02 and then their sabotage
0:16:03 at Natanz.
0:16:04 They started enriching
0:16:05 up to 60%
0:16:05 just like they did
0:16:06 in the Obama years
0:16:08 to have a bargaining chip
0:16:09 to negotiate away.
0:16:10 Under the JCPOA,
0:16:11 they shipped out
0:16:12 every bit of their
0:16:13 enriched uranium to France
0:16:15 to be turned into fuel rods
0:16:16 and then shipped back
0:16:17 into the country
0:16:18 to be used in their reactors.
0:16:19 And so,
0:16:20 they’re just trying
0:16:21 to get us back
0:16:22 in that deal.
0:16:23 It is an illusion.
0:16:23 It is,
0:16:25 and I don’t know exactly
0:16:26 what’s in this man’s mind,
0:16:27 but it’s just not true
0:16:28 that they’re making
0:16:29 nuclear weapons
0:16:30 and it has been a lie
0:16:32 of Benjamin Netanyahu
0:16:34 and his Likud party regime
0:16:34 and for that matter
0:16:35 the Kadima regime
0:16:37 of Ehud Olmert before him
0:16:38 that this is a threat
0:16:40 that has to be preempted
0:16:41 when in fact
0:16:42 it never was anything more
0:16:43 than a latent
0:16:44 nuclear deterrent.
0:16:46 Maybe a good question
0:16:47 to ask here
0:16:50 is what is the goal
0:16:51 for the United States
0:16:51 in Iran
0:16:52 in relation
0:16:54 to the nuclear,
0:16:56 Iran’s nuclear program?
0:16:59 What is the red line here?
0:17:00 Does Iran have this
0:17:02 need for a latent
0:17:03 nuclear deterrent?
0:17:05 And what is the thing
0:17:06 that’s acceptable
0:17:07 to the United States
0:17:08 and to the rest of the world?
0:17:09 What should be acceptable?
0:17:10 Yeah, Alex.
0:17:10 So,
0:17:11 there was a lot
0:17:11 to unpack there.
0:17:12 So,
0:17:12 let’s sort of just
0:17:13 back up a little bit
0:17:14 and talk about,
0:17:14 first of all,
0:17:16 the regime itself,
0:17:17 Islamic Republic of Iran
0:17:18 came into power
0:17:18 in 1979.
0:17:20 It has been declared
0:17:21 a leading state sponsor
0:17:22 of terrorism
0:17:23 by multiple administrations
0:17:24 dating back
0:17:25 to the Clinton administration
0:17:27 by Obama,
0:17:28 by Biden,
0:17:28 by Trump.
0:17:30 And it is a regime
0:17:31 that has killed
0:17:32 and maimed
0:17:33 thousands of Americans,
0:17:34 not to mention,
0:17:35 obviously,
0:17:36 hundreds of thousands
0:17:37 of Middle Easterners.
0:17:39 It is a regime
0:17:40 that has lied
0:17:42 about its nuclear program
0:17:43 and never actually
0:17:44 disclosed
0:17:45 its nuclear sites.
0:17:45 All these sites
0:17:46 were discovered
0:17:49 by Iranian opposition groups,
0:17:50 by Western intelligence agencies,
0:17:52 and the International
0:17:53 Atomic Energy Agency,
0:17:55 which is the UN agency
0:17:56 responsible for
0:17:58 preventing proliferation,
0:17:59 has come out
0:18:00 again and again
0:18:01 over many,
0:18:01 many years
0:18:02 in reports,
0:18:04 very detailed reports,
0:18:06 describing Iran’s
0:18:07 nuclear weapons program.
0:18:09 There have been
0:18:10 multiple attempts
0:18:12 at diplomacy with Iran.
0:18:13 I’m sure we’re going
0:18:13 to talk about it.
0:18:15 Scott mentioned the JCPOA,
0:18:16 so we should certainly
0:18:17 talk about the JCPOA,
0:18:18 which was the 2015 deal
0:18:19 that Barack Obama
0:18:20 reached with Iran.
0:18:22 But multiple attempts
0:18:23 to actually get the Iranians
0:18:25 to negotiate away
0:18:26 their nuclear weapons program.
0:18:27 I mean, it’s worth mentioning
0:18:29 that if Iran wanted
0:18:30 to have civilian nuclear energy,
0:18:32 there are 23 countries
0:18:33 in the world that have it,
0:18:35 but they don’t have enrichment
0:18:36 and they don’t have reprocessing.
0:18:38 We sign these deals
0:18:39 called the gold standard
0:18:40 with the South Koreans,
0:18:41 with the Emiratis,
0:18:41 with others.
0:18:42 And we say,
0:18:43 if you want civilian energy,
0:18:46 you can have power plants,
0:18:48 you can buy your fuel rods
0:18:49 from abroad,
0:18:50 but there’s no reason
0:18:51 to have enrichment
0:18:53 or plutonium reprocessing
0:18:54 because those are
0:18:54 the key capabilities
0:18:56 you need to develop
0:18:56 nuclear weapons.
0:18:59 Now, the five countries
0:19:00 that have those capabilities
0:19:02 and don’t have nuclear weapons
0:19:03 are Argentina,
0:19:04 Brazil,
0:19:05 Holland,
0:19:05 Germany,
0:19:07 and Japan.
0:19:08 And I think it’s the view
0:19:10 of many administrations
0:19:11 over many years,
0:19:13 including many European leaders,
0:19:15 that the Islamic Republic of Iran
0:19:16 is very different
0:19:17 from those aforementioned countries
0:19:19 because it has been
0:19:20 dedicated to terrorism,
0:19:22 it’s been killing Americans
0:19:23 and other Westerners
0:19:24 and other Middle Easterners,
0:19:25 and it is a dangerous regime.
0:19:26 You don’t want to have
0:19:28 that dangerous regime
0:19:30 retaining the key capabilities
0:19:31 and needs to develop
0:19:32 nuclear weapons.
0:19:33 But I want to kind of
0:19:35 get back more to the present.
0:19:36 I mentioned this
0:19:37 with the surrounding negotiations
0:19:37 at Oman.
0:19:39 Scott’s saying that
0:19:40 President Trump had said,
0:19:42 here’s the offer,
0:19:43 take it or leave it,
0:19:44 zero enrichment,
0:19:45 full dismantlement.
0:19:45 Well, in fact,
0:19:46 that wasn’t the offer
0:19:47 that was presented
0:19:48 to the Iranians at Oman.
0:19:50 The offer was a one-page offer,
0:19:51 and it said,
0:19:53 you can temporarily enrich
0:19:54 above ground,
0:19:55 you’ve got to render
0:19:58 your below-ground facilities,
0:19:59 quote, non-operational.
0:20:01 And then at some time
0:20:01 in the future,
0:20:02 three, four years,
0:20:03 as Scott said,
0:20:04 there’ll be a consortium
0:20:05 that’ll be built,
0:20:07 not on Iranian territory.
0:20:08 It’ll be a partnership
0:20:09 with the Saudis
0:20:10 and the Emiratis.
0:20:11 It’ll be under IAEA supervision.
0:20:13 And that enrichment facility
0:20:14 will create fuel rods
0:20:16 for your nuclear reactors.
0:20:18 So that was the offer
0:20:19 presented to Iran,
0:20:20 and that offer would come
0:20:21 with significant sanctions relief,
0:20:23 billions of dollars
0:20:25 that would go to the regime,
0:20:26 obviously the economy there
0:20:27 has been suffering.
0:20:29 The regime has not had
0:20:30 the resources
0:20:31 that it’s had in the past
0:20:33 to fund its,
0:20:34 what I call,
0:20:35 its axis of misery,
0:20:36 its proxy terror armies
0:20:37 around the world.
0:20:38 And it was a good offer,
0:20:40 and I was shocked
0:20:42 that Khamenei rejected it.
0:20:44 He did reject it,
0:20:45 and I think he rejected it
0:20:47 because I think he believed
0:20:48 that he could continue
0:20:49 to do to President Trump
0:20:50 what he’d done
0:20:51 to President Obama,
0:20:52 which is just continue
0:20:53 to squeeze and squeeze
0:20:54 and squeeze the Americans
0:20:55 at the table
0:20:56 in order to ensure
0:20:57 that he could keep
0:20:58 all these nuclear facilities,
0:21:00 all these nuclear capabilities,
0:21:01 so that at a time
0:21:02 of his choosing,
0:21:04 when President Trump is gone,
0:21:06 he can develop nuclear weapons.
0:21:07 Now, it is a bit interesting
0:21:09 to say that Iran
0:21:10 has no intention
0:21:11 to develop nuclear weapons.
0:21:13 And let’s examine
0:21:14 the nuclear program
0:21:15 and ask,
0:21:16 does this sound like a regime
0:21:17 that’s not interested
0:21:18 in building nuclear weapons?
0:21:20 So they built
0:21:22 deeply buried underground
0:21:23 enrichment facilities
0:21:24 that they hid
0:21:26 from the international community,
0:21:27 and they didn’t disclose.
0:21:29 They had an active
0:21:30 nuclear warhead program
0:21:31 called the MAD,
0:21:34 which ended in 2003,
0:21:34 formally,
0:21:36 when the United States
0:21:36 invaded Iraq.
0:21:38 And we know that
0:21:39 because not only
0:21:40 has that been detailed
0:21:42 by the IAEA,
0:21:43 but actually Mossad,
0:21:45 in a daring operation
0:21:45 in Tehran,
0:21:47 took out a nuclear archive
0:21:48 and brought it back
0:21:50 to the West.
0:21:51 And then the IAEA,
0:21:52 the United States,
0:21:53 and the intelligence communities
0:21:55 went after this detailed
0:21:56 archive,
0:21:57 went into it,
0:21:57 and discovered
0:21:59 that this Supreme Leader,
0:22:01 Ayatollah Khamenei,
0:22:02 had an active program
0:22:03 to build
0:22:05 five atomic warheads
0:22:07 and was a very detailed program
0:22:08 with blueprints
0:22:09 and designs,
0:22:10 all of which
0:22:11 was designed
0:22:12 under a MAD
0:22:12 to build
0:22:14 a nuclear weapons program.
0:22:15 So again,
0:22:16 it’s interesting to say
0:22:17 that he doesn’t have
0:22:18 the intention
0:22:18 to build nuclear weapons
0:22:19 when he actually
0:22:20 had an active
0:22:21 nuclear weapons program.
0:22:22 And we can talk about
0:22:23 what happened
0:22:23 to that program
0:22:24 after 2003,
0:22:25 and there’s a lot
0:22:26 of interesting details.
0:22:27 So when you combine
0:22:28 the fact that
0:22:30 he has an active
0:22:31 nuclear weapons program,
0:22:32 he has sites
0:22:33 that are buried
0:22:34 deep underground,
0:22:36 he has weapons scientists
0:22:38 who come out
0:22:39 of the MAD program
0:22:40 and continue to work
0:22:42 on the initial
0:22:43 metallurgy work
0:22:44 and computer modeling
0:22:46 designed to actually
0:22:47 begin that process
0:22:48 of building a warhead.
0:22:49 And all of this
0:22:50 has been hidden
0:22:51 from the international
0:22:51 community.
0:22:53 He has spent estimates
0:22:55 of a half a trillion dollars
0:22:56 on his nuclear program
0:22:58 in direct costs
0:23:00 and in sanctions costs.
0:23:01 And one has to ask,
0:23:02 and I think it’s
0:23:03 an interesting question,
0:23:05 to compare the UAE
0:23:06 and Iran.
0:23:07 The UAE signed
0:23:08 the gold standard.
0:23:09 They said,
0:23:09 we’ll have no enrichment
0:23:10 capability
0:23:11 or reprocessing.
0:23:12 they spent about
0:23:14 $20 billion on that
0:23:15 and it supplies
0:23:17 25% of their
0:23:19 electrical generation.
0:23:20 Khamenei spent
0:23:22 a half a trillion dollars
0:23:24 and that program
0:23:25 supplies
0:23:27 maybe 3%
0:23:28 of their
0:23:29 electrical needs.
0:23:29 In fact,
0:23:30 they have a reactor
0:23:31 that they bought
0:23:32 from the Russians
0:23:33 called Boucher
0:23:34 and that reactor,
0:23:35 it’s exactly
0:23:36 what you’d want
0:23:37 in a proliferation
0:23:38 proof reactor.
0:23:39 They buy fuel rods
0:23:39 from the Russians,
0:23:40 they use it,
0:23:41 and they send
0:23:41 the spent fuel
0:23:42 back to Russia
0:23:43 so it cannot be
0:23:44 reprocessed into plutonium.
0:23:45 So I just think
0:23:46 it’s important
0:23:47 for your listeners
0:23:47 to understand
0:23:48 just some of the
0:23:50 technical nuclear
0:23:51 history here
0:23:52 in order to unpack
0:23:53 this question of
0:23:54 did Khamenei
0:23:56 want nuclear weapons?
0:23:58 What was his goal here?
0:23:59 And then we can talk
0:24:00 about was this
0:24:01 the right operation
0:24:03 in order for the
0:24:03 United States
0:24:05 to order the
0:24:06 B-2 bombers
0:24:07 to strike
0:24:08 these facilities
0:24:09 in what, again,
0:24:09 was a limited
0:24:10 operation as
0:24:11 President Trump
0:24:11 has said
0:24:12 in order to
0:24:13 drive the Iranians
0:24:14 back to the
0:24:15 negotiating table
0:24:16 and finally do
0:24:16 the deal that
0:24:17 President Trump
0:24:18 has asked them
0:24:18 to do since
0:24:19 he came into
0:24:20 office in January.
0:24:21 Yeah, that is
0:24:21 one of the
0:24:22 fascinating questions
0:24:22 whether this
0:24:23 Operation Midnight
0:24:24 Hammer
0:24:24 increased or
0:24:25 decreased the
0:24:26 chance that
0:24:27 Iran will develop
0:24:29 a nuclear weapon.
0:24:29 Before you ask
0:24:30 any more questions,
0:24:31 I have to refute
0:24:31 virtually everything
0:24:32 he just said,
0:24:33 which is completely
0:24:33 false.
0:24:34 I mean, really
0:24:34 everything?
0:24:35 There was not one
0:24:35 thing I said
0:24:36 that was true?
0:24:37 Just one thing.
0:24:37 I mean, Iran
0:24:38 is a nation
0:24:39 over there
0:24:39 somewhere.
0:24:40 You got that
0:24:40 part right.
0:24:41 All right.
0:24:41 22 years of
0:24:42 working on Iran
0:24:42 and I got that
0:24:43 right.
0:24:44 But do you know
0:24:44 the population
0:24:45 of Iran?
0:24:45 92 million.
0:24:46 Okay.
0:24:49 So, first of all,
0:24:50 they were trying
0:24:50 to buy a
0:24:51 light water reactor
0:24:52 from the Europeans
0:24:53 or the Chinese
0:24:54 in the 1990s
0:24:54 and Bill Clinton
0:24:55 wouldn’t let them
0:24:58 and put tremendous
0:24:58 pressure on China
0:24:59 to prevent them
0:25:00 from selling them
0:25:01 a light water reactor,
0:25:02 a turnkey reactor
0:25:03 that produces
0:25:04 waste that’s
0:25:05 so polluted
0:25:05 with impurities
0:25:06 that you can’t
0:25:07 make nuclear
0:25:07 weapons fuel
0:25:08 out of it.
0:25:08 By the way,
0:25:09 they never have
0:25:10 to this day
0:25:11 had a reprocessing
0:25:12 facility for
0:25:13 reprocessing
0:25:14 plutonium,
0:25:15 even their current
0:25:15 plutonium waste
0:25:17 from their heavy
0:25:17 water reactor
0:25:18 at Boucher
0:25:19 to make weapons
0:25:19 fuel out of that.
0:25:20 They have no
0:25:21 plutonium root
0:25:21 to the bomb.
0:25:22 Under the JCPOA…
0:25:22 But they have that
0:25:23 at Iraq,
0:25:23 not Boucher.
0:25:24 There’s a difference
0:25:25 between Iraq.
0:25:26 Iraq is a…
0:25:27 Iraq is where
0:25:27 they pour concrete
0:25:28 into the reactor
0:25:29 and shut it
0:25:29 down.
0:25:30 And the reason
0:25:31 they pour concrete…
0:25:32 Under the JCPOA…
0:25:33 Not they,
0:25:33 but the Obama
0:25:34 administration is right,
0:25:36 under the JCPOA,
0:25:37 poured concrete
0:25:38 into the Calendria
0:25:40 in order to prevent
0:25:40 them from using
0:25:41 that reactor
0:25:42 to reprocess
0:25:42 plutonium.
0:25:43 So there’s a
0:25:44 distinction between
0:25:44 Iraq and Boucher.
0:25:46 Scott’s exactly right.
0:25:47 Boucher is a reactor,
0:25:48 a heavy water reactor
0:25:49 provided by the Russians,
0:25:50 as I described,
0:25:52 for the generation
0:25:54 of electricity.
0:25:55 It’s proliferation
0:25:56 proof.
0:25:58 Iraq is the opposite.
0:25:59 It’s a heavy water
0:26:00 reactor that was built
0:26:01 for a plutonium pathway
0:26:03 to nuclear weapons,
0:26:04 which is exactly why
0:26:05 under the JCPOA,
0:26:05 they literally had
0:26:06 to pour concrete
0:26:07 into the middle of it
0:26:08 to prevent it
0:26:09 from reprocessing
0:26:09 plutonium.
0:26:10 I think we’re going
0:26:11 to need a scientist
0:26:13 to come in here
0:26:14 and split the difference
0:26:15 or maybe we need
0:26:17 to go and look up
0:26:18 some IAEA documents
0:26:19 because I don’t believe
0:26:20 that Iraq ever had
0:26:21 a reprocessing facility
0:26:23 for their plutonium waste.
0:26:25 And the deal
0:26:26 under the JCPOA,
0:26:27 the Russians would come
0:26:28 and get all their
0:26:28 plutonium waste,
0:26:29 which the waste
0:26:30 comes out all polluted
0:26:32 and not useful.
0:26:33 You need the reprocessing
0:26:34 facility to get
0:26:36 all of the impurities out.
0:26:37 It could be that
0:26:38 I’m wrong about that,
0:26:39 but I don’t believe
0:26:39 that they ever had
0:26:41 a reprocessing facility
0:26:42 at Iraq
0:26:43 that they could use
0:26:43 to remove
0:26:44 all those impurities
0:26:46 and then have
0:26:47 weapons-grade
0:26:48 plutonium fuel
0:26:50 as the North Koreans do.
0:26:51 So the Obama administration
0:26:52 was very clear
0:26:53 under the JCPOA,
0:26:53 we are going to
0:26:54 pour concrete
0:26:57 into the Iraq facility,
0:26:59 as Scott acknowledged,
0:27:00 because we are concerned
0:27:02 that Iraq can be used
0:27:04 for reprocessing plutonium,
0:27:05 for a plutonium pathway
0:27:06 to a nuclear weapon.
0:27:07 It can be used,
0:27:07 but we don’t know
0:27:08 if it was used.
0:27:09 Oh, wait, no,
0:27:10 it never was.
0:27:10 There never was
0:27:12 any reprocessing
0:27:13 of weapons fuel there.
0:27:14 But there was concrete.
0:27:15 I’m happy to.
0:27:16 There’s no indication.
0:27:16 For your viewers
0:27:17 who are interested
0:27:17 and not to plug
0:27:18 my own podcast,
0:27:19 Lex, I apologize.
0:27:20 It is a very good podcast.
0:27:21 I just recently
0:27:22 had David Albright
0:27:23 on my podcast,
0:27:24 who is actually
0:27:25 a physicist
0:27:27 and a weapons inspector
0:27:28 and goes into
0:27:28 a lot of detail
0:27:29 about the Iranian
0:27:30 nuclear program.
0:27:32 Please listen to the podcast.
0:27:33 Iran Breakdown,
0:27:33 by the way,
0:27:34 is the name of the podcast.
0:27:35 Yeah, and David’s
0:27:35 the president
0:27:36 of the Institute
0:27:36 for Science
0:27:37 and National Security.
0:27:38 By the way,
0:27:39 I spent decades on this.
0:27:40 And to his credit,
0:27:41 he was one of the
0:27:42 deep skeptics
0:27:43 of the Bush administration’s
0:27:44 rush to war with Iraq.
0:27:45 That’s not true.
0:27:47 He vouched for claims
0:27:47 that there were
0:27:49 chemical weapons in Iraq
0:27:49 and later said
0:27:50 he was sorry for it.
0:27:51 Again, I mentioned
0:27:52 the Bush administration’s
0:27:53 rush to war
0:27:54 based on their claims
0:27:55 that Saddam
0:27:56 was building nuclear weapons.
0:27:57 He did debunk
0:27:58 the aluminum tubes, though.
0:28:00 He debunked it
0:28:01 and was a deep skeptic,
0:28:01 again,
0:28:03 of the rush to war
0:28:03 in Iraq.
0:28:04 You know,
0:28:05 the argument today,
0:28:06 Lex,
0:28:06 which I think
0:28:07 is the more interesting argument,
0:28:08 because there are
0:28:09 very few people
0:28:10 left today
0:28:11 who don’t believe
0:28:12 that the Iranians
0:28:13 were building
0:28:14 the nuclear weapons
0:28:15 capability
0:28:16 that gave them
0:28:16 the option
0:28:18 to build nuclear weapons.
0:28:19 I already said that.
0:28:20 We can debate
0:28:21 whether they had
0:28:22 decided to,
0:28:23 and I’m interested
0:28:25 to hear Scott’s opinion
0:28:25 on this,
0:28:26 but the recent intelligence
0:28:27 that has come out
0:28:29 that the Iranian
0:28:30 nuclear weapons scientists
0:28:31 have begun
0:28:32 preliminary work
0:28:34 on building a warhead
0:28:35 came out from where?
0:28:36 This intelligence
0:28:37 that came out,
0:28:38 who put that
0:28:40 into Israeli claims?
0:28:41 not verified
0:28:41 by the U.S.
0:28:42 and the Wall Street
0:28:43 Journal anywhere,
0:28:43 right?
0:28:44 Let’s talk about
0:28:46 all of my list
0:28:47 of refutations
0:28:48 of all your false claims
0:28:49 from 10 years ago.
0:28:50 The Wall Street Journal
0:28:51 did verify this.
0:28:51 There’s a lot of
0:28:52 false claims to refute.
0:28:53 One at a time.
0:28:54 Lawrence Norman
0:28:55 actually wrote a piece.
0:28:56 This was during
0:28:57 the Biden administration
0:28:58 because the Biden
0:29:00 DNI
0:29:01 had actually come out
0:29:02 and for the first time
0:29:03 in their annual
0:29:03 threat assessment
0:29:05 had removed a line
0:29:06 that said,
0:29:08 Iran is not currently
0:29:10 working on developing
0:29:11 any capabilities
0:29:11 that would put it
0:29:12 in a position
0:29:14 to actually deliver
0:29:18 a nuclear warhead.
0:29:20 And what became
0:29:20 the Lawrence Norman
0:29:21 piece in the Wall Street Journal
0:29:23 was that there actually
0:29:24 was initial work done
0:29:25 on metallurgy
0:29:27 and on computer modeling.
0:29:28 And so those actually
0:29:29 were defined terms
0:29:30 in Section T
0:29:32 of the 2015 JCPOA,
0:29:34 which defined weaponization
0:29:35 in that section.
0:29:37 and metallurgy
0:29:37 and computer modeling
0:29:39 were some of the initial steps
0:29:40 so that the DNI
0:29:40 was very concerned
0:29:41 under Biden
0:29:43 that these initial steps
0:29:44 meant that either Khamenei
0:29:45 had given the green lights
0:29:48 or nuclear weapons scientists
0:29:49 in order to get ahead
0:29:49 of the boss
0:29:50 so they could be
0:29:50 in a position
0:29:51 if he decided
0:29:52 to move forward on this
0:29:54 were in a position
0:29:55 and their timelines
0:29:57 were therefore expedited.
0:29:58 So it’s interesting.
0:29:58 I mean, again,
0:29:59 you’ve got the DNI
0:30:00 under Biden.
0:30:01 You’ve got the CIA
0:30:02 director,
0:30:03 John Ratcliffe.
0:30:04 You’ve got Israeli intelligence.
0:30:06 You’ve got the Wall Street Journal
0:30:08 and you’ve got the IAEA
0:30:09 asking questions of Iran
0:30:10 on its past
0:30:11 weaponization activities.
0:30:13 Why are you denying us?
0:30:14 Who’s the dog
0:30:15 that didn’t bark there?
0:30:16 The current director
0:30:17 of national intelligence
0:30:17 who issued
0:30:18 her threat assessment,
0:30:20 Trump’s director
0:30:20 of national intelligence,
0:30:21 Tulsi Gabbard,
0:30:21 who issued
0:30:22 her threat assessment
0:30:23 in February
0:30:24 that repeated
0:30:25 the exact same language
0:30:26 that from the
0:30:26 national intelligence
0:30:28 estimate of 2007
0:30:29 and that the CIA
0:30:30 and the NIE,
0:30:31 the National Intelligence
0:30:32 Council,
0:30:33 have reaffirmed
0:30:35 repeatedly ever since then,
0:30:36 which is that
0:30:36 Supreme Leader
0:30:37 has not decided
0:30:38 to pursue nuclear weapons.
0:30:39 He has not made
0:30:40 the political decision
0:30:41 to pursue nuclear weapons.
0:30:42 She testified,
0:30:44 in fact,
0:30:45 under oath
0:30:46 in front of the Senate
0:30:46 in March.
0:30:47 And then,
0:30:48 according to CNN
0:30:49 and the New York Times,
0:30:50 there was a brand new
0:30:51 assessment
0:30:53 that was put together
0:30:54 the week before
0:30:55 the attack
0:30:57 was launched,
0:30:58 reaffirming the same thing.
0:30:59 And,
0:31:00 at least in history,
0:31:02 if you read it in Haaretz,
0:31:03 Mossad agreed
0:31:04 with the CIA.
0:31:05 I’d like to just sort of
0:31:06 quote CIA director
0:31:07 John Ratcliffe
0:31:08 because Scott brought up
0:31:09 the CIA
0:31:10 and the Intelligence Committee.
0:31:11 I think Ratcliffe
0:31:12 had a good way
0:31:13 of looking at this
0:31:14 and that he said is,
0:31:15 you know,
0:31:15 when you’re in the
0:31:16 99-yard line
0:31:17 as a football team,
0:31:18 you have the intention
0:31:19 to score a goal,
0:31:20 quote-unquote.
0:31:21 And what he was
0:31:23 actually pointing to
0:31:23 is,
0:31:24 let’s not talk
0:31:25 about this debate
0:31:26 about whether Khamenei
0:31:26 had given the order
0:31:27 or not given the order
0:31:29 because Khamenei knows
0:31:29 that if he gives an order,
0:31:31 the U.S. and Israeli
0:31:31 intelligence community
0:31:33 will pick up on that order
0:31:34 and that will be
0:31:35 the trigger for strikes.
0:31:37 What Ratcliffe is saying
0:31:37 is that Khamenei
0:31:38 had built the nuclear
0:31:40 weapons capability.
0:31:42 He’s at the 99-yard line
0:31:44 and both the CIA
0:31:46 and European leaders,
0:31:46 the European
0:31:48 intelligence community
0:31:48 has said for years
0:31:49 that if Iran
0:31:50 has that capability
0:31:51 and they’re on the
0:31:52 99-yard line,
0:31:53 at that point
0:31:53 it’s going to be
0:31:55 too late to stop them
0:31:56 once that decision
0:31:56 is made
0:31:57 to assemble
0:31:58 the final warhead,
0:31:59 which, by the way,
0:32:00 is the final piece
0:32:01 of what you need
0:32:02 for a deliverable
0:32:02 nuclear weapon.
0:32:03 That’s not true
0:32:03 at all, right?
0:32:04 They have to resort
0:32:05 to a crude analogy
0:32:07 about football yard lines
0:32:07 because they can’t
0:32:08 say the truth,
0:32:09 which is that
0:32:10 they had zero
0:32:12 weapons-grade uranium.
0:32:13 They were not
0:32:13 producing it.
0:32:14 They were trying
0:32:16 to get the United States
0:32:17 back in the deal
0:32:18 that they are still
0:32:18 officially within
0:32:20 the JCPOA
0:32:20 with the rest
0:32:21 of the U.N. Security Council
0:32:22 wherein they shipped
0:32:23 all of their
0:32:25 enriched uranium stockpile
0:32:26 out of the country
0:32:26 to France
0:32:27 to be transferred
0:32:28 to fuel rods.
0:32:30 Their insistence
0:32:31 was on their
0:32:32 continued ability
0:32:34 to enrich uranium.
0:32:35 And so this goes
0:32:37 to one of the things
0:32:38 that he at least
0:32:39 sort of brought up
0:32:41 that deserves addressing.
0:32:42 When Trump came
0:32:43 into power
0:32:45 in 2017,
0:32:46 he decided
0:32:47 on this
0:32:49 Israeli-influenced
0:32:50 maximum pressure campaign
0:32:51 and he said
0:32:52 the JCPOA
0:32:53 was the worst deal
0:32:54 in the history
0:32:55 of any time
0:32:55 any two men
0:32:56 ever shook hands
0:32:57 and all these kinds
0:32:57 of things
0:32:59 in his hyperbolic way,
0:32:59 which of course
0:33:00 made it very difficult
0:33:01 for him to figure out
0:33:02 a way to stay in the thing
0:33:04 or to compromise
0:33:05 along its lines.
0:33:07 But the fact of the matter
0:33:08 is if he had just
0:33:09 played it straight
0:33:09 and said,
0:33:11 listen, Ayatollah,
0:33:12 we don’t have to be friends,
0:33:13 but we do have
0:33:14 a deal here
0:33:15 which my predecessor
0:33:16 struck with you
0:33:17 but I don’t like
0:33:18 these sunset provisions
0:33:19 and I want to send
0:33:20 my guys over there
0:33:23 and see if we can
0:33:23 figure out a way
0:33:24 to convince you
0:33:25 that we really wish
0:33:26 you’d shut down
0:33:27 calm altogether
0:33:28 or this or that
0:33:28 or the other thing
0:33:29 and try to approach
0:33:30 them in good faith.
0:33:32 We talk about yard lines
0:33:32 and things.
0:33:34 We had a JCPOA,
0:33:35 okay?
0:33:37 So toward peace
0:33:37 we were past
0:33:38 the 50-yard line.
0:33:40 Donald Trump
0:33:40 could have gone
0:33:41 to Tehran
0:33:42 and shook hands
0:33:43 with the Ayatollah
0:33:44 as Dick Cheney
0:33:45 complained
0:33:46 that we had
0:33:47 cold relations
0:33:47 with Iran
0:33:48 back in 1998
0:33:49 when he was
0:33:50 the head of Halliburton
0:33:50 and said,
0:33:51 we can do business
0:33:52 with these guys.
0:33:53 Donald Trump
0:33:53 could have gone
0:33:54 right over there
0:33:55 and done business
0:33:56 and instead
0:33:57 he gave in
0:33:58 to Netanyahu’s lies
0:34:00 in this ridiculous
0:34:01 hoax
0:34:02 that they had uncovered
0:34:02 all these Iranian
0:34:03 nuclear documents
0:34:04 which he pretends
0:34:05 is legit
0:34:06 where all they did
0:34:07 was recycle
0:34:08 the fake
0:34:10 Israeli forged
0:34:11 smoking laptop
0:34:12 of 2005
0:34:14 which they lied
0:34:15 and pretended
0:34:16 was the laptop
0:34:18 of an Iranian scientist
0:34:19 that was smuggled
0:34:19 out of Iran
0:34:20 by his wife
0:34:22 and had all this proof
0:34:23 of a secret Iranian
0:34:24 nuclear weapons program
0:34:24 on it
0:34:25 but every bit
0:34:26 of that was refuted
0:34:27 including the thing
0:34:28 about the warhead
0:34:28 he said
0:34:29 was refuted
0:34:30 by David Albright
0:34:31 and his friend
0:34:31 David Sanger
0:34:32 in the New York Times
0:34:34 that all those sketches
0:34:36 of the warhead
0:34:36 for the missile
0:34:37 were wrong
0:34:38 because
0:34:39 when Mossad
0:34:41 forged the documents
0:34:42 they were making
0:34:43 a good educated guess
0:34:44 but they didn’t know
0:34:45 that Iran
0:34:45 had completely
0:34:46 redesigned
0:34:47 the nose cone
0:34:48 of their mid-range missiles
0:34:49 and had an entirely
0:34:50 different nose cone
0:34:50 that would require
0:34:51 an entirely different
0:34:52 warhead
0:34:53 than that described
0:34:54 in the documents
0:34:54 and why would they
0:34:55 have been designing
0:34:56 a warhead
0:34:57 to fit in a nose cone
0:34:58 that they were abandoning
0:34:59 and so that was refuted
0:35:00 David Albright
0:35:01 completely discredited
0:35:02 your claims there pal
0:35:03 and then
0:35:05 they later admitted
0:35:06 that it was a CIA laptop
0:35:07 there was no laptop
0:35:09 and they later admitted
0:35:10 Ali Heinonen admitted
0:35:12 who was a very hawkish
0:35:13 one of the
0:35:14 not director
0:35:15 but a high level
0:35:16 executive
0:35:17 at the International
0:35:18 Atomic Energy Agency
0:35:18 admitted
0:35:19 that that intelligence
0:35:21 was brought into the stream
0:35:23 by the Mujahideen E. Kalk
0:35:24 communist terrorist cult
0:35:25 that used to work
0:35:26 for the Ayatollah
0:35:27 during the revolution
0:35:29 then turned on him
0:35:29 and he turned on them
0:35:30 and kicked them out
0:35:31 then they went to work
0:35:32 for Saddam Hussein
0:35:32 where they helped
0:35:33 crush the Shiite
0:35:34 and Kurdish insurrection
0:35:35 of 1991
0:35:37 and then they became
0:35:37 America
0:35:38 Donald Rumsfeld’s
0:35:40 and Ariel Sharon’s
0:35:41 sock puppets
0:35:43 and later Ehud Olmert’s
0:35:43 sock puppets
0:35:44 when the United States
0:35:46 invaded Iraq
0:35:47 and took possession of them
0:35:48 they’re now under
0:35:49 American protection
0:35:50 in Albania
0:35:51 and these are the same
0:35:52 kooks who just a few
0:35:53 weeks ago
0:35:53 you might remember
0:35:54 saying look
0:35:55 new satellite pictures
0:35:56 of a whole new
0:35:57 nuclear facility
0:35:58 in Iran
0:35:59 isn’t it funny
0:36:00 how no one ever
0:36:00 brought that up again
0:36:01 didn’t bomb it
0:36:02 it was nothing
0:36:02 it was fake
0:36:03 just like before
0:36:04 when they said
0:36:04 hey look
0:36:04 here’s a picture
0:36:05 of a vault door
0:36:07 and behind that
0:36:07 is where the
0:36:08 secret nuclear weapons
0:36:08 program is
0:36:09 except turned out
0:36:10 that vault door
0:36:11 was a stock photo
0:36:12 from a vault company
0:36:13 it meant nothing
0:36:14 and they had
0:36:15 repeatedly
0:36:16 you know
0:36:16 made claims
0:36:17 that were totally
0:36:18 refuted
0:36:19 just like
0:36:20 I’m about to refute
0:36:20 his claim
0:36:21 that they ever
0:36:22 were the ones
0:36:23 who revealed
0:36:24 for example
0:36:24 Natanz
0:36:25 he was implying
0:36:26 that Natanz
0:36:26 and Kham
0:36:27 were both
0:36:28 buried and hidden
0:36:30 until revealed
0:36:31 I think you said
0:36:32 by dissident groups
0:36:33 that is the
0:36:33 MEK
0:36:34 sock puppets
0:36:34 of the Israelis
0:36:35 but it was
0:36:36 your friend
0:36:37 David Albright
0:36:38 not the Israeli
0:36:39 Mossad
0:36:40 through the MEK
0:36:41 who revealed
0:36:41 Natanz
0:36:42 facility
0:36:43 ask him
0:36:43 he’ll fist fight
0:36:44 you over it
0:36:45 he claims credit
0:36:46 he was first
0:36:46 and said
0:36:47 this is a facility
0:36:48 however
0:36:49 they were not
0:36:50 in violation
0:36:51 of their safeguards
0:36:51 agreement
0:36:52 with the IAEA
0:36:53 they were still
0:36:54 six months away
0:36:54 from introducing
0:36:55 any nuclear
0:36:56 material
0:36:57 to that facility
0:36:58 and so
0:36:59 when it was
0:37:00 revealed
0:37:00 they weren’t
0:37:00 in violation
0:37:01 of anything
0:37:03 and then
0:37:04 on Kham
0:37:05 we had a huge
0:37:05 fight about this
0:37:06 at the time
0:37:07 the party line
0:37:08 came down
0:37:09 from all the
0:37:09 government officials
0:37:10 and the media
0:37:11 that they had
0:37:12 just exposed
0:37:13 the facility
0:37:13 there
0:37:13 Kham
0:37:14 is Fordow
0:37:14 same thing
0:37:16 when in fact
0:37:16 that wasn’t
0:37:16 true
0:37:18 the Iranians
0:37:19 had announced
0:37:21 to the IAEA
0:37:21 that we have
0:37:22 built a new
0:37:23 facility here
0:37:23 and we
0:37:24 are going
0:37:25 to introduce
0:37:26 nuclear material
0:37:27 into it
0:37:27 within six
0:37:28 months
0:37:28 so here’s
0:37:29 your official
0:37:29 notification
0:37:31 and then a few
0:37:31 days later
0:37:32 they just
0:37:32 pretended to
0:37:33 expose it
0:37:34 when it was
0:37:35 the Iranians
0:37:35 themselves
0:37:35 who had
0:37:36 admitted to
0:37:36 it
0:37:38 in going
0:37:39 along
0:37:39 with their
0:37:41 obligations
0:37:41 under their
0:37:42 safeguards agreement
0:37:43 so it’s just
0:37:44 completely wrong
0:37:44 why do they
0:37:45 bury them
0:37:45 they buried
0:37:45 them for
0:37:46 protection
0:37:47 because clearly
0:37:48 the Israelis
0:37:48 have indicated
0:37:49 since the
0:37:50 1990s
0:37:50 they consider
0:37:51 any nuclear
0:37:52 program in
0:37:52 Iran
0:37:53 to be the
0:37:54 same thing
0:37:54 as an
0:37:54 advanced
0:37:55 nuclear
0:37:55 weapons
0:37:56 program
0:37:56 you’re hearing
0:37:57 that today
0:37:57 for them
0:37:58 to have
0:37:58 a nuclear
0:37:59 facility
0:37:59 at all
0:38:01 is equivalent
0:38:01 to them
0:38:02 going ahead
0:38:02 and breaking
0:38:03 out
0:38:03 and making
0:38:04 a nuclear
0:38:04 weapon
0:38:05 and so
0:38:05 of course
0:38:05 they know
0:38:06 that they
0:38:06 have to
0:38:06 have it
0:38:06 buried
0:38:07 to protect
0:38:07 it from
0:38:07 Israel
0:38:08 that doesn’t
0:38:09 mean
0:38:09 that they
0:38:10 are trying
0:38:10 to get
0:38:11 nukes
0:38:12 it does
0:38:12 mean
0:38:13 as I
0:38:13 already
0:38:13 said
0:38:14 that they
0:38:14 wanted to
0:38:15 prove to
0:38:15 the world
0:38:16 that they
0:38:16 know how
0:38:17 to enrich
0:38:18 uranium
0:38:19 and that
0:38:20 they have
0:38:21 facilities buried
0:38:21 deeply enough
0:38:22 where if we
0:38:22 attack them
0:38:23 that would
0:38:24 incentivize them
0:38:24 to making
0:38:25 nukes
0:38:25 and then we
0:38:26 might be
0:38:26 unable to
0:38:27 stop them
0:38:28 without going
0:38:28 all the way
0:38:29 toward a
0:38:29 regime change
0:38:30 which they’re
0:38:31 bluffing
0:38:32 basically betting
0:38:33 that we won’t
0:38:34 go that far
0:38:35 considering how
0:38:35 gigantic their
0:38:36 country is
0:38:36 and how
0:38:37 mountainous
0:38:37 and populous
0:38:38 it is
0:38:39 compared to
0:38:39 Iraq next
0:38:40 door
0:38:40 now here’s
0:38:41 some more
0:38:41 things that
0:38:42 he said
0:38:42 that weren’t
0:38:42 true
0:38:43 so he said
0:38:44 Iran has
0:38:44 been killing
0:38:45 Americans
0:38:45 all this
0:38:46 time
0:38:47 well that’s
0:38:48 almost always
0:38:48 a reference
0:38:49 to Beirut
0:38:49 1983
0:38:50 which you
0:38:51 can read
0:38:51 in the book
0:38:52 By Way
0:38:52 of Deception
0:38:53 by Victor
0:38:53 Ostrowski
0:38:54 the former
0:38:54 Mossad
0:38:55 officer
0:38:55 that the
0:38:56 Israelis
0:38:56 knew
0:38:57 that they
0:38:58 were building
0:38:58 that truck
0:38:59 bomb to
0:38:59 bomb the
0:39:00 marines
0:39:00 with
0:39:01 and withheld
0:39:01 that information
0:39:02 from the
0:39:03 United States
0:39:03 and said
0:39:03 that’s what
0:39:04 they get
0:39:04 for sticking
0:39:05 their big
0:39:05 noses in
0:39:06 and that
0:39:07 is in the
0:39:07 book By Way
0:39:08 of Deception
0:39:09 by Victor
0:39:09 Ostrowski
0:39:10 and by the
0:39:11 way the
0:39:11 Israelis
0:39:11 were friends
0:39:12 with them
0:39:13 with Iran
0:39:14 at the time
0:39:15 in all
0:39:16 through the
0:39:17 1980s
0:39:17 and it was
0:39:18 just a couple
0:39:18 of years
0:39:19 later when
0:39:19 Ronald Reagan
0:39:20 sold Iran
0:39:20 missiles and
0:39:21 using the
0:39:22 Israelis as
0:39:22 cutouts to
0:39:23 do so when
0:39:24 he switched
0:39:25 sides temporarily
0:39:25 in the
0:39:26 Iran-Iraq
0:39:27 war and so
0:39:28 that’s just
0:39:28 and that was
0:39:29 in 1983
0:39:31 if Ronald Reagan
0:39:31 can sell
0:39:32 missiles a year
0:39:33 or two years
0:39:33 after that
0:39:34 three years
0:39:34 after that
0:39:35 then surely
0:39:36 the United
0:39:36 States and
0:39:37 the Ayatollah
0:39:38 can bury
0:39:38 the hatchet
0:39:39 from that
0:39:39 and no one’s
0:39:40 ever even I
0:39:40 don’t believe
0:39:41 ever really
0:39:41 proven that
0:39:42 Tehran
0:39:43 ordered that
0:39:43 it was
0:39:44 a Shiite
0:39:44 militia
0:39:45 backed by
0:39:45 Iran
0:39:46 that sort
0:39:47 of proto-Hezbollah
0:39:48 that did that
0:39:48 attack that killed
0:39:49 those Marines
0:39:51 and if there’s
0:39:52 some responsibility
0:39:53 for then damn
0:39:54 them like if
0:39:54 there’s direct
0:39:55 responsibility for
0:39:56 that not just
0:39:56 their support
0:39:57 for the group
0:39:57 then damn
0:39:58 them for that
0:39:59 but that’s
0:39:59 still no reason
0:40:00 in the world
0:40:00 to say that
0:40:01 we can’t get
0:40:01 along with
0:40:02 them now
0:40:02 when that was
0:40:03 in the same
0:40:04 year Return
0:40:04 of the Jedi
0:40:04 came out
0:40:05 okay and
0:40:06 then the
0:40:07 other one
0:40:07 and this
0:40:08 is always
0:40:09 referred to
0:40:09 you’ll see
0:40:10 this on TV
0:40:10 news today
0:40:11 anyone watching
0:40:12 this turn on
0:40:12 TV news
0:40:13 and you’ll hear
0:40:13 them say
0:40:14 Iran killed
0:40:16 600 Americans
0:40:16 in Iraq War
0:40:17 II but
0:40:18 that’s a lie
0:40:19 there was a
0:40:20 gigantic propaganda
0:40:21 campaign by
0:40:21 Dick Cheney
0:40:22 and his
0:40:23 co-conspirators
0:40:24 David Petraeus
0:40:25 and Michael
0:40:26 Gordon of the
0:40:26 New York Times
0:40:27 now at the
0:40:27 Wall Street
0:40:28 Journal where
0:40:29 they lied
0:40:30 and lied
0:40:30 like the devil
0:40:32 for about
0:40:33 five six
0:40:33 months in
0:40:34 early 2007
0:40:36 that every
0:40:37 time a Shiite
0:40:38 set off a
0:40:38 roadside
0:40:39 bomb
0:40:39 these new
0:40:40 improved
0:40:40 copper
0:40:41 cord
0:40:42 enhanced
0:40:43 they’re
0:40:44 called
0:40:44 EFPs
0:40:45 explosively
0:40:46 formed
0:40:47 penetrators
0:40:48 now anytime
0:40:48 that happened
0:40:49 Iran did
0:40:49 it
0:40:50 which is
0:40:51 what George
0:40:51 Bush called
0:40:51 shorthanding
0:40:52 it
0:40:52 yeah in
0:40:52 other words
0:40:53 just implying
0:40:53 the lie
0:40:54 what they’re
0:40:54 saying is
0:40:55 Iran
0:40:56 backed
0:40:56 Muqtada
0:40:57 al-Sadr
0:40:58 and America
0:40:59 attacked
0:40:59 Muqtada
0:41:00 al-Sadr
0:41:00 who actually
0:41:00 they were
0:41:01 fighting the
0:41:01 whole war
0:41:01 for him
0:41:02 he remains
0:41:02 a powerful
0:41:03 kingmaker
0:41:03 in that
0:41:03 country
0:41:04 this day
0:41:04 he’s part
0:41:04 of the
0:41:05 United Iraqi
0:41:05 alliance
0:41:06 and in
0:41:07 fact as long
0:41:07 as we’re
0:41:07 taking a
0:41:08 long form
0:41:08 here
0:41:09 he was
0:41:09 the least
0:41:10 Iran tied
0:41:11 of the
0:41:12 three major
0:41:12 factions
0:41:13 in the
0:41:14 United Iraqi
0:41:14 alliance
0:41:14 in Iraq
0:41:15 War II
0:41:16 the other
0:41:16 two major
0:41:16 factions
0:41:17 were
0:41:17 Dawah
0:41:18 and the
0:41:18 Supreme
0:41:19 Islamic
0:41:19 Council
0:41:20 and they
0:41:20 had been
0:41:20 living in
0:41:21 Iran
0:41:21 for the
0:41:22 last 20
0:41:22 years
0:41:23 they’re
0:41:23 they’re
0:41:23 the ones
0:41:23 who came
0:41:24 and took
0:41:24 over
0:41:24 Baghdad
0:41:25 Muqtada
0:41:26 al-Sadr
0:41:26 was a
0:41:27 Shiite
0:41:27 and close
0:41:28 to Iran
0:41:28 but he’s
0:41:28 also an
0:41:29 Iraqi
0:41:29 nationalist
0:41:30 and at
0:41:30 times he
0:41:31 allied
0:41:31 with the
0:41:32 Sunnis
0:41:32 and tried
0:41:33 to limit
0:41:34 American
0:41:35 and Iranian
0:41:36 influence
0:41:36 in the
0:41:37 country
0:41:37 was more
0:41:37 of an
0:41:38 Arab
0:41:38 and an
0:41:38 Iraqi
0:41:39 nationalist
0:41:39 and the
0:41:40 Americans
0:41:40 decided
0:41:41 they hated
0:41:41 him the
0:41:41 most
0:41:42 not because
0:41:42 he was
0:41:42 the most
0:41:43 Iran
0:41:43 tied
0:41:44 but because
0:41:44 he was
0:41:45 willing to
0:41:45 tell us
0:41:46 and them
0:41:46 two
0:41:47 to get
0:41:47 the
0:41:47 hell
0:41:47 out
0:41:48 and
0:41:48 America
0:41:49 was betting
0:41:53 that
0:41:53 they would
0:41:54 eventually
0:41:54 end up
0:41:54 needing
0:41:55 our
0:41:55 money
0:41:55 and
0:41:55 guns
0:41:56 more
0:41:56 than
0:41:56 they
0:41:56 would
0:41:56 need
0:41:57 their
0:41:57 Iranian
0:41:57 friends
0:41:58 and
0:41:58 co-religionists
0:41:59 and sponsors
0:41:59 next door
0:42:00 which of course
0:42:01 did not work out
0:42:01 and America’s
0:42:02 had minimal
0:42:02 influence
0:42:03 in super
0:42:04 majority
0:42:04 Shiite
0:42:04 Iraq
0:42:05 ever since
0:42:05 the end
0:42:06 of Iraq
0:42:06 War II
0:42:07 and we
0:42:07 can get
0:42:07 back
0:42:08 later
0:42:08 in the
0:42:08 show
0:42:08 to
0:42:09 how
0:42:09 Israel
0:42:09 helped
0:42:10 lie
0:42:10 us
0:42:10 into
0:42:10 that
0:42:11 horrific
0:42:11 war
0:42:12 as well
0:42:12 but the
0:42:13 fact of
0:42:13 the matter
0:42:13 is
0:42:14 it was
0:42:14 not
0:42:15 Iranians
0:42:15 setting
0:42:15 off
0:42:15 those
0:42:15 bombs
0:42:16 and
0:42:16 it
0:42:16 was
0:42:16 not
0:42:16 even
0:42:17 Iranians
0:42:18 making
0:42:18 those
0:42:18 bombs
0:42:19 and
0:42:19 I
0:42:19 show
0:42:19 in my
0:42:19 book
0:42:20 enough
0:42:20 already
0:42:21 I have
0:42:22 a solid
0:42:22 dozen
0:42:23 sources
0:42:24 enough
0:42:25 already
0:42:26 thank you
0:42:26 I have
0:42:26 a solid
0:42:27 dozen
0:42:27 sources
0:42:28 including
0:42:29 Michael
0:42:29 Gordon’s
0:42:30 own
0:42:30 colleague
0:42:31 Alyssa
0:42:31 Rubin
0:42:32 at the
0:42:32 New York
0:42:32 Times
0:42:33 and many
0:42:33 others
0:42:35 where they
0:42:35 found
0:42:36 these
0:42:36 bomb
0:42:36 factories
0:42:37 in
0:42:38 Shiite
0:42:38 Iraq
0:42:39 they were
0:42:39 being
0:42:39 made
0:42:40 by Shiite
0:42:40 Arab
0:42:41 Iraqis
0:42:42 and
0:42:42 when
0:42:43 David
0:42:44 Petraeus
0:42:44 was going
0:42:44 to have
0:42:45 a big
0:42:45 press
0:42:45 conference
0:42:46 and they
0:42:46 laid
0:42:46 out
0:42:46 all
0:42:46 the
0:42:47 components
0:42:47 all
0:42:47 the
0:42:48 reporters
0:42:48 gathered
0:42:48 around
0:42:49 and
0:42:49 they
0:42:49 started
0:42:49 noticing
0:42:50 that
0:42:50 the
0:42:50 components
0:42:50 said
0:42:51 made
0:42:51 in
0:42:51 UAE
0:42:52 made
0:42:52 in
0:42:53 Haditha
0:42:53 that is
0:42:54 Iraq
0:42:54 in other
0:42:54 words
0:42:55 there was
0:42:55 no
0:42:55 evidence
0:42:56 whatsoever
0:42:57 that
0:42:57 these
0:42:57 came
0:42:57 from
0:42:58 Iran
0:42:59 and
0:42:59 then
0:42:59 they
0:42:59 called
0:43:00 off
0:43:00 the
0:43:00 press
0:43:00 conference
0:43:00 and
0:43:01 Stephen
0:43:01 Hadley
0:43:02 George
0:43:02 Bush’s
0:43:03 second
0:43:03 national
0:43:04 security
0:43:04 advisor
0:43:05 admitted
0:43:05 that
0:43:05 yeah
0:43:05 we
0:43:06 didn’t
0:43:06 have
0:43:06 the
0:43:06 evidence
0:43:07 that
0:43:07 we
0:43:07 needed
0:43:08 to
0:43:08 present
0:43:08 that
0:43:09 and
0:43:16 deeply
0:43:16 involved
0:43:16 in
0:43:17 Iraq
0:43:17 war
0:43:18 reconfirming
0:43:19 that
0:43:19 that
0:43:19 there
0:43:19 was
0:43:19 never
0:43:20 any
0:43:20 evidence
0:43:20 that
0:43:20 these
0:43:21 bombs
0:43:21 were
0:43:21 coming
0:43:22 across
0:43:23 from
0:43:23 Iran
0:43:24 or
0:43:25 especially
0:43:25 that
0:43:26 then
0:43:26 even
0:43:26 if
0:43:26 they
0:43:27 were
0:43:27 that
0:43:27 that
0:43:27 was
0:43:27 at
0:43:28 the
0:43:28 direction
0:43:29 of
0:43:29 the
0:43:29 Quds
0:43:29 force
0:43:30 or
0:43:30 the
0:43:31 Ayatollah
0:43:31 this
0:43:31 was
0:43:31 all
0:43:32 just
0:43:32 a
0:43:32 propaganda
0:43:33 campaign
0:43:33 because
0:43:33 Dick Cheney
0:43:34 and David
0:43:34 Petraeus
0:43:34 were trying
0:43:35 to give
0:43:35 George Bush
0:43:36 a reason
0:43:37 to hit
0:43:38 IRGC bases
0:43:38 and start
0:43:39 the war
0:43:40 in 2007
0:43:40 and this
0:43:41 sounds crazy
0:43:41 but there’s
0:43:42 like four
0:43:42 major
0:43:42 confirming
0:43:43 sources
0:43:43 for it
0:43:45 Dick Cheney’s
0:43:45 national
0:43:46 security
0:43:46 advisor
0:43:47 David
0:43:47 Wormser
0:43:48 who was
0:43:48 the author
0:43:49 of the
0:43:49 clean
0:43:49 break
0:43:50 strategy
0:43:50 which
0:43:50 we’re
0:43:50 going
0:43:50 to
0:43:51 talk
0:43:51 about
0:43:51 today
0:43:52 David
0:43:53 Wormser
0:43:53 in 2007
0:43:54 was saying
0:43:55 we want
0:43:55 to work
0:43:55 with the
0:43:56 Israelis
0:43:56 to start
0:43:57 the war
0:43:57 with Iran
0:43:58 to force
0:43:58 George Bush
0:43:59 to do
0:43:59 an end
0:43:59 run
0:44:00 around
0:44:00 George
0:44:00 Bush
0:44:00 and force
0:44:01 him
0:44:01 into
0:44:01 the war
0:44:02 and that
0:44:02 was reported
0:44:02 originally
0:44:03 by Stephen
0:44:03 Clemens
0:44:04 in the
0:44:04 Washington
0:44:05 Note
0:44:05 but it
0:44:05 was later
0:44:06 confirmed
0:44:07 in the
0:44:07 New York
0:44:07 Times
0:44:08 and by
0:44:09 the
0:44:09 Washington
0:44:10 Post
0:44:10 reporter
0:44:10 Barton
0:44:11 Gelman
0:44:12 in his
0:44:12 book
0:44:12 Angler
0:44:13 on Dick
0:44:13 Cheney
0:44:14 that there
0:44:14 was this
0:44:15 huge
0:44:16 this was
0:44:16 the end
0:44:16 that they
0:44:17 were going
0:44:17 for
0:44:18 was they
0:44:18 were trying
0:44:19 so hard
0:44:19 to force
0:44:20 a war
0:44:21 in 2007
0:44:21 and it
0:44:22 was the
0:44:22 commander
0:44:23 of CENTCOM
0:44:24 Admiral Fallon
0:44:24 who said
0:44:25 over my
0:44:25 dead body
0:44:26 we are
0:44:26 not doing
0:44:27 this
0:44:27 and then
0:44:28 a few
0:44:28 months later
0:44:29 the
0:44:29 National
0:44:30 Intelligence
0:44:30 Council
0:44:30 put out
0:44:31 their NIE
0:44:32 saying that
0:44:32 there is
0:44:32 no nuclear
0:44:33 weapons
0:44:33 program
0:44:34 at all
0:44:34 and W.
0:44:35 Bush
0:44:35 complained
0:44:35 in his
0:44:36 memoir
0:44:36 Lex
0:44:37 that
0:44:38 in his
0:44:38 story
0:44:39 it’s
0:44:39 the
0:44:39 Saudi
0:44:39 king
0:44:40 his
0:44:40 royal
0:44:41 highness
0:44:41 Abdullah
0:44:41 rather
0:44:42 than
0:44:43 Ehud
0:44:43 Olmert
0:44:44 but he’s
0:44:44 saying
0:44:45 I’m sorry
0:44:45 your
0:44:46 highness
0:44:47 majesty
0:44:48 I can’t
0:44:49 attack
0:44:49 Iran’s
0:44:50 nuclear
0:44:50 program
0:44:50 because
0:44:50 my
0:44:51 own
0:44:51 intelligence
0:44:52 agency
0:44:52 says
0:44:53 they
0:44:53 don’t
0:44:53 have
0:44:53 a
0:44:53 military
0:44:54 program
0:44:55 so
0:44:55 how
0:44:55 am I
0:44:55 supposed
0:44:55 to
0:44:56 start
0:44:56 a war
0:44:56 with
0:44:56 them
0:44:56 when
0:44:57 my
0:44:57 own
0:44:57 intelligence
0:44:58 agency
0:44:58 say
0:44:58 that
0:44:59 this
0:44:59 is
0:44:59 what
0:44:59 Donald
0:44:59 Trump
0:44:59 just
0:45:00 did
0:45:00 started
0:45:00 anyway
0:45:01 had
0:45:01 his
0:45:01 man
0:45:02 Rubio
0:45:02 say
0:45:02 well
0:45:02 screw
0:45:02 the
0:45:03 intelligence
0:45:03 I
0:45:03 don’t
0:45:03 care
0:45:03 what
0:45:03 it
0:45:03 says
0:45:04 we
0:45:04 can
0:45:04 just
0:45:04 do
0:45:04 this
0:45:04 if
0:45:04 we
0:45:05 want
0:45:05 to
0:45:05 so
0:45:06 first
0:45:06 let me
0:45:06 say
0:45:07 on the
0:45:07 cover
0:45:07 of
0:45:07 enough
0:45:07 already
0:45:08 devastating
0:45:09 Daniel
0:45:10 Ellsberg
0:45:10 outstanding
0:45:11 Daniel
0:45:11 L.
0:45:11 Davis
0:45:12 essential
0:45:12 Ron
0:45:12 Paul
0:45:13 you are
0:45:14 respected
0:45:14 by a
0:45:14 very large
0:45:15 number
0:45:15 of
0:45:15 people
0:45:15 you have
0:45:16 decades
0:45:16 of
0:45:16 experience
0:45:17 in this
0:45:17 same
0:45:17 thing
0:45:17 with
0:45:18 Mark
0:45:19 extremely
0:45:20 respected
0:45:20 by a
0:45:21 very large
0:45:21 number
0:45:21 of
0:45:21 people
0:45:22 experts
0:45:22 there’s
0:45:23 a lot
0:45:23 of
0:45:23 disagreements
0:45:24 here
0:45:24 and
0:45:24 we’re
0:45:25 going
0:45:25 to
0:45:25 unfortunately
0:45:25 leave
0:45:26 a lot
0:45:26 of
0:45:26 the
0:45:26 disagreements
0:45:27 on
0:45:27 the
0:45:27 table
0:45:27 for
0:45:28 the
0:45:29 aforementioned
0:45:30 nuclear
0:45:30 scientists
0:45:31 to
0:45:32 deconstruct
0:45:32 later
0:45:33 so
0:45:33 let’s
0:45:33 not
0:45:33 like
0:45:34 try
0:45:34 to
0:45:34 every
0:45:34 single
0:45:35 claim
0:45:35 does
0:45:35 not
0:45:35 have
0:45:35 to
0:45:35 be
0:45:36 perfectly
0:45:36 refuted
0:45:36 let’s
0:45:37 just
0:45:37 leave
0:45:37 it
0:45:37 on
0:45:37 the
0:45:38 table
0:45:38 the
0:45:39 statements
0:45:39 as
0:45:39 they
0:45:39 stand
0:45:40 and
0:45:40 let’s
0:45:40 try
0:45:41 to
0:45:41 also
0:45:42 find
0:45:43 things
0:45:43 we
0:45:43 kind
0:45:43 of
0:45:43 agree
0:45:44 on
0:45:44 and
0:45:45 try
0:45:45 I know
0:45:46 this
0:45:46 might
0:45:46 be
0:45:46 difficult
0:45:46 but
0:45:46 to
0:45:47 steal
0:45:47 man
0:45:47 the
0:45:47 other
0:45:48 side
0:45:48 that’s
0:45:48 the
0:45:48 thing
0:45:48 I
0:45:48 would
0:45:49 love
0:45:49 to
0:45:49 ask
0:45:49 you
0:45:51 maybe
0:45:52 give
0:45:52 Mark
0:45:52 a chance
0:45:53 to speak
0:45:53 a little
0:45:53 bit
0:45:53 but
0:45:54 to
0:45:55 try
0:45:55 to
0:45:55 for
0:45:55 both
0:45:55 of
0:45:56 you
0:45:56 to
0:45:56 try
0:45:56 to
0:45:56 steal
0:45:56 man
0:45:57 the
0:45:57 other
0:45:57 side
0:45:57 so
0:45:58 people
0:45:58 who
0:45:58 are
0:45:59 concerned
0:45:59 about
0:46:01 Iran
0:46:01 developing
0:46:01 a nuclear
0:46:02 program
0:46:02 can you
0:46:02 steal
0:46:03 man
0:46:03 that
0:46:03 case
0:46:03 and
0:46:03 the
0:46:04 same
0:46:04 I
0:46:05 think
0:46:05 I did
0:46:05 in my
0:46:05 opening
0:46:06 statement
0:46:06 quite
0:46:06 frankly
0:46:06 I
0:46:07 don’t
0:46:07 carry
0:46:08 any
0:46:08 brief
0:46:08 for
0:46:09 the
0:46:09 Ayatollah
0:46:10 I’m
0:46:10 a
0:46:10 Texan
0:46:11 I don’t
0:46:11 give a
0:46:11 damn
0:46:11 about
0:46:12 what
0:46:12 some
0:46:12 Shiite
0:46:13 theocrat
0:46:13 says
0:46:13 about
0:46:14 nothing
0:46:14 right
0:46:14 my
0:46:15 interest
0:46:15 is
0:46:15 the
0:46:16 people
0:46:16 of
0:46:16 this
0:46:16 country
0:46:17 and
0:46:17 its
0:46:18 future
0:46:18 and
0:46:19 what’s
0:46:19 true
0:46:20 and
0:46:20 so
0:46:20 I
0:46:20 don’t
0:46:21 mind
0:46:21 telling
0:46:21 you
0:46:22 even
0:46:22 though
0:46:22 the
0:46:23 Iranians
0:46:23 never
0:46:23 said
0:46:23 we’re
0:46:24 building
0:46:24 a
0:46:24 latent
0:46:25 nuclear
0:46:25 weapons
0:46:26 capability
0:46:26 that’s
0:46:26 clearly
0:46:27 what
0:46:27 they’re
0:46:27 doing
0:46:28 is
0:46:28 showing
0:46:29 that
0:46:29 they
0:46:29 can
0:46:30 make
0:46:30 a
0:46:30 nuke
0:46:30 so
0:46:31 don’t
0:46:31 make
0:46:31 me
0:46:32 make
0:46:32 a
0:46:32 nuke
0:46:32 that
0:46:33 has
0:46:33 been
0:46:33 their
0:46:33 position
0:46:34 their
0:46:34 position
0:46:34 has
0:46:34 not
0:46:34 been
0:46:35 I’m
0:46:35 making
0:46:35 a
0:46:35 nuke
0:46:36 so
0:46:36 I
0:46:36 can
0:46:36 wipe
0:46:37 Israel
0:46:37 off
0:46:37 the
0:46:37 map
0:46:38 their
0:46:38 position
0:46:38 has
0:46:39 been
0:46:39 look
0:46:39 if
0:46:39 you
0:46:40 guys
0:46:40 don’t
0:46:40 attack
0:46:41 us
0:46:41 we
0:46:41 could
0:46:41 just
0:46:42 keep
0:46:42 this
0:46:42 civilian
0:46:43 program
0:46:43 the
0:46:44 way
0:46:44 it
0:46:44 is
0:46:44 and
0:46:45 again
0:46:45 there’s
0:46:46 always
0:46:46 the
0:46:47 implication
0:46:47 that
0:46:47 they’re
0:46:48 just
0:46:48 building
0:46:48 up
0:46:48 this
0:46:49 uranium
0:46:49 stockpile
0:46:49 but
0:46:50 no
0:46:50 they’re
0:46:50 not
0:46:50 that
0:46:50 was
0:46:50 in
0:46:51 reaction
0:46:51 to
0:46:51 one
0:46:52 Donald
0:46:52 Trump
0:46:53 leaving
0:46:53 the
0:46:53 deal
0:46:53 in
0:46:54 2018
0:46:54 to
0:46:55 the
0:46:55 assassination
0:46:56 in
0:46:56 December
0:46:56 2020
0:46:57 of
0:46:57 the
0:46:57 Iranian
0:46:58 nuclear
0:46:59 scientist
0:47:01 and
0:47:01 then
0:47:01 in
0:47:01 April
0:47:02 of
0:47:02 21
0:47:03 the
0:47:04 sabotage
0:47:04 at
0:47:05 Natanz
0:47:05 and
0:47:05 there’s
0:47:05 a
0:47:05 Reuters
0:47:06 story
0:47:06 that
0:47:06 says
0:47:07 right
0:47:07 after
0:47:07 they
0:47:08 sabotage
0:47:08 Natanz
0:47:09 that’s
0:47:09 when
0:47:09 the
0:47:10 Ayatollah
0:47:10 decided
0:47:11 let’s
0:47:11 enrich
0:47:11 up
0:47:11 to
0:47:12 60%
0:47:12 which
0:47:13 why
0:47:13 stop
0:47:14 30%
0:47:15 short
0:47:15 of
0:47:16 90%
0:47:16 235
0:47:17 it’s
0:47:18 because
0:47:18 they’re
0:47:18 not
0:47:19 even
0:47:19 making
0:47:19 a
0:47:19 threat
0:47:20 they’re
0:47:20 built
0:47:21 they’re
0:47:21 making
0:47:21 like
0:47:21 the
0:47:22 most
0:47:22 latent
0:47:23 threat
0:47:23 a
0:47:23 bargaining
0:47:24 chip
0:47:24 to
0:47:25 negotiate
0:47:26 away
0:47:26 they’re
0:47:26 trying
0:47:26 to
0:47:26 put
0:47:27 pressure
0:47:27 on
0:47:27 the
0:47:27 United
0:47:27 States
0:47:27 to
0:47:28 come
0:47:28 back
0:47:28 to
0:47:28 the
0:47:29 table
0:47:29 that’s
0:47:29 not
0:47:30 the
0:47:30 same
0:47:30 as
0:47:30 racing
0:47:30 to
0:47:31 the
0:47:31 bomb
0:47:32 that’s
0:47:32 why
0:47:32 Marco
0:47:32 Rubio
0:47:33 says
0:47:33 never
0:47:33 mind
0:47:34 the
0:47:34 intelligence
0:47:34 because
0:47:35 the
0:47:35 intelligence
0:47:35 says
0:47:36 what
0:47:36 I
0:47:56 got
0:47:56 got
0:47:56 to
0:47:56 get
0:47:57 into
0:47:57 the
0:47:57 details
0:47:57 of
0:47:57 this
0:47:58 stuff
0:47:58 details
0:47:59 100%
0:47:59 but
0:48:00 I
0:48:00 like
0:48:00 the
0:48:01 tension
0:48:01 between
0:48:02 two
0:48:03 people
0:48:03 with
0:48:04 different
0:48:04 perspectives
0:48:05 exploring
0:48:05 those
0:48:05 details
0:48:06 and
0:48:06 the
0:48:07 more
0:48:07 we
0:48:07 can
0:48:07 go
0:48:07 back
0:48:07 and
0:48:08 forth
0:48:08 the
0:48:08 better
0:48:09 and
0:48:09 there’s
0:48:09 a lot
0:48:09 of
0:48:09 disagreement
0:48:10 on the
0:48:10 table
0:48:10 I
0:48:10 personally
0:48:11 enjoy
0:48:11 learning
0:48:12 from
0:48:12 the
0:48:12 disagreement
0:48:12 that
0:48:13 was
0:48:13 a
0:48:13 long
0:48:14 list
0:48:14 of
0:48:14 claims
0:48:14 no
0:48:15 ?
0:48:26 I
0:48:26 like
0:48:27 the
0:48:27 tension
0:48:27 of
0:48:27 the
0:48:27 debate
0:48:28 of
0:48:28 back
0:48:28 and
0:48:28 forth
0:48:28 that’s
0:48:29 all
0:48:29 Mark
0:48:29 do
0:48:29 you
0:48:30 want
0:48:30 to
0:48:31 comment
0:48:31 on
0:48:31 stuff
0:48:32 a
0:48:32 little
0:48:32 bit
0:48:32 here
0:48:32 which
0:48:33 would
0:48:33 pick
0:48:34 whichever
0:48:34 topic
0:48:34 you
0:48:34 want
0:48:34 to
0:48:35 go
0:48:35 with
0:48:35 here
0:48:35 yeah
0:48:35 there’s
0:48:36 a lot
0:48:36 there
0:48:36 so
0:48:37 just
0:48:37 a
0:48:37 couple
0:48:38 things
0:48:38 I
0:48:38 think
0:48:38 that
0:48:38 are
0:48:38 worth
0:48:39 your
0:48:39 viewers
0:48:39 knowing
0:48:40 because
0:48:40 Scott’s
0:48:41 right
0:48:41 I
0:48:41 mean
0:48:41 the
0:48:41 nuclear
0:48:41 physics
0:48:42 is
0:48:42 complicated
0:48:42 and
0:48:43 it’s
0:48:43 also
0:48:44 important
0:48:45 so
0:48:45 the
0:48:45 Iranians
0:48:45 have
0:48:47 assembled
0:48:48 about
0:48:49 15 to
0:48:49 17
0:48:50 bombs
0:48:50 worth
0:48:51 of
0:48:51 60%
0:48:52 enriched
0:48:52 uranium
0:48:52 and
0:48:52 I
0:48:52 think
0:48:53 it’s
0:48:53 always
0:48:53 important
0:48:53 for
0:48:54 your
0:48:54 listeners
0:48:55 to
0:48:55 understand
0:48:55 what
0:48:55 does
0:48:55 this
0:48:56 all
0:48:56 mean
0:48:56 enriched
0:48:57 to
0:48:58 3.67%
0:48:58 to
0:48:59 20%
0:49:00 to
0:49:00 60%
0:49:01 and
0:49:01 then
0:49:01 to
0:49:01 90%
0:49:02 weapons
0:49:02 grade
0:49:02 uranium
0:49:03 what
0:49:03 does
0:49:03 this
0:49:04 process
0:49:04 mean
0:49:06 first
0:49:06 of
0:49:06 obviously
0:49:06 enriched
0:49:07 uranium
0:49:07 is
0:49:07 a
0:49:07 key
0:49:08 capability
0:49:08 to
0:49:09 develop
0:49:09 a
0:49:09 nuclear
0:49:09 weapon
0:49:10 it
0:49:10 can
0:49:10 also
0:49:10 be
0:49:10 used
0:49:11 for
0:49:11 other
0:49:11 purposes
0:49:12 civilian
0:49:13 purposes
0:49:13 and
0:49:14 research
0:49:14 purposes
0:49:15 you
0:49:15 can
0:49:15 use
0:49:15 it
0:49:15 to
0:49:16 power
0:49:16 nuclear
0:49:16 submarine
0:49:17 so
0:49:17 let’s
0:49:17 just
0:49:18 if
0:49:18 you
0:49:18 don’t
0:49:18 mind
0:49:18 if
0:49:19 I
0:49:19 could
0:49:19 just
0:49:19 break
0:49:19 it
0:49:19 down
0:49:20 yeah
0:49:21 just
0:49:21 I
0:49:22 think
0:49:22 it’s
0:49:22 again
0:49:22 important
0:49:22 just
0:49:23 to
0:49:23 understand
0:49:23 the
0:49:23 sort
0:49:24 of
0:49:24 basics
0:49:24 before
0:49:25 we
0:49:25 jump
0:49:25 into
0:49:25 the
0:49:26 allegations
0:49:26 and
0:49:27 claims
0:49:27 and
0:49:27 counter
0:49:28 claims
0:49:28 so
0:49:29 if
0:49:29 you’re
0:49:29 going
0:49:29 to
0:49:29 enrich
0:49:29 to
0:49:31 3.67%
0:49:31 enrich
0:49:32 uranium
0:49:33 that’s
0:49:33 for
0:49:34 civilian
0:49:34 nuclear
0:49:35 power
0:49:35 right
0:49:36 but
0:49:36 when
0:49:36 you
0:49:36 do
0:49:37 that
0:49:37 you
0:49:37 basically
0:49:38 70%
0:49:38 of
0:49:38 what
0:49:38 you
0:49:39 need
0:49:39 to
0:49:39 get
0:49:39 to
0:49:39 weapons
0:49:40 grade
0:49:40 right
0:49:40 so
0:49:41 you’ve
0:49:41 done
0:49:41 all
0:49:41 the
0:49:42 steps
0:49:43 70%
0:49:43 of
0:49:43 the
0:49:43 steps
0:49:43 in
0:49:44 order
0:49:44 to
0:49:44 get
0:49:44 to
0:49:45 weapons
0:49:45 grade
0:49:46 uranium
0:49:47 if
0:49:47 you
0:49:47 enrich
0:49:47 to
0:49:48 20%
0:49:49 you
0:49:49 are
0:49:50 now
0:49:50 at
0:49:51 90%
0:49:52 of
0:49:52 what
0:49:52 you
0:49:52 need
0:49:52 to
0:49:52 get
0:49:53 to
0:49:53 weapons
0:49:53 grade
0:49:53 uranium
0:49:54 now
0:49:54 why
0:49:54 would
0:49:54 you
0:49:54 need
0:49:55 20%
0:49:56 you
0:49:56 may
0:49:56 need
0:49:56 it
0:49:56 for
0:49:57 something
0:49:57 like
0:49:57 a
0:49:58 research
0:49:58 reactor
0:49:59 right
0:49:59 and
0:49:59 so
0:50:01 Iran
0:50:01 has
0:50:01 correct
0:50:02 Iran
0:50:02 has
0:50:03 a
0:50:03 Tehran
0:50:04 research
0:50:04 reactor
0:50:04 for
0:50:05 medical
0:50:05 isotopes
0:50:05 now
0:50:05 you
0:50:06 can
0:50:06 buy
0:50:07 those
0:50:07 isotopes
0:50:08 from
0:50:08 abroad
0:50:09 or
0:50:09 you
0:50:09 can
0:50:10 produce
0:50:10 them
0:50:10 at
0:50:10 home
0:50:11 if
0:50:11 you
0:50:11 going
0:50:11 to
0:50:12 enrich
0:50:16 what
0:50:16 you
0:50:16 need
0:50:16 to
0:50:16 get
0:50:17 to
0:50:17 weapons
0:50:17 grade
0:50:17 uranium
0:50:18 and
0:50:18 then
0:50:19 90%
0:50:20 is
0:50:20 quote
0:50:20 weapons
0:50:21 grade
0:50:21 uranium
0:50:21 by
0:50:21 the way
0:50:21 you
0:50:21 can
0:50:22 use
0:50:22 60%
0:50:23 to
0:50:23 actually
0:50:24 deliver
0:50:24 a
0:50:24 crude
0:50:24 nuclear
0:50:25 device
0:50:26 that
0:50:26 has
0:50:27 been
0:50:27 done
0:50:27 in
0:50:27 the
0:50:27 past
0:50:28 but
0:50:28 you
0:50:28 want
0:50:28 to
0:50:28 get
0:50:28 to
0:50:29 quote
0:50:30 90%
0:50:31 that’s
0:50:32 weapons
0:50:32 grade
0:50:32 uranium
0:50:33 as
0:50:33 Scott’s
0:50:34 defining
0:50:34 it
0:50:34 but
0:50:34 just
0:50:34 again
0:50:34 to
0:50:35 clarify
0:50:36 these
0:50:36 huge
0:50:37 stockpiles
0:50:37 of
0:50:38 60%
0:50:38 that
0:50:38 Iran
0:50:38 has
0:50:39 accumulated
0:50:40 this
0:50:41 16-17
0:50:42 bombs
0:50:42 worth
0:50:42 of
0:50:43 60%
0:50:43 is
0:50:44 99%
0:50:45 of
0:50:45 what
0:50:45 they
0:50:45 need
0:50:45 for
0:50:45 weapons
0:50:46 grade
0:50:46 so
0:50:46 I
0:50:46 just
0:50:46 wanted
0:50:47 to
0:50:47 explain
0:50:47 that
0:50:48 yeah
0:50:48 but
0:50:48 when you
0:50:49 say
0:50:49 you’re
0:50:49 saying
0:50:50 if
0:50:50 you
0:50:50 include
0:50:51 the
0:50:51 mining
0:50:52 the
0:50:52 refining
0:50:52 of
0:50:52 the
0:50:53 ore
0:50:53 into
0:50:53 yellow
0:50:53 cake
0:50:53 the
0:50:54 transformation
0:50:54 of
0:50:55 that
0:50:55 into
0:50:55 uranium
0:50:56 hexafluoride
0:50:56 gas
0:50:57 the
0:50:57 driving
0:50:58 of it
0:50:58 in
0:50:58 a
0:50:58 truck
0:50:58 over
0:50:59 to
0:50:59 the
0:51:00 centrifuge
0:51:00 and
0:51:01 then
0:51:01 spinning
0:51:02 it
0:51:02 this
0:51:03 is
0:51:03 where
0:51:03 we
0:51:03 get
0:51:03 this
0:51:04 90%
0:51:04 number
0:51:05 from
0:51:05 right
0:51:06 in
0:51:07 place
0:51:07 of
0:51:08 90%
0:51:08 enriched
0:51:09 uranium
0:51:09 or
0:51:11 80%
0:51:11 enriched
0:51:11 uranium
0:51:12 it’s
0:51:12 90%
0:51:13 of the
0:51:13 way
0:51:13 on
0:51:14 some
0:51:14 chart
0:51:14 that
0:51:15 includes
0:51:16 picking
0:51:16 up a
0:51:16 shovel
0:51:17 and
0:51:17 beginning
0:51:17 to
0:51:18 mine
0:51:18 right
0:51:19 again
0:51:19 just to
0:51:19 clarify
0:51:20 I
0:51:20 just
0:51:20 think
0:51:20 it’s
0:51:20 important
0:51:20 to
0:51:21 understand
0:51:21 the
0:51:21 definition
0:51:22 of
0:51:22 terms
0:51:23 to
0:51:23 get
0:51:24 once
0:51:24 you
0:51:24 have
0:51:25 60%
0:51:25 enriched
0:51:26 uranium
0:51:26 you’ve
0:51:26 done
0:51:27 99%
0:51:27 of
0:51:27 all
0:51:27 the
0:51:28 steps
0:51:28 including
0:51:28 some
0:51:28 of
0:51:28 the
0:51:29 steps
0:51:29 that
0:51:29 Scott’s
0:51:29 talking
0:51:30 about
0:51:30 you’ve
0:51:30 done
0:51:35 well
0:51:36 as
0:51:36 I’ve
0:51:36 already
0:51:37 established
0:51:37 numerous
0:51:38 times
0:51:38 here
0:51:38 under
0:51:39 the
0:51:39 JCPOA
0:51:40 they
0:51:40 shipped
0:51:40 out
0:51:40 every
0:51:41 bit
0:51:41 of
0:51:41 their
0:51:42 enriched
0:51:42 uranium
0:51:43 stockpile
0:51:43 the
0:51:43 French
0:51:44 turned
0:51:44 it
0:51:44 into
0:51:44 fuel
0:51:45 rods
0:51:45 and
0:51:45 then
0:51:45 shipped
0:51:46 it
0:51:46 back
0:51:46 that’s
0:51:47 the
0:51:47 deal
0:51:47 they’re
0:51:47 trying
0:51:47 to
0:51:47 get
0:51:48 the
0:51:48 U.S.
0:51:48 back
0:51:49 into
0:51:49 and
0:51:50 were
0:51:50 obviously
0:51:51 clearly
0:51:51 willing
0:51:51 to
0:51:51 do
0:51:52 and
0:51:52 again
0:51:52 the
0:51:52 only
0:51:53 reason
0:51:53 they’re
0:51:53 enriching
0:51:53 up
0:51:53 to
0:51:54 60%
0:51:54 was
0:51:54 to
0:51:55 put
0:51:55 the
0:51:55 pressure
0:51:55 on
0:51:55 the
0:51:56 Americans
0:51:56 to
0:51:57 go
0:51:57 ahead
0:51:57 and
0:51:57 get
0:51:57 back
0:51:58 into
0:51:58 the
0:51:58 deal
0:51:59 and
0:51:59 bad
0:51:59 bet
0:52:00 it
0:52:00 gave
0:52:00 them
0:52:00 an
0:52:01 excuse
0:52:01 to
0:52:01 bomb
0:52:01 based
0:52:02 on
0:52:02 the
0:52:02 idea
0:52:02 that
0:52:02 people
0:52:02 are
0:52:02 going
0:52:02 to
0:52:03 listen
0:52:03 to
0:52:03 him
0:52:04 pretend
0:52:04 that
0:52:04 somehow
0:52:04 that’s
0:52:05 99%
0:52:06 of the
0:52:06 way
0:52:06 to
0:52:26 they’re
0:52:26 very
0:52:27 close
0:52:27 to
0:52:28 weapons
0:52:28 grade
0:52:29 it’s
0:52:30 1%
0:52:30 more
0:52:30 that
0:52:30 they
0:52:30 need
0:52:30 to
0:52:31 do
0:52:31 to
0:52:31 enrich
0:52:31 to
0:52:31 weapons
0:52:32 grade
0:52:32 the
0:52:33 second
0:52:33 aspect
0:52:33 of
0:52:33 a
0:52:34 deliverable
0:52:34 nuclear
0:52:34 weapon
0:52:35 is
0:52:35 obviously
0:52:36 the
0:52:36 delivery
0:52:36 vehicle
0:52:37 and
0:52:37 those
0:52:37 are
0:52:37 the
0:52:37 missiles
0:52:38 and
0:52:39 according
0:52:40 to
0:52:40 the
0:52:40 DNI
0:52:40 and
0:52:41 other
0:52:42 incredible
0:52:42 sources
0:52:43 Iran
0:52:43 has
0:52:43 got
0:52:43 the
0:52:44 largest
0:52:45 missile
0:52:45 inventory
0:52:46 in
0:52:46 the
0:52:46 Middle
0:52:46 East
0:52:48 3,000
0:52:48 missiles
0:52:49 before
0:52:49 the
0:52:49 war
0:52:49 began
0:52:51 and
0:52:51 at
0:52:52 least
0:52:52 the
0:52:52 ballistic
0:52:53 missiles
0:52:54 2,000
0:52:54 capable
0:52:54 of
0:52:55 reaching
0:52:55 Israel
0:52:56 so
0:52:56 there’s
0:52:56 no doubt
0:52:56 that
0:52:57 Iran
0:52:57 has
0:52:57 the
0:52:57 ability
0:52:58 once
0:52:58 they
0:52:58 have
0:52:59 the
0:52:59 weapons
0:52:59 grade
0:53:00 uranium
0:53:00 and
0:53:00 the
0:53:01 warhead
0:53:01 to
0:53:01 fix
0:53:02 that
0:53:02 to
0:53:02 a
0:53:02 missile
0:53:02 and
0:53:03 deliver
0:53:03 that
0:53:04 certainly
0:53:04 to
0:53:04 hit
0:53:05 Israel
0:53:05 hit
0:53:05 our
0:53:06 Gulf
0:53:06 neighbors
0:53:07 hit
0:53:07 southern
0:53:07 Europe
0:53:08 they
0:53:08 also
0:53:09 have
0:53:09 a
0:53:10 active
0:53:10 intercontinental
0:53:11 ballistic
0:53:11 missile
0:53:12 program
0:53:12 an
0:53:13 ICBM
0:53:13 program
0:53:14 which
0:53:15 ultimately
0:53:15 is
0:53:16 designed
0:53:16 not
0:53:16 to
0:53:16 hit
0:53:16 the
0:53:17 Israelis
0:53:17 or
0:53:17 the
0:53:18 Gulf
0:53:18 but
0:53:19 to
0:53:19 hit
0:53:20 deeper
0:53:20 into
0:53:21 Europe
0:53:21 and
0:53:21 ultimately
0:53:22 to
0:53:22 target
0:53:22 the
0:53:22 United
0:53:23 States
0:53:23 so
0:53:24 let’s
0:53:24 just
0:53:24 understand
0:53:24 the
0:53:25 missile
0:53:25 program
0:53:25 I think
0:53:26 it’s
0:53:26 an
0:53:26 important
0:53:26 part
0:53:26 of it
0:53:27 the
0:53:27 third
0:53:27 leg
0:53:28 of the
0:53:28 stool
0:53:28 and
0:53:28 Scott
0:53:29 has
0:53:29 already
0:53:29 alluded
0:53:30 to
0:53:30 this
0:53:30 and
0:53:30 we’ve
0:53:30 had
0:53:30 some
0:53:31 debate
0:53:31 on
0:53:31 this
0:53:31 and
0:53:31 I
0:53:31 think
0:53:31 we
0:53:31 should
0:53:32 talk
0:53:32 about
0:53:32 it
0:53:33 what
0:53:34 you’ve
0:53:34 got
0:53:34 to
0:53:34 develop
0:53:35 a
0:53:35 warhead
0:53:36 or
0:53:37 crude
0:53:37 nuclear
0:53:38 device
0:53:38 and
0:53:39 according
0:53:39 to
0:53:40 estimates
0:53:41 from
0:53:41 both
0:53:41 US
0:53:42 government
0:53:42 sources
0:53:43 and
0:53:44 nuclear
0:53:45 experts
0:53:45 it
0:53:45 would
0:53:46 take
0:53:46 about
0:53:46 four
0:53:46 to
0:53:47 six
0:53:47 months
0:53:47 for
0:53:47 Iran
0:53:47 to
0:53:48 develop
0:53:48 a
0:53:48 crude
0:53:48 nuclear
0:53:49 device
0:53:50 this
0:53:50 is
0:53:50 something
0:53:50 that
0:53:51 you
0:53:51 wouldn’t
0:53:51 use
0:53:51 a
0:53:51 missile
0:53:52 to
0:53:52 deliver
0:53:52 but
0:53:52 you
0:53:52 would
0:53:53 use
0:53:53 a
0:53:53 plane
0:53:53 or
0:53:53 a
0:53:54 ship
0:53:55 and
0:53:55 it
0:53:55 would
0:53:55 take
0:53:56 somewhere
0:53:56 in
0:53:56 the
0:53:56 neighborhood
0:53:57 of
0:53:57 about
0:53:57 a
0:53:57 year
0:53:57 and a
0:54:02 fixed
0:54:02 to
0:54:02 the
0:54:03 missile
0:54:03 so
0:54:03 the
0:54:04 three
0:54:04 legs
0:54:04 of
0:54:04 the
0:54:04 nuclear
0:54:05 stool
0:54:05 right
0:54:05 the
0:54:07 weapons
0:54:07 grade
0:54:07 uranium
0:54:08 the
0:54:09 missiles
0:54:09 to
0:54:10 deliver
0:54:10 it
0:54:11 and
0:54:12 the
0:54:12 and
0:54:13 the
0:54:13 warhead
0:54:13 so
0:54:13 I
0:54:13 just
0:54:14 want
0:54:14 to
0:54:14 sort
0:54:14 of
0:54:14 define
0:54:15 terms
0:54:15 so
0:54:15 that
0:54:15 when
0:54:15 we’re
0:54:16 having
0:54:16 this
0:54:16 big
0:54:16 debate
0:54:17 your
0:54:17 listeners
0:54:18 kind
0:54:18 of
0:54:18 understand
0:54:19 what
0:54:19 we’re
0:54:19 talking
0:54:19 about
0:54:19 if
0:54:19 I
0:54:20 can
0:54:20 jump
0:54:20 in
0:54:20 here
0:54:20 on
0:54:20 this
0:54:21 point
0:54:21 too
0:54:21 and
0:54:21 I’ll
0:54:21 turn
0:54:21 it
0:54:21 back
0:54:21 over
0:54:22 to
0:54:22 you
0:54:22 but
0:54:45 a
0:54:46 I
0:54:46 only
0:54:46 just
0:54:46 found
0:54:47 out
0:54:47 that
0:54:47 he
0:54:47 died
0:54:47 two
0:54:48 years
0:54:48 ago
0:54:49 unfortunately
0:54:49 he used
0:54:49 to
0:54:49 write
0:54:50 for
0:54:50 us
0:54:50 at
0:54:50 anti
0:54:50 war
0:54:51 commons
0:54:51 a
0:54:51 brilliant
0:54:52 nuclear
0:54:52 physicist
0:54:53 and
0:54:53 h-bomb
0:54:54 developer
0:54:55 and he
0:54:55 really
0:54:56 taught me
0:54:56 all about
0:54:56 this
0:54:57 stuff
0:54:57 and
0:54:59 so
0:55:00 I’m
0:55:00 not
0:55:00 correcting
0:55:01 anything
0:55:01 you said
0:55:02 what he
0:55:02 said
0:55:02 essentially
0:55:02 is
0:55:03 right
0:55:03 maybe
0:55:03 add a
0:55:03 little
0:55:04 more
0:55:04 detail
0:55:05 the
0:55:05 easiest
0:55:06 kind
0:55:06 of
0:55:06 nuke
0:55:06 to
0:55:06 make
0:55:06 out
0:55:07 of
0:55:07 uranium
0:55:07 is
0:55:07 a
0:55:07 simple
0:55:08 gun
0:55:08 type
0:55:08 nuke
0:55:09 like
0:55:09 they
0:55:09 dropped
0:55:09 on
0:55:10 Hiroshima
0:55:10 as
0:55:10 little
0:55:11 boy
0:55:11 it’s
0:55:11 essentially
0:55:11 a
0:55:12 shotgun
0:55:13 firing
0:55:14 a
0:55:14 uranium
0:55:15 slug
0:55:15 into
0:55:15 a
0:55:16 uranium
0:55:16 target
0:55:17 and
0:55:17 that’s
0:55:17 enough
0:55:17 they
0:55:17 didn’t
0:55:17 even
0:55:18 test
0:55:18 it
0:55:18 they
0:55:18 knew
0:55:18 it
0:55:19 worked
0:55:19 so
0:55:20 easy
0:55:20 to
0:55:20 do
0:55:20 to
0:55:21 do
0:55:21 the
0:55:21 Hiroshima
0:55:21 bomb
0:55:22 the
0:55:22 Nagasaki
0:55:23 bomb
0:55:23 was
0:55:24 plutonium
0:55:24 implosion
0:55:25 bomb
0:55:25 it’s
0:55:26 virtually
0:55:26 always
0:55:27 plutonium
0:55:27 that’s
0:55:28 used
0:55:28 in
0:55:29 implosion
0:55:29 bombs
0:55:31 and
0:55:33 in
0:55:34 miniaturized
0:55:34 nuclear
0:55:34 warheads
0:55:35 that can
0:55:35 be
0:55:35 married
0:55:36 to
0:55:36 missiles
0:55:37 as opposed
0:55:38 to a
0:55:38 bomb
0:55:38 you can
0:55:38 drop out
0:55:39 of the
0:55:39 belly
0:55:39 of a
0:55:39 plane
0:55:40 so
0:55:41 gun
0:55:41 type
0:55:41 nuke
0:55:42 you
0:55:42 can’t
0:55:42 put
0:55:42 that
0:55:42 on
0:55:43 a
0:55:43 missile
0:55:44 that
0:55:44 is
0:55:44 by far
0:55:44 the
0:55:45 easiest
0:55:45 kind
0:55:45 of
0:55:46 nuclear
0:55:46 weapon
0:55:46 for
0:55:47 Iran
0:55:47 to
0:55:47 make
0:55:47 if
0:55:47 they
0:55:48 broke
0:55:48 out
0:55:48 and
0:55:48 made
0:55:49 one
0:55:49 right
0:55:50 but
0:55:50 it
0:55:50 would
0:55:50 be
0:55:51 useless
0:55:51 to
0:55:51 them
0:55:52 drive
0:55:52 it
0:55:52 to
0:55:53 Israel
0:55:53 in
0:55:53 a
0:55:53 flatbed
0:55:53 truck
0:55:54 they
0:55:55 got
0:55:55 no
0:55:55 way
0:55:55 to
0:55:56 deliver
0:55:56 that
0:55:56 they
0:55:56 could
0:55:58 test
0:55:58 it
0:55:58 in
0:55:58 the
0:55:59 desert
0:55:59 and
0:55:59 beat
0:55:59 their
0:55:59 chest
0:56:00 but
0:56:00 essentially
0:56:00 that’s
0:56:01 all
0:56:01 they
0:56:01 do
0:56:02 like
0:56:02 we
0:56:03 did
0:56:03 as
0:56:03 Scott
0:56:04 said
0:56:04 with
0:56:05 Hiroshima
0:56:06 Nagasaki
0:56:08 very
0:56:08 slim
0:56:08 chance
0:56:09 of
0:56:09 Iranian
0:56:09 heavy
0:56:10 bombers
0:56:10 getting
0:56:10 through
0:56:11 Israeli
0:56:11 airspace
0:56:12 but
0:56:12 anyway
0:56:13 to
0:56:14 make
0:56:14 an
0:56:14 implosion
0:56:15 bomb
0:56:15 they
0:56:16 would
0:56:16 have
0:56:17 to
0:56:17 do
0:56:18 years
0:56:18 worth
0:56:18 of
0:56:18 experiments
0:56:18 unless
0:56:19 the
0:56:19 Chinese
0:56:19 or the
0:56:19 Russians
0:56:20 gave
0:56:20 them
0:56:20 the
0:56:21 software
0:56:21 or
0:56:21 gave
0:56:22 them
0:56:22 the
0:56:22 finished
0:56:22 blueprints
0:56:23 or
0:56:23 something
0:56:23 which
0:56:23 is
0:56:23 no
0:56:24 indication
0:56:24 of
0:56:24 that
0:56:24 whatsoever
0:56:25 the
0:56:25 only
0:56:25 people
0:56:25 gave
0:56:25 them
0:56:26 blueprints
0:56:26 for a
0:56:26 nuclear
0:56:26 bomb
0:56:27 was
0:56:32 blueprints
0:56:32 but
0:56:33 the
0:56:33 Iranians
0:56:34 didn’t
0:56:34 take
0:56:34 the
0:56:34 bait
0:56:34 the
0:56:35 blueprints
0:56:35 were
0:56:35 given
0:56:36 just
0:56:36 to
0:56:36 clarify
0:56:36 it’s
0:56:37 just
0:56:37 interesting
0:56:37 just
0:56:37 in
0:56:38 terms
0:56:38 of
0:56:38 the
0:56:38 history
0:56:38 of
0:56:39 proliferation
0:56:41 so
0:56:42 Iran’s
0:56:42 initial
0:56:43 nuclear
0:56:44 program
0:56:44 which
0:56:44 is
0:56:45 built
0:56:45 on
0:56:46 centrifuges
0:56:46 as
0:56:46 Scott
0:56:46 and
0:56:46 I
0:56:46 have
0:56:47 been
0:56:47 talking
0:56:47 about
0:56:48 that
0:56:48 was
0:56:48 actually
0:56:49 given
0:56:49 to
0:56:49 the
0:56:50 designs
0:56:50 of
0:56:50 that
0:56:50 were
0:56:50 given
0:56:50 to
0:56:51 them
0:56:51 by
0:56:51 Akhu
0:56:51 Khan
0:56:52 who
0:56:52 was
0:56:52 really
0:56:52 the
0:56:53 father
0:56:53 of
0:56:53 the
0:56:54 Pakistani
0:56:54 nuclear
0:56:55 program
0:56:56 and
0:56:56 he
0:56:56 actually
0:56:56 stole
0:56:57 those
0:56:57 designs
0:56:58 from
0:56:58 the
0:56:58 Dutch
0:56:59 and
0:56:59 handed
0:56:59 it
0:57:00 to
0:57:00 the
0:57:01 Iranians
0:57:01 he
0:57:01 also
0:57:02 handed
0:57:02 it
0:57:02 to
0:57:02 the
0:57:02 North
0:57:03 Koreans
0:57:03 and
0:57:03 the
0:57:04 Libyans
0:57:04 and
0:57:04 others
0:57:04 so
0:57:05 they
0:57:05 were
0:57:05 able
0:57:06 to
0:57:07 illicitly
0:57:07 acquire
0:57:08 this
0:57:08 technology
0:57:09 or at least
0:57:09 the
0:57:09 blueprints
0:57:10 for this
0:57:10 technology
0:57:10 from
0:57:10 the
0:57:11 father
0:57:11 of
0:57:11 the
0:57:11 Pakistani
0:57:12 bomb
0:57:12 so
0:57:12 I
0:57:13 think
0:57:13 that’s
0:57:13 an
0:57:13 interesting
0:57:14 point
0:57:14 but
0:57:14 if
0:57:14 you
0:57:15 don’t
0:57:15 mind
0:57:15 as
0:57:15 I
0:57:16 said
0:57:16 earlier
0:57:16 because
0:57:16 Bill
0:57:17 Clinton
0:57:18 clamped
0:57:18 down
0:57:18 on
0:57:18 the
0:57:18 Chinese
0:57:19 and
0:57:19 wouldn’t
0:57:19 let
0:57:19 them
0:57:19 sell
0:57:21 light
0:57:22 water
0:57:22 reactors
0:57:23 so
0:57:23 then
0:57:23 they
0:57:23 went
0:57:23 to
0:57:24 AQ
0:57:24 Con
0:57:24 and
0:57:24 bought
0:57:24 the
0:57:25 stuff
0:57:25 on
0:57:25 the
0:57:25 black
0:57:25 market
0:57:26 and
0:57:26 they
0:57:26 bought
0:57:27 heavy
0:57:27 water
0:57:27 reactors
0:57:27 from
0:57:28 the
0:57:28 Russians
0:57:28 which
0:57:28 they’ve
0:57:28 been
0:57:29 using
0:57:29 for
0:57:30 electricity
0:57:31 I
0:57:31 want
0:57:32 to
0:57:32 get
0:57:32 to
0:57:32 the
0:57:33 second
0:57:33 thing
0:57:33 I
0:57:33 think
0:57:33 it’s
0:57:34 important
0:57:34 for
0:57:34 listeners
0:57:35 to
0:57:35 know
0:57:35 and
0:57:35 then
0:57:35 I
0:57:37 was
0:57:37 in
0:57:37 the
0:57:37 middle
0:57:37 of
0:57:37 saying
0:57:38 though
0:57:38 when
0:57:38 you’re
0:57:38 trying
0:57:38 to
0:57:39 make
0:57:39 a
0:57:39 uranium
0:57:40 implosion
0:57:40 bomb
0:57:40 or
0:57:41 a
0:57:41 plutonium
0:57:41 implosion
0:57:42 bomb
0:57:42 it’s
0:57:42 a
0:57:43 much
0:57:43 more
0:57:43 difficult
0:57:44 task
0:57:44 than
0:57:44 putting
0:57:45 together
0:57:45 a
0:57:45 gun
0:57:45 type
0:57:46 nuke
0:57:46 takes
0:57:46 an
0:57:47 extraordinary
0:57:47 amount
0:57:47 of
0:57:47 testing
0:57:48 and
0:57:48 that’s
0:57:48 why
0:57:48 he
0:57:49 repeated
0:57:49 probably
0:57:50 unknowingly
0:57:51 some
0:57:51 false
0:57:52 propaganda
0:57:52 about
0:57:53 Iran
0:57:53 having
0:57:54 this
0:57:54 advanced
0:57:55 testing
0:57:55 facility
0:57:55 I
0:57:56 think
0:57:56 he
0:57:56 was
0:57:56 implying
0:57:57 correct me
0:57:57 if I’m
0:57:57 wrong
0:57:57 he
0:57:58 was
0:57:58 I’m
0:57:58 pretty
0:57:58 sure
0:57:58 you’re
0:57:59 implying
0:57:59 at
0:57:59 Parchin
0:58:00 that
0:58:00 they
0:58:00 were
0:58:00 testing
0:58:00 these
0:58:01 implosion
0:58:01 systems
0:58:02 but
0:58:02 that’s
0:58:02 completely
0:58:03 debunked
0:58:03 it’s
0:58:03 completely
0:58:04 false
0:58:04 but
0:58:04 they
0:58:04 were
0:58:04 testing
0:58:05 what
0:58:05 they’re
0:58:05 doing
0:58:05 at
0:58:06 Parchin
0:58:06 with
0:58:06 that
0:58:06 implosion
0:58:07 chamber
0:58:08 was
0:58:08 making
0:58:09 nanodiamonds
0:58:10 and the
0:58:10 scientist
0:58:11 in charge
0:58:11 of it
0:58:11 was
0:58:12 Ukrainian
0:58:12 who
0:58:12 had
0:58:13 studied
0:58:13 in
0:58:13 the
0:58:13 Soviet
0:58:14 Union
0:58:14 at
0:58:15 this
0:58:15 military
0:58:16 university
0:58:16 where
0:58:16 they
0:58:16 said
0:58:16 oh
0:58:17 see
0:58:17 they
0:58:17 study
0:58:17 nuclear
0:58:18 stuff
0:58:18 there
0:58:18 but
0:58:18 that
0:58:19 wasn’t
0:58:19 his
0:58:19 speciality
0:58:20 his
0:58:20 name
0:58:20 was
0:58:20 Dan
0:58:20 Elenko
0:58:21 and
0:58:21 he
0:58:21 was
0:58:21 a
0:58:22 specialist
0:58:22 in
0:58:22 making
0:58:23 nanodiamonds
0:58:24 and
0:58:24 that
0:58:25 facility
0:58:26 was
0:58:26 vouched
0:58:26 by
0:58:27 Robert
0:58:27 Kelly
0:58:28 in
0:58:28 the
0:58:28 Christian
0:58:29 Science
0:58:29 Monitor
0:58:29 told
0:58:30 Scott
0:58:30 Peterson
0:58:31 of
0:58:31 the
0:58:31 Christian
0:58:31 Science
0:58:32 Monitor
0:58:32 that
0:58:32 that
0:58:33 stuff
0:58:33 was
0:58:33 nonsense
0:58:33 that
0:58:34 that
0:58:34 facility
0:58:35 that
0:58:35 implosion
0:58:36 chamber
0:58:36 could not
0:58:37 be used
0:58:37 for
0:58:38 testing
0:58:39 an
0:58:40 implosion
0:58:40 system
0:58:40 for
0:58:41 nuclear
0:58:41 weapons
0:58:41 and
0:58:41 I
0:58:41 know
0:58:41 from
0:58:42 Dr.
0:58:42 Prather
0:58:42 telling
0:58:43 me
0:58:43 that
0:58:43 when
0:58:44 the
0:58:44 Americans
0:58:45 were
0:58:45 doing
0:58:45 this
0:58:45 and
0:58:46 the
0:58:46 Russians
0:58:46 too
0:58:47 that
0:58:47 they
0:58:47 test
0:58:51 with
0:58:52 lead
0:58:52 instead
0:58:52 of
0:58:53 uranium
0:58:53 in
0:58:53 the
0:58:53 core
0:58:53 and
0:58:54 then
0:58:54 you
0:58:54 take
0:58:54 all
0:58:55 this
0:58:55 high
0:58:55 speed
0:58:55 x-ray
0:58:56 film
0:58:56 of
0:58:56 the
0:58:56 thing
0:58:57 and
0:58:57 it’s
0:58:57 this
0:58:57 huge
0:58:57 and
0:58:58 drawn
0:58:58 out
0:58:58 and
0:58:59 incredibly
0:59:00 complicated
0:59:00 engineering
0:59:01 process
0:59:01 and
0:59:01 this
0:59:01 is
0:59:02 probably
0:59:02 why
0:59:03 the
0:59:03 week
0:59:03 before
0:59:03 the
0:59:04 war
0:59:04 the
0:59:05 CIA
0:59:05 said
0:59:06 not only
0:59:06 do
0:59:06 we
0:59:06 think
0:59:06 they’re
0:59:06 a
0:59:07 year
0:59:07 away
0:59:07 from
0:59:07 having
0:59:08 enough
0:59:08 nuclear
0:59:09 material
0:59:09 to
0:59:09 make
0:59:09 one
0:59:09 bomb
0:59:10 we
0:59:10 think
0:59:10 they’re
0:59:10 three
0:59:11 years
0:59:11 away
0:59:11 from
0:59:12 having
0:59:12 a
0:59:12 finished
0:59:13 warhead
0:59:13 that
0:59:14 must
0:59:14 have
0:59:14 been
0:59:14 assuming
0:59:15 that
0:59:15 they
0:59:15 would
0:59:15 try
0:59:15 to
0:59:15 make
0:59:15 an
0:59:16 implosion
0:59:16 system
0:59:16 that
0:59:17 you
0:59:17 could
0:59:17 put
0:59:17 on
0:59:18 in
0:59:18 other
0:59:18 words
0:59:19 miniaturize
0:59:19 and
0:59:19 put
0:59:20 on
0:59:20 a
0:59:20 missile
0:59:20 as
0:59:21 opposed
0:59:22 in
0:59:22 other
0:59:22 words
0:59:22 skipping
0:59:23 a
0:59:23 gun
0:59:23 type
0:59:23 nuke
0:59:24 that
0:59:24 would
0:59:24 be
0:59:24 useless
0:59:25 to
0:59:25 them
0:59:25 so
0:59:26 it’s
0:59:26 very
0:59:27 important
0:59:27 to
0:59:27 understand
0:59:28 then
0:59:28 that
0:59:29 if
0:59:29 if
0:59:29 they
0:59:30 have
0:59:30 a
0:59:30 uranium
0:59:30 route
0:59:31 to
0:59:31 the
0:59:31 bomb
0:59:31 if
0:59:32 they
0:59:32 withdraw
0:59:32 from
0:59:32 the
0:59:33 treaty
0:59:42 useless
0:59:42 to
0:59:42 them
0:59:43 or
0:59:43 they
0:59:43 can
0:59:44 take
0:59:44 their
0:59:45 ponderous
0:59:46 ass
0:59:46 time
0:59:46 trying
0:59:47 to
0:59:47 figure
0:59:47 out
0:59:48 how
0:59:48 to
0:59:48 make
0:59:48 an
0:59:48 implosion
0:59:49 system
0:59:49 work
0:59:50 first
0:59:50 of
0:59:50 I’m
0:59:50 glad
0:59:50 Scott
0:59:51 knows
0:59:51 about
0:59:51 what’s
0:59:51 going
0:59:52 on
0:59:52 at
0:59:52 Parchin
0:59:52 because
0:59:52 the
0:59:53 IAEA
0:59:53 doesn’t
0:59:53 and
0:59:54 they’ve
0:59:54 been
0:59:54 asking
0:59:54 the
0:59:55 Iranians
0:59:55 that’s
0:59:55 not
0:59:56 true
0:59:56 the
0:59:56 Iranians
0:59:56 told
0:59:57 the
0:59:57 IAEA
0:59:58 you can
0:59:58 inspect
0:59:58 any
0:59:59 five
0:59:59 out
0:59:59 of
0:59:59 ten
1:00:00 facilities
1:00:00 here
1:00:01 carte
1:00:01 blanche
1:00:02 go ahead
1:00:02 and they
1:00:02 did
1:00:13 so
1:00:13 I
1:00:14 want
1:00:14 to
1:00:14 just
1:00:14 again
1:00:15 just
1:00:15 put
1:00:15 it
1:00:15 out
1:00:15 there
1:00:15 for
1:00:16 your
1:00:16 listeners
1:00:16 they
1:00:16 should
1:00:17 just
1:00:17 google
1:00:18 Ahmad
1:00:19 program
1:00:20 and
1:00:20 they
1:00:20 should
1:00:21 learn
1:00:21 about
1:00:21 the
1:00:21 Ahmad
1:00:22 program
1:00:22 because
1:00:22 it’s
1:00:23 detailed
1:00:24 in
1:00:25 US
1:00:25 government
1:00:26 documents
1:00:27 experts
1:00:27 in
1:00:28 Iran’s
1:00:28 nuclear
1:00:28 program
1:00:29 including
1:00:29 David
1:00:29 Albright
1:00:29 who
1:00:30 actually
1:00:30 saw
1:00:31 the
1:00:31 archive
1:00:31 went
1:00:31 in
1:00:31 there
1:00:32 wrote
1:00:32 a
1:00:32 whole
1:00:32 book
1:00:32 on
1:00:32 it
1:00:33 and
1:00:33 there’s
1:00:33 a
1:00:33 lot
1:00:34 of
1:00:34 detail
1:00:34 about
1:00:34 how
1:00:35 Iran
1:00:35 had
1:00:35 an
1:00:36 active
1:00:36 nuclear
1:00:37 weapons
1:00:37 program
1:00:42 POA
1:00:42 because
1:00:43 I
1:00:43 actually
1:00:43 think
1:00:43 it’s
1:00:43 an
1:00:44 interesting
1:00:44 discussion
1:00:45 for
1:00:45 Scott
1:00:45 and
1:00:45 I
1:00:46 to
1:00:46 have
1:00:47 because
1:00:47 I
1:00:47 think
1:00:47 there’s
1:00:47 things
1:00:48 that
1:00:48 we
1:00:48 agree
1:00:48 on
1:00:48 there
1:00:49 and
1:00:49 things
1:00:49 that
1:00:49 we
1:00:49 disagree
1:00:50 on
1:00:50 right
1:00:50 so
1:00:50 this
1:00:50 is
1:00:51 a
1:00:51 2015
1:00:52 nuclear
1:00:52 deal
1:00:52 that
1:00:53 Obama
1:00:53 reaches
1:00:54 it’s
1:00:55 negotiated
1:00:55 painstakingly
1:00:56 over
1:00:56 two
1:00:56 years
1:00:56 between
1:00:57 2013
1:00:57 and
1:00:58 2015
1:00:59 and
1:00:59 it
1:00:59 follows
1:00:59 the
1:00:59 interim
1:01:00 agreement
1:01:01 that
1:01:01 the
1:01:01 United
1:01:01 States
1:01:02 negotiated
1:01:02 with
1:01:02 Iran
1:01:03 and
1:01:03 it’s
1:01:04 in
1:01:04 that
1:01:04 interim
1:01:05 agreement
1:01:05 in
1:01:05 2013
1:01:06 where
1:01:06 the
1:01:06 United
1:01:06 States
1:01:06 for the
1:01:07 first
1:01:07 time
1:01:08 actually
1:01:09 gives
1:01:09 Iran
1:01:09 the
1:01:10 right
1:01:10 to
1:01:11 enrich
1:01:11 uranium
1:01:11 there
1:01:12 were
1:01:12 five
1:01:12 UN
1:01:13 Security
1:01:13 Council
1:01:13 resolutions
1:01:14 passed
1:01:14 with
1:01:14 the
1:01:14 support
1:01:14 of
1:01:15 Russia
1:01:15 and
1:01:15 China
1:01:16 that
1:01:16 said
1:01:16 Iran
1:01:16 should
1:01:16 have
1:01:17 no
1:01:17 enrichment
1:01:18 capability
1:01:18 and
1:01:18 no
1:01:19 plutonium
1:01:20 reprocessing
1:01:20 capability
1:01:20 because
1:01:21 of the
1:01:21 fears
1:01:22 that
1:01:22 Iran
1:01:22 would
1:01:22 turn
1:01:22 that
1:01:23 into
1:01:23 a
1:01:23 nuclear
1:01:24 weapons
1:01:24 program
1:01:24 but
1:01:25 in
1:01:25 2013
1:01:25 they
1:01:25 give
1:01:26 that
1:01:26 up
1:01:27 2015
1:01:27 we
1:01:27 reach
1:01:28 the
1:01:28 JCPOA
1:01:29 and
1:01:29 under
1:01:29 the
1:01:30 JCPOA
1:01:30 Iran
1:01:30 is
1:01:31 allowed
1:01:31 to
1:01:31 retain
1:01:32 enrichment
1:01:32 capability
1:01:33 and
1:01:34 reprocessing
1:01:34 capability
1:01:35 but
1:01:35 over
1:01:36 time
1:01:36 so
1:01:36 Scott
1:01:36 mentioned
1:01:37 these
1:01:37 sunsets
1:01:37 and
1:01:38 just
1:01:38 want
1:01:38 your
1:01:38 listeners
1:01:39 to
1:01:39 understand
1:01:39 what
1:01:39 the
1:01:40 sunsets
1:01:40 are
1:01:41 essentially
1:01:41 the
1:01:41 restrictions
1:01:42 that are
1:01:42 placed
1:01:42 on
1:01:43 Iran’s
1:01:43 nuclear
1:01:44 program
1:01:44 and
1:01:45 there’s
1:01:45 some
1:01:45 really
1:01:45 serious
1:01:46 restrictions
1:01:46 placed
1:01:46 on
1:01:47 it
1:01:47 especially
1:01:47 in
1:01:47 the
1:01:47 short
1:01:48 term
1:01:48 Scott’s
1:01:48 right
1:01:49 the
1:01:49 enriched
1:01:50 material
1:01:50 has
1:01:50 to
1:01:50 be
1:01:51 shipped
1:01:51 out
1:01:51 not
1:01:58 facilities
1:01:59 and
1:01:59 atans
1:01:59 and
1:02:00 Fordeaux
1:02:00 they’re
1:02:00 not
1:02:01 closed
1:02:02 they still
1:02:02 remain
1:02:02 open
1:02:03 but
1:02:03 there
1:02:03 are
1:02:03 restrictions
1:02:03 on
1:02:04 what
1:02:04 they
1:02:04 can
1:02:04 do
1:02:04 with
1:02:04 it
1:02:05 there’s
1:02:05 also
1:02:06 restrictions
1:02:06 on
1:02:06 Iran’s
1:02:07 ability
1:02:07 to
1:02:08 test
1:02:09 and
1:02:09 install
1:02:10 advanced
1:02:11 centrifuges
1:02:11 now
1:02:11 the
1:02:12 reason
1:02:12 you’d
1:02:12 want
1:02:12 an
1:02:13 advanced
1:02:13 centrifuge
1:02:14 rather
1:02:14 than
1:02:14 the
1:02:14 first
1:02:15 generation
1:02:15 centrifuge
1:02:16 that
1:02:16 Akhu
1:02:17 Khan
1:02:17 the
1:02:17 father
1:02:18 of
1:02:18 Pakistan’s
1:02:18 nuclear
1:02:19 bomb
1:02:19 gave
1:02:19 to
1:02:19 the
1:02:20 Iranians
1:02:20 is
1:02:21 you
1:02:21 need
1:02:21 a
1:02:21 smaller
1:02:22 number
1:02:22 of
1:02:22 these
1:02:23 centrifuges
1:02:23 to
1:02:23 produce
1:02:24 weapons
1:02:24 grade
1:02:25 uranium
1:02:25 if
1:02:25 it’s
1:02:25 smaller
1:02:26 it’s
1:02:26 easier
1:02:26 to
1:02:27 hide
1:02:27 you
1:02:27 can
1:02:27 put
1:02:28 it
1:02:28 in
1:02:29 clandestine
1:02:30 facilities
1:02:30 without
1:02:30 this
1:02:31 large
1:02:31 enrichment
1:02:32 centrifuge
1:02:33 footprint
1:02:34 so
1:02:34 there’s
1:02:34 restrictions
1:02:35 on
1:02:35 these
1:02:35 advanced
1:02:36 centrifuge
1:02:36 R&D
1:02:37 and
1:02:38 Iran
1:02:39 gets
1:02:39 significant
1:02:40 sanctions
1:02:40 relief
1:02:40 as part
1:02:41 of
1:02:41 this
1:02:41 but
1:02:41 the
1:02:42 whole
1:02:42 assumption
1:02:43 here
1:02:44 from
1:02:44 both
1:02:44 an
1:02:44 Iranian
1:02:44 and
1:02:45 American
1:02:45 perspective
1:02:46 is
1:02:46 these
1:02:46 restrictions
1:02:46 are
1:02:46 going
1:02:47 to
1:02:47 sunset
1:02:47 they’re
1:02:47 going
1:02:47 to
1:02:48 disappear
1:02:48 over
1:02:48 time
1:02:53 restrictions
1:02:53 on
1:02:54 Iran’s
1:02:54 capabilities
1:02:55 begin
1:02:55 to
1:02:55 sunset
1:02:56 and
1:02:56 all
1:02:56 of
1:02:56 them
1:02:56 are
1:02:57 effectively
1:02:58 gone
1:02:58 by
1:02:59 2031
1:02:59 so
1:03:00 in
1:03:00 2031
1:03:01 Iran
1:03:01 can
1:03:01 emerge
1:03:02 with
1:03:02 an
1:03:02 industrial
1:03:03 size
1:03:03 enrichment
1:03:04 capability
1:03:05 they
1:03:05 can
1:03:06 emerge
1:03:07 with
1:03:08 advanced
1:03:08 centrifuges
1:03:08 that
1:03:09 they
1:03:09 can
1:03:09 install
1:03:10 in
1:03:10 as
1:03:10 many
1:03:11 enrichment
1:03:11 facilities
1:03:11 as
1:03:11 they
1:03:12 want
1:03:12 to
1:03:12 build
1:03:14 and
1:03:14 Iran
1:03:14 can
1:03:15 enrich
1:03:15 to
1:03:16 higher
1:03:16 and
1:03:16 higher
1:03:16 levels
1:03:17 so
1:03:17 they
1:03:17 can
1:03:17 go
1:03:17 from
1:03:18 3.67
1:03:18 to
1:03:19 20%
1:03:19 they
1:03:20 can
1:03:20 go
1:03:20 to
1:03:21 60%
1:03:21 there
1:03:21 is
1:03:22 nothing
1:03:22 in
1:03:22 the
1:03:22 JCPOA
1:03:23 that
1:03:23 prohibits
1:03:23 them
1:03:24 from
1:03:24 going
1:03:24 to
1:03:25 90%
1:03:25 in
1:03:25 Iran
1:03:26 and
1:03:26 I
1:03:26 think
1:03:27 at
1:03:27 the
1:03:27 time
1:03:28 the
1:03:28 Obama
1:03:29 administration’s
1:03:29 theory
1:03:30 of the
1:03:30 case
1:03:30 was
1:03:31 yeah
1:03:32 sure
1:03:32 in
1:03:32 15
1:03:32 years
1:03:33 time
1:03:34 we’ll
1:03:34 be
1:03:35 gone
1:03:36 hopefully
1:03:36 it’ll
1:03:36 be a
1:03:36 different
1:03:37 government
1:03:37 in
1:03:37 Iran
1:03:38 and
1:03:38 maybe
1:03:38 we
1:03:39 can
1:03:40 renegotiate
1:03:40 a
1:03:40 different
1:03:41 agreement
1:03:41 with
1:03:41 that
1:03:42 government
1:03:42 that
1:03:42 will
1:03:42 extend
1:03:43 the
1:03:43 sunsets
1:03:43 so
1:03:44 that
1:03:44 that’s
1:03:44 the
1:03:45 JCPOA
1:03:46 the
1:03:46 reason
1:03:51 deal
1:03:52 is
1:03:52 not
1:03:53 because
1:03:53 it
1:03:53 didn’t
1:03:53 have
1:03:53 some
1:03:54 short
1:03:54 term
1:03:55 temporary
1:03:56 restrictions
1:03:56 that
1:03:56 were
1:03:56 useful
1:03:57 but
1:03:57 that
1:03:57 if
1:03:57 you
1:03:58 got
1:03:58 it
1:03:58 wrong
1:03:58 and
1:03:59 there
1:03:59 was
1:03:59 the
1:03:59 same
1:03:59 regime
1:04:00 in
1:04:00 power
1:04:00 in
1:04:01 15
1:04:01 years
1:04:02 that
1:04:02 regime
1:04:02 could
1:04:03 emerge
1:04:03 with
1:04:03 this
1:04:04 huge
1:04:04 nuclear
1:04:05 program
1:04:05 with
1:04:06 the
1:04:06 capabilities
1:04:07 to
1:04:07 develop
1:04:07 nuclear
1:04:08 weapons
1:04:08 in
1:04:09 these
1:04:09 multiple
1:04:09 hardened
1:04:10 sites
1:04:11 Iran
1:04:11 we
1:04:12 estimated
1:04:12 would
1:04:12 have
1:04:12 a
1:04:12 trillion
1:04:13 dollars
1:04:13 in
1:04:13 sanctions
1:04:14 relief
1:04:14 over
1:04:14 that
1:04:14 15
1:04:15 year
1:04:15 period
1:04:16 and
1:04:16 if
1:04:16 you
1:04:16 got
1:04:16 it
1:04:16 wrong
1:04:17 that
1:04:17 it
1:04:17 was
1:04:17 the
1:04:17 same
1:04:18 regime
1:04:18 in
1:04:19 power
1:04:19 as
1:04:19 it
1:04:19 had
1:04:20 been
1:04:20 in
1:04:20 power
1:04:20 in
1:04:21 2015
1:04:21 then
1:04:21 you
1:04:22 had
1:04:22 some
1:04:22 difficulties
1:04:23 okay
1:04:23 I
1:04:23 just
1:04:23 wanted
1:04:24 to
1:04:24 lay
1:04:24 out
1:04:25 the
1:04:25 case
1:04:25 against
1:04:26 the
1:04:26 JCPOA
1:04:26 now
1:04:26 to
1:04:27 steel
1:04:27 man
1:04:28 Scott’s
1:04:29 argument
1:04:29 I
1:04:29 think
1:04:29 there’s
1:04:30 a
1:04:30 legitimate
1:04:30 argument
1:04:31 because
1:04:31 I
1:04:31 actually
1:04:32 didn’t
1:04:32 support
1:04:32 the
1:04:32 withdrawal
1:04:33 from
1:04:33 the
1:04:33 agreement
1:04:35 President
1:04:35 Trump
1:04:35 withdrew
1:04:36 in
1:04:36 2018
1:04:37 I
1:04:37 did
1:04:38 a
1:04:38 similar
1:04:39 version
1:04:45 UK
1:04:46 who
1:04:46 were
1:04:46 part
1:04:46 of
1:04:46 the
1:04:46 original
1:04:47 deal
1:04:48 extend
1:04:48 the
1:04:49 sunsets
1:04:49 as
1:04:49 an
1:04:50 agreement
1:04:50 between
1:04:50 the
1:04:50 United
1:04:51 States
1:04:51 and
1:04:51 Europe
1:04:52 and
1:04:52 then
1:04:53 collectively
1:04:53 go to
1:04:53 the
1:04:54 Iranians
1:04:54 and
1:04:54 say
1:04:55 let’s
1:04:55 renegotiate
1:04:56 this
1:04:56 agreement
1:04:56 to
1:04:57 extend
1:04:57 the
1:04:57 sunsets
1:04:57 if
1:04:57 you
1:04:58 don’t
1:04:58 want
1:04:58 a
1:04:58 nuclear
1:04:59 weapons
1:04:59 program
1:05:00 then
1:05:00 you
1:05:00 should
1:05:01 agree
1:05:01 that
1:05:01 you
1:05:02 don’t
1:05:02 need
1:05:02 these
1:05:03 capabilities
1:05:04 and
1:05:04 let’s
1:05:05 extend
1:05:05 the
1:05:05 sunsets
1:05:06 for
1:05:06 another
1:05:06 15
1:05:06 20
1:05:07 30
1:05:07 years
1:05:08 President
1:05:08 give
1:05:08 me
1:05:08 a
1:05:09 screenshot
1:05:09 of
1:05:09 this
1:05:10 give
1:05:10 me
1:05:10 a
1:05:10 pound
1:05:10 dude
1:05:11 there
1:05:11 we
1:05:11 go
1:05:13 agreement
1:05:13 that
1:05:14 makes
1:05:14 my
1:05:14 heart
1:05:14 feel
1:05:15 and
1:05:15 I
1:05:15 think
1:05:15 the
1:05:15 I
1:05:15 told
1:05:15 it
1:05:16 would
1:05:16 have
1:05:16 gone
1:05:16 for
1:05:16 it
1:05:17 too
1:05:17 well
1:05:17 so
1:05:18 I’m
1:05:18 not
1:05:18 sure
1:05:18 if
1:05:18 he
1:05:39 the
1:05:39 Europeans
1:05:39 actually
1:05:40 rejected
1:05:40 this
1:05:40 idea
1:05:42 and
1:05:42 so
1:05:42 at
1:05:42 some
1:05:42 point
1:05:43 Trump
1:05:43 said
1:05:43 look
1:05:43 if
1:05:43 the
1:05:43 Europeans
1:05:44 aren’t
1:05:44 prepared
1:05:44 to
1:05:44 get
1:05:44 on
1:05:45 side
1:05:45 then
1:05:45 I’m
1:05:46 out
1:05:46 of
1:05:46 the
1:05:46 deal
1:05:47 I’m
1:05:47 out
1:05:47 of
1:05:47 the
1:05:47 deal
1:05:48 and
1:05:48 if
1:05:48 you’re
1:05:48 interested
1:05:48 I can
1:05:49 talk
1:05:49 about
1:05:49 why
1:05:49 I
1:05:49 thought
1:05:49 we
1:05:50 should
1:05:50 have
1:05:50 stayed
1:05:50 in
1:05:50 the
1:05:51 deal
1:05:51 because
1:05:51 I
1:05:51 thought
1:05:51 it
1:05:51 gave
1:05:51 us
1:05:52 some
1:05:52 important
1:05:53 restrictions
1:05:53 in
1:05:53 the
1:05:54 short
1:05:54 term
1:05:54 certain
1:05:55 leverage
1:05:56 but
1:05:56 Trump
1:05:56 decides
1:05:56 to
1:05:57 withdraw
1:05:57 from
1:05:57 that
1:05:57 agreement
1:05:58 because
1:05:58 he
1:05:59 recognizes
1:05:59 that
1:05:59 the
1:06:00 fatal
1:06:00 flaw
1:06:01 of
1:06:01 the
1:06:01 agreement
1:06:03 are
1:06:03 one
1:06:03 giving
1:06:03 them
1:06:04 any
1:06:04 enrichment
1:06:05 capability
1:06:05 especially
1:06:06 at an
1:06:06 industrial
1:06:07 size
1:06:07 within
1:06:08 15
1:06:08 years
1:06:09 and
1:06:10 two
1:06:10 are
1:06:10 the
1:06:11 sunsets
1:06:11 as
1:06:11 Scott
1:06:12 said
1:06:12 which
1:06:13 under
1:06:13 which
1:06:13 these
1:06:14 restrictions
1:06:14 are
1:06:14 going
1:06:14 to
1:06:15 go
1:06:15 away
1:06:16 and
1:06:16 Iran
1:06:16 is
1:06:16 going
1:06:16 to
1:06:17 end
1:06:17 up
1:06:17 with
1:06:17 a
1:06:18 massive
1:06:18 nuclear
1:06:19 program
1:06:19 I
1:06:19 think
1:06:19 that’s
1:06:20 just
1:06:20 important
1:06:20 we
1:06:20 can
1:06:21 talk
1:06:21 about
1:06:21 the
1:06:22 JCPOA
1:06:22 the
1:06:23 process
1:06:23 and
1:06:27 framing
1:06:27 Trump
1:06:28 for
1:06:28 treason
1:06:28 with
1:06:29 Russia
1:06:29 and
1:06:30 pushing
1:06:30 the
1:06:30 Russiagate
1:06:31 hoax
1:06:31 I’m
1:06:32 trying
1:06:32 to
1:06:32 agree
1:06:32 with
1:06:32 my
1:06:32 friend
1:06:32 here
1:06:33 because
1:06:33 what
1:06:34 it
1:06:34 is
1:06:34 is
1:06:34 that
1:06:35 that
1:06:35 completely
1:06:36 ruined
1:06:36 Donald
1:06:37 Trump’s
1:06:37 ability
1:06:38 to
1:06:38 engage
1:06:38 in
1:06:39 real
1:06:39 diplomacy
1:06:39 with
1:06:40 Russia
1:06:40 for
1:06:40 his
1:06:41 entire
1:06:41 first
1:06:41 term
1:06:42 certainly
1:06:42 for
1:06:42 the
1:06:42 first
1:06:42 three
1:06:43 years
1:06:43 of
1:06:43 it
1:06:43 he
1:06:43 was
1:06:44 completely
1:06:45 handcuffed
1:06:45 it
1:06:46 was
1:06:48 terrible
1:06:48 as
1:06:48 I’m
1:06:48 sure
1:06:49 you’re
1:06:49 well
1:06:49 aware
1:06:50 for
1:06:50 the
1:06:51 future
1:06:51 now
1:06:51 our
1:06:51 past
1:06:57 Trump
1:06:57 pick
1:06:57 up
1:06:57 the
1:06:58 phone
1:06:58 I
1:06:58 don’t
1:06:58 know
1:06:59 the
1:06:59 details
1:06:59 here
1:06:59 but
1:06:59 I’ll
1:06:59 take
1:07:00 his
1:07:00 word
1:07:00 for
1:07:00 it
1:07:00 that
1:07:00 the
1:07:01 British
1:07:01 and
1:07:01 the
1:07:01 French
1:07:01 and
1:07:01 the
1:07:02 Germans
1:07:03 weren’t
1:07:03 being
1:07:03 nice
1:07:03 to
1:07:04 Trump
1:07:04 they
1:07:04 didn’t
1:07:04 like
1:07:04 him
1:07:05 they
1:07:05 didn’t
1:07:05 want
1:07:05 to
1:07:05 do
1:07:05 it
1:07:06 why
1:07:06 couldn’t
1:07:06 he
1:07:06 pick
1:07:06 the
1:07:07 pick
1:07:07 up
1:07:07 the
1:07:07 phone
1:07:07 and
1:07:07 say
1:07:08 hey
1:07:08 Putin
1:07:08 I
1:07:09 need
1:07:09 you
1:07:09 to
1:07:09 call
1:07:09 the
1:07:10 Ayatollah
1:07:10 for
1:07:10 me
1:07:11 and
1:07:11 tell
1:07:11 him
1:07:11 hey
1:07:11 you’d
1:07:12 like
1:07:27 later
1:07:27 topic
1:07:28 and
1:07:28 so
1:07:29 it’s
1:07:29 going
1:07:29 to
1:07:29 be
1:07:29 a
1:07:29 provocative
1:07:30 statement
1:07:30 but
1:07:31 I
1:07:31 think
1:07:31 let’s
1:07:32 put
1:07:32 it
1:07:32 on
1:07:32 the
1:07:32 table
1:07:33 I
1:07:33 absolutely
1:07:34 agree
1:07:34 with
1:07:34 Scott
1:07:35 I
1:07:35 mean
1:07:35 I
1:07:35 think
1:07:35 it
1:07:35 was
1:07:36 a
1:07:38 travesty
1:07:39 that
1:07:40 they
1:07:40 of
1:07:40 the
1:07:41 accusations
1:07:41 against
1:07:42 Donald
1:07:42 Trump
1:07:43 as a
1:07:43 Russian
1:07:43 agent
1:07:44 I
1:07:44 mean
1:07:45 completely
1:07:46 debunked
1:07:46 but
1:07:47 it
1:07:47 did
1:07:47 it
1:07:47 I
1:07:47 think
1:07:48 it
1:07:48 paralyzed
1:07:49 his
1:07:49 presidency
1:07:50 for
1:07:50 two
1:07:51 two
1:07:51 and
1:07:51 a
1:07:51 half
1:07:51 years
1:07:51 I
1:07:52 agree
1:07:52 with
1:07:52 Scott
1:07:53 the
1:07:53 idea
1:07:57 agent
1:07:58 for
1:07:58 Vladimir
1:07:59 Putin
1:07:59 I
1:07:59 think
1:08:00 is
1:08:02 unfounded
1:08:02 and
1:08:03 I
1:08:03 thought
1:08:04 at
1:08:04 the
1:08:04 time
1:08:04 disgraceful
1:08:05 and
1:08:05 I
1:08:05 thought
1:08:05 it
1:08:05 was
1:08:05 really
1:08:05 important
1:08:06 I
1:08:06 think
1:08:06 Scott
1:08:06 did
1:08:06 really
1:08:07 good
1:08:07 work
1:08:07 in
1:08:08 debunking
1:08:08 that
1:08:09 I
1:08:09 would
1:08:09 say
1:08:09 that
1:08:09 just
1:08:10 a
1:08:10 couple
1:08:10 days
1:08:10 ago
1:08:10 I
1:08:10 was
1:08:11 watching
1:08:11 a
1:08:11 podcast
1:08:12 Scott
1:08:12 was
1:08:12 on
1:08:13 and
1:08:13 he
1:08:13 accused
1:08:14 Trump
1:08:15 of
1:08:15 being
1:08:15 an
1:08:15 agent
1:08:16 for
1:08:16 Netanyahu
1:08:16 and
1:08:17 the
1:08:17 Israeli
1:08:17 government
1:08:18 so
1:08:18 I
1:08:18 think
1:08:18 again
1:08:18 the
1:08:19 accusations
1:08:19 that
1:08:19 the
1:08:19 president
1:08:20 United
1:08:20 States
1:08:20 as
1:08:20 a
1:08:21 foreign
1:08:21 agent
1:08:22 for
1:08:22 some
1:08:22 foreign
1:08:23 government
1:08:23 I
1:08:23 think
1:08:23 we
1:08:23 should
1:08:24 put
1:08:24 all
1:08:24 of
1:08:24 that
1:08:25 aside
1:08:25 in
1:08:25 any
1:08:26 discussion
1:08:27 and
1:08:27 just
1:08:27 say
1:08:27 President
1:08:27 Trump
1:08:28 makes
1:08:28 his
1:08:28 own
1:08:28 decisions
1:08:29 whether
1:08:29 we
1:08:29 agree
1:08:29 with
1:08:29 them
1:08:30 but
1:08:30 he’s
1:08:31 not
1:08:31 working
1:08:31 for
1:08:32 the
1:08:33 FSB
1:08:33 and
1:08:33 he’s
1:08:33 not
1:08:33 working
1:08:34 for
1:08:34 Mossad
1:08:35 President
1:08:36 Trump
1:08:36 makes
1:08:36 his
1:08:36 own
1:08:36 decisions
1:08:37 based
1:08:37 on
1:08:37 American
1:08:38 national
1:08:38 security
1:08:38 I
1:08:39 was
1:08:39 making
1:08:39 a
1:08:39 point
1:08:40 that’s
1:08:40 hyperbole
1:08:40 making
1:08:40 a
1:08:41 point
1:08:41 but
1:08:41 he
1:08:41 did
1:08:42 in
1:08:42 fact
1:08:42 could
1:08:42 you
1:08:42 google
1:08:43 this
1:08:43 for
1:08:43 me
1:08:43 because
1:08:43 I
1:08:43 always
1:08:44 forget
1:08:44 exactly
1:08:44 how
1:08:44 many
1:08:45 hundreds
1:08:45 of
1:08:45 millions
1:08:46 of
1:08:46 dollars
1:08:46 that
1:08:46 he
1:08:46 took
1:08:47 from
1:08:47 Sheldon
1:08:48 Adelson
1:08:48 and
1:08:48 Miriam
1:08:49 Adelson
1:08:49 who are
1:08:50 Americans
1:08:50 by the way
1:08:51 who
1:08:51 are
1:08:51 Americans
1:08:51 who
1:08:52 Sheldon
1:08:52 Adelson
1:08:52 said
1:08:52 his
1:08:53 only
1:08:53 regret
1:08:53 in
1:08:53 life
1:08:53 is
1:08:54 that
1:08:54 he
1:08:54 served
1:08:54 in
1:08:54 the
1:08:54 American
1:08:55 army
1:08:55 instead
1:08:55 of
1:08:55 the
1:08:56 IDF
1:08:56 and
1:08:56 said
1:08:57 America
1:08:57 should
1:08:57 nuke
1:08:58 Iran
1:08:58 in
1:08:58 order
1:08:59 to
1:08:59 get
1:08:59 them
1:08:59 to
1:08:59 give
1:09:00 up
1:09:00 their
1:09:00 nuclear
1:09:00 weapons
1:09:00 he
1:09:01 said
1:09:01 I
1:09:01 have
1:09:01 one
1:09:02 issue
1:09:02 one
1:09:03 Israel
1:09:04 and
1:09:04 they
1:09:04 gave
1:09:05 Trump
1:09:06 hundreds
1:09:06 of
1:09:06 millions
1:09:07 of
1:09:07 dollars
1:09:07 over
1:09:07 three
1:09:08 campaigns
1:09:09 that’s
1:09:09 not
1:09:09 just
1:09:09 a
1:09:10 jeez
1:09:10 I
1:09:10 really
1:09:10 hope
1:09:11 you’ll
1:09:11 think
1:09:11 of
1:09:11 me
1:09:11 in
1:09:11 the
1:09:12 future
1:09:12 Scott
1:09:12 first
1:09:13 of
1:09:13 a
1:09:13 couple
1:09:13 things
1:09:14 so
1:09:14 one
1:09:14 there’s
1:09:15 a
1:09:15 lot
1:09:15 of
1:09:15 people
1:09:16 that
1:09:16 are
1:09:16 friends
1:09:16 with
1:09:16 Trump
1:09:17 and
1:09:17 try
1:09:17 to
1:09:17 gain
1:09:18 influence
1:09:18 I
1:09:19 believe
1:09:28 decisions
1:09:29 and
1:09:30 maybe
1:09:30 I wonder
1:09:31 what
1:09:31 decisions
1:09:31 I could
1:09:32 get you
1:09:32 to make
1:09:32 if I
1:09:32 gave
1:09:32 you
1:09:33 hundreds
1:09:33 of
1:09:33 millions
1:09:34 of
1:09:34 dollars
1:09:34 well
1:09:34 me
1:09:35 personally
1:09:35 you
1:09:35 can
1:09:35 give
1:09:35 me
1:09:35 it
1:09:36 doesn’t
1:09:36 matter
1:09:37 I
1:09:37 couldn’t
1:09:37 even
1:09:37 get
1:09:37 you
1:09:38 I
1:09:38 couldn’t
1:09:38 get
1:09:38 you
1:09:38 to
1:09:38 drop
1:09:38 in
1:09:38 on
1:09:39 a
1:09:39 ramp
1:09:39 or
1:09:39 nothing
1:09:39 for
1:09:40 a hundred
1:09:40 million
1:09:40 bucks
1:09:40 nothing
1:09:41 you
1:09:41 cannot
1:09:42 control
1:09:42 my
1:09:42 decisions
1:09:43 with
1:09:43 money
1:09:44 it’s
1:09:44 the
1:09:45 American
1:09:45 system
1:09:45 Lex
1:09:45 that’s
1:09:46 how
1:09:46 it works
1:09:46 it’s
1:09:46 money
1:09:48 we can
1:09:48 go
1:09:49 It’s
1:09:49 the same
1:09:49 if
1:09:49 we’re
1:09:49 talking
1:09:49 about
1:09:50 Archer
1:09:50 Daniels
1:09:50 Midland
1:09:51 company
1:09:52 throwing
1:09:52 hundreds
1:09:52 of
1:09:52 millions
1:09:53 of
1:09:53 dollars
1:09:53 around
1:09:54 they
1:09:54 get
1:09:54 policies
1:09:55 based
1:09:55 on
1:09:55 their
1:09:55 hundreds
1:09:56 of
1:09:56 millions
1:09:56 of
1:09:56 dollars
1:09:57 the
1:09:57 squeaky
1:09:57 wheel
1:09:57 gets
1:09:58 the
1:09:58 grease
1:09:58 right
1:09:59 all
1:09:59 that
1:09:59 so
1:09:59 Lex
1:09:59 I
1:10:00 think
1:10:01 Elon
1:10:01 must
1:10:01 spend
1:10:02 $400
1:10:02 million
1:10:02 to
1:10:03 helping
1:10:03 Trump
1:10:03 get
1:10:03 elected
1:10:04 and
1:10:04 obviously
1:10:05 there
1:10:05 are
1:10:05 a
1:10:05 number
1:10:05 of
1:10:06 philanthropists
1:10:06 I
1:10:06 think
1:10:07 clearly
1:10:07 his
1:10:08 son
1:10:08 Don
1:10:08 Jr.
1:10:08 has
1:10:09 had
1:10:09 a lot
1:10:09 influence
1:10:09 in
1:10:09 who
1:10:10 gets
1:10:10 selected
1:10:10 in
1:10:10 these
1:10:11 positions
1:10:11 in
1:10:11 the
1:10:11 Pentagon
1:10:12 and
1:10:12 Tucker
1:10:13 Colson
1:10:13 has
1:10:14 had
1:10:14 a lot
1:10:14 of
1:10:14 influence
1:10:15 so
1:10:15 I
1:10:15 think
1:10:15 as
1:10:15 you
1:10:15 say
1:10:16 he
1:10:16 surrounds
1:10:16 himself
1:10:16 with
1:10:17 people
1:10:17 who
1:10:18 have
1:10:18 certain
1:10:18 ideas
1:10:19 ideologies
1:10:20 policies
1:10:21 the
1:10:21 president
1:10:21 makes
1:10:21 his
1:10:21 own
1:10:21 decisions
1:10:22 I
1:10:22 just
1:10:22 want
1:10:22 to
1:10:22 touch
1:10:23 on
1:10:23 one
1:10:23 thing
1:10:23 because
1:10:23 I
1:10:24 don’t
1:10:24 want
1:10:24 to
1:10:24 leave
1:10:25 this
1:10:25 alone
1:10:27 just
1:10:27 out
1:10:27 of
1:10:27 respect
1:10:28 for
1:10:28 the
1:10:29 victims
1:10:29 of
1:10:29 Iran
1:10:30 backed
1:10:31 terrorism
1:10:31 and
1:10:31 hostage
1:10:32 taking
1:10:39 hostages
1:10:40 in
1:10:40 79
1:10:40 took
1:10:40 our
1:10:41 diplomats
1:10:41 hostage
1:10:43 Scott
1:10:43 says
1:10:44 83
1:10:44 was
1:10:44 really
1:10:44 the
1:10:45 only
1:10:45 thing
1:10:45 that
1:10:45 happened
1:10:46 and
1:10:46 throws
1:10:47 out
1:10:47 a lot
1:10:47 of
1:10:48 information
1:10:48 certainly
1:10:49 some
1:10:49 pretty
1:10:50 breathtaking
1:10:51 accusations
1:10:51 that
1:10:51 somehow
1:10:52 the
1:10:52 Israelis
1:10:53 knew
1:10:53 about
1:10:53 this
1:10:54 and
1:10:54 didn’t
1:10:54 tell
1:10:54 the
1:10:54 Americans
1:10:55 and
1:10:55 some
1:10:56 Mossad
1:10:56 officers
1:10:57 accusation
1:10:57 yeah
1:11:00 I know
1:11:00 exactly
1:11:00 who he
1:11:01 is
1:11:01 and
1:11:01 he’s
1:11:01 been
1:11:02 widely
1:11:03 discredited
1:11:04 and
1:11:05 having
1:11:05 an axe
1:11:05 to
1:11:05 grind
1:11:06 with
1:11:06 Mossad
1:11:07 but
1:11:07 anyway
1:11:08 not only
1:11:08 83
1:11:08 but
1:11:09 all
1:11:09 through
1:11:09 the
1:11:09 90s
1:11:09 the
1:11:10 2000s
1:11:11 2010s
1:11:12 2020s
1:11:14 there
1:11:14 have
1:11:14 been
1:11:15 hundreds
1:11:15 of
1:11:16 attacks
1:11:17 of
1:11:19 assassinations
1:11:19 of
1:11:20 hostage
1:11:20 taking
1:11:21 there
1:11:21 are
1:11:22 thousands
1:11:22 Americans
1:11:23 who
1:11:23 have
1:11:23 been
1:11:24 killed
1:11:24 and
1:11:25 maimed
1:11:25 by
1:11:25 the
1:11:26 regime
1:11:26 can
1:11:26 you
1:11:26 be
1:11:27 specific
1:11:27 what
1:11:27 you’re
1:11:27 talking
1:11:28 about
1:11:28 I
1:11:28 can
1:11:28 give
1:11:28 you
1:11:28 a
1:11:29 whole
1:11:29 list
1:11:30 literally
1:11:31 I’m
1:11:31 happy
1:11:31 to
1:11:31 pull
1:11:31 it
1:11:32 up
1:11:32 Lex
1:11:32 I
1:11:33 shared
1:11:33 it
1:11:33 with
1:11:33 you
1:11:33 it’s
1:11:33 a
1:11:34 long
1:11:34 list
1:11:34 of
1:11:35 attacks
1:11:35 all
1:11:35 through
1:11:35 the
1:11:35 80s
1:11:36 and
1:11:36 90s
1:11:37 everything
1:11:38 from
1:11:39 the
1:11:40 Kobar
1:11:41 Towers
1:11:41 the
1:11:42 Kobar
1:11:42 Towers
1:11:42 was
1:11:43 Al-Qaeda
1:11:43 that
1:11:44 was
1:11:44 Osama
1:11:44 bin
1:11:44 Laden
1:11:45 and
1:11:45 Khalid
1:11:45 Sheikh
1:11:45 Mohammed
1:11:46 let
1:11:46 him
1:11:47 lay
1:11:47 it
1:11:47 out
1:11:47 let
1:11:48 hear
1:11:48 him
1:11:48 I
1:11:49 got
1:11:49 my
1:11:49 pen
1:11:49 in
1:11:49 my
1:11:49 hand
1:11:50 go
1:11:50 ahead
1:11:50 and
1:11:50 again
1:11:51 according
1:11:52 to
1:11:52 US
1:11:52 intelligence
1:11:53 fightings
1:11:53 it
1:11:53 was
1:11:54 actually
1:11:54 Hezbollah
1:11:55 that
1:11:55 worked
1:11:56 with
1:11:56 Al-Qaeda
1:11:57 trained
1:11:57 Al-Qaeda
1:11:58 in that
1:11:58 attack
1:11:58 in the
1:11:59 Kobra
1:11:59 Towers
1:12:00 they
1:12:00 were
1:12:01 kidnapping
1:12:01 our
1:12:02 diplomats
1:12:02 in
1:12:03 Beirut
1:12:04 they
1:12:05 launched
1:12:06 attacks
1:12:07 against
1:12:08 our
1:12:09 soldiers
1:12:09 while
1:12:09 in
1:12:10 Iraq
1:12:10 the
1:12:11 notion
1:12:11 that
1:12:13 well
1:12:13 you
1:12:14 say
1:12:14 you
1:12:14 debunked
1:12:14 it
1:12:14 you
1:12:15 just
1:12:15 made
1:12:15 your
1:12:15 claim
1:12:17 but
1:12:17 those
1:12:17 were
1:12:18 Iran
1:12:18 backed
1:12:19 militias
1:12:21 backed
1:12:21 by
1:12:23 Qasem
1:12:24 Soleimani
1:12:24 who
1:12:24 Scott
1:12:25 referred
1:12:25 to
1:12:25 who
1:12:25 was
1:12:26 the
1:12:26 commander
1:12:26 of
1:12:26 the
1:12:27 RGC
1:12:27 Quds
1:12:27 force
1:12:28 who
1:12:28 supplied
1:12:29 them
1:12:29 with
1:12:29 those
1:12:30 IEDs
1:12:30 or
1:12:31 those
1:12:31 EFPs
1:12:32 actually
1:12:32 those
1:12:33 explosives
1:12:33 well
1:12:34 again
1:12:34 this
1:12:34 has
1:12:35 been
1:12:35 all
1:12:36 confirmed
1:12:36 by
1:12:36 why
1:12:37 don’t
1:12:37 you
1:12:37 search
1:12:37 Alyssa
1:12:38 Rubin
1:12:38 New York
1:12:38 Times
1:12:39 EFP
1:12:39 factory
1:12:40 or
1:12:41 you
1:12:41 can
1:12:41 look
1:12:41 in
1:12:41 the
1:12:41 Christian
1:12:42 science
1:12:42 monitor
1:12:43 Operation
1:12:43 Eagle
1:12:43 Claw
1:12:44 where
1:12:44 they
1:12:45 found
1:12:45 these
1:12:45 things
1:12:47 it’s
1:12:47 easy
1:12:47 to
1:12:48 find
1:12:48 in
1:12:48 my
1:12:48 book
1:12:48 you
1:12:48 can
1:12:49 flip
1:12:49 right
1:12:49 to
1:12:50 soda
1:12:50 straws
1:12:50 and
1:12:51 EFPs
1:12:51 and
1:12:52 you
1:12:52 see
1:12:52 where
1:12:52 I
1:12:53 have
1:12:53 all
1:12:53 my
1:12:54 citations
1:12:54 for
1:12:54 the
1:12:55 solid
1:12:55 dozen
1:12:56 American
1:12:57 newspaper
1:12:57 reporters
1:12:58 who
1:12:58 were
1:12:58 embedded
1:12:58 with
1:12:59 American
1:12:59 soldiers
1:12:59 who
1:13:00 found
1:13:00 these
1:13:00 factories
1:13:01 in
1:13:01 Iraqi
1:13:01 Shia
1:13:02 stand
1:13:02 okay
1:13:03 with
1:13:04 Iraqi
1:13:05 Arabs
1:13:06 working
1:13:06 the
1:13:06 machines
1:13:07 not
1:13:07 Iran
1:13:08 so
1:13:09 I’d like
1:13:09 your
1:13:09 viewers
1:13:10 to
1:13:10 google
1:13:11 not
1:13:11 just
1:13:12 a
1:13:12 couple
1:13:12 of
1:13:13 sources
1:13:13 but
1:13:14 actually
1:13:14 google
1:13:14 the
1:13:15 US
1:13:15 government
1:13:15 reports
1:13:15 that
1:13:16 did
1:13:16 a
1:13:16 whole
1:13:16 after
1:13:17 action
1:13:17 report
1:13:17 on
1:13:17 the
1:13:18 Iraq
1:13:18 war
1:13:18 all
1:13:18 the
1:13:19 mistakes
1:13:19 were
1:13:19 made
1:13:19 in
1:13:19 the
1:13:20 Iraq
1:13:20 war
1:13:20 and
1:13:20 there
1:13:20 were
1:13:21 legion
1:13:21 of
1:13:22 mistakes
1:13:22 made
1:13:23 but
1:13:23 it
1:13:23 was
1:13:23 very
1:13:23 clear
1:13:34 from
1:13:35 Lebanese
1:13:35 Hezbollah
1:13:35 that
1:13:36 got
1:13:36 it
1:13:36 from
1:13:36 the
1:13:36 IRA
1:13:37 they
1:13:37 didn’t
1:13:37 even
1:13:37 get
1:13:38 the
1:13:38 technique
1:13:38 from
1:13:38 the
1:13:39 Iranians
1:13:39 at
1:13:39 all
1:13:40 so
1:13:40 Lebanese
1:13:40 Hezbollah
1:13:41 has
1:13:43 been
1:13:43 trained
1:13:44 financed
1:13:45 and
1:13:46 supported
1:13:46 by
1:13:46 Iran
1:13:47 for
1:13:47 many
1:13:48 years
1:13:48 and
1:13:48 that
1:13:48 design
1:13:49 did
1:13:49 not
1:13:49 come
1:13:49 from
1:13:50 Persia
1:13:50 yeah
1:13:50 so
1:13:51 again
1:13:52 I
1:13:52 think
1:13:52 we
1:13:52 all
1:13:52 admit
1:13:52 Scott
1:13:53 admits
1:13:53 as
1:13:53 well
1:13:53 that
1:13:54 Hezbollah
1:13:54 was
1:13:55 trained
1:13:55 financed
1:13:56 and
1:13:57 supported
1:13:57 by
1:13:58 Iran
1:13:58 Hezbollah
1:13:58 has
1:13:58 been
1:13:59 responsible
1:13:59 for
1:13:59 many
1:13:59 of
1:13:59 these
1:13:59 terrorist
1:14:00 attacks
1:14:00 Hezbollah
1:14:00 come
1:14:01 from
1:14:01 it’s
1:14:01 the
1:14:01 reaction
1:14:02 to
1:14:02 the
1:14:02 Israeli
1:14:03 invasion
1:14:03 of
1:14:03 Lebanon
1:14:03 where
1:14:03 they
1:14:03 went
1:14:04 after
1:14:04 the
1:14:04 PLO
1:14:04 and
1:14:05 horribly
1:14:05 mistreated
1:14:06 the
1:14:06 poor
1:14:06 local
1:14:06 Iraqi
1:14:07 Shiites
1:14:07 until
1:14:08 they
1:14:08 rose
1:14:08 up
1:14:08 and
1:14:08 created
1:14:09 these
1:14:09 militias
1:14:09 to
1:14:09 fight
1:14:10 in
1:14:10 self-defense
1:14:11 that’s
1:14:11 where
1:14:12 Hezbollah
1:14:12 comes
1:14:12 from
1:14:12 Hezbollah
1:14:12 was
1:14:13 actually
1:14:13 created
1:14:13 by
1:14:13 the
1:14:14 RGC
1:14:14 before
1:14:14 the
1:14:14 Israeli
1:14:15 invasion
1:14:16 C.I.A.’s
1:14:17 bin Laden
1:14:17 unit
1:14:17 Michael
1:14:18 Scheuer
1:14:18 says
1:14:18 it was
1:14:19 Osama
1:14:19 bin Laden
1:14:20 and
1:14:20 Khalid Sheikh
1:14:21 Mohammed
1:14:21 that did
1:14:21 the
1:14:22 Khobar
1:14:22 Towers
1:14:22 attack
1:14:23 and
1:14:23 who
1:14:23 did
1:14:23 they
1:14:23 kill
1:14:24 they
1:14:24 killed
1:14:24 19
1:14:25 American
1:14:25 airmen
1:14:26 who
1:14:26 were
1:14:26 stationed
1:14:27 there
1:14:27 to
1:14:27 bomb
1:14:28 Iraq
1:14:28 from
1:14:28 bases
1:14:29 Saudi
1:14:29 Arabia
1:14:30 under
1:14:30 the
1:14:30 Israeli
1:14:31 insisted
1:14:31 upon
1:14:32 dual
1:14:32 containment
1:14:33 policy
1:14:33 of
1:14:34 Bill
1:14:34 Clinton
1:14:35 that
1:14:35 came
1:14:35 from
1:14:36 Yitzhak
1:14:36 Shamir
1:14:36 who
1:14:37 had
1:14:37 sent
1:14:38 his
1:14:38 man
1:14:38 Martin
1:14:39 Indyk
1:14:39 to
1:14:39 work
1:14:40 for
1:14:40 Bill
1:14:40 Clinton
1:14:41 and
1:14:41 push
1:14:41 the
1:14:42 dual
1:14:42 containment
1:14:43 policy
1:14:43 is
1:14:43 where
1:14:43 that
1:14:43 comes
1:14:44 from
1:14:44 the
1:14:45 main
1:14:45 reason
1:14:45 Al-Qaeda
1:14:46 turned
1:14:46 against
1:14:46 the
1:14:46 United
1:14:47 States
1:14:47 and
1:14:47 the
1:14:48 Khobar
1:14:48 Towers
1:14:48 attack
1:14:49 was
1:14:49 bin Laden
1:14:49 and
1:14:49 he
1:14:50 bragged
1:14:50 about
1:14:50 it
1:14:51 himself
1:14:51 to
1:14:53 Abdel
1:14:53 Bari
1:14:53 Atwan
1:14:54 the
1:14:55 reporter
1:14:55 from
1:14:56 Al-Quds
1:14:56 Al-Arabi
1:14:57 in
1:14:57 London
1:14:58 and
1:14:58 spent
1:14:59 days
1:14:59 with
1:14:59 him
1:14:59 and
1:14:59 bragged
1:15:00 all
1:15:00 about
1:15:00 it
1:15:00 and
1:15:00 blessed
1:15:01 the
1:15:01 martyrs
1:15:01 and
1:15:01 the
1:15:01 rest
1:15:02 of
1:15:02 that
1:15:02 and
1:15:03 is
1:15:04 widely
1:15:05 discredited
1:15:05 the
1:15:05 claim
1:15:05 that
1:15:06 it
1:15:06 was
1:15:06 Iranian
1:15:07 backed
1:15:07 Shiite
1:15:08 Hezbollah
1:15:08 that
1:15:08 did
1:15:09 the
1:15:09 Khobar
1:15:09 Towers
1:15:10 attack
1:15:10 that
1:15:10 was
1:15:11 what
1:15:11 the
1:15:12 Saudi
1:15:12 government
1:15:13 told
1:15:13 the
1:15:13 U.S.
1:15:13 In
1:15:14 fact
1:15:14 there’s
1:15:14 a
1:15:14 great
1:15:14 documentary
1:15:15 about
1:15:15 John
1:15:15 O’Neill
1:15:15 who
1:15:16 was
1:15:16 the
1:15:24 thing
1:15:24 it
1:15:25 was
1:15:25 Al-Qaeda
1:15:25 that
1:15:26 did
1:15:26 it
1:15:26 and
1:15:26 then
1:15:26 Louis
1:15:26 Free
1:15:27 got
1:15:27 all
1:15:27 upset
1:15:27 because
1:15:28 he
1:15:28 used
1:15:28 the
1:15:28 A
1:15:29 word
1:15:30 he’s
1:15:30 a
1:15:30 very
1:15:31 conservative
1:15:31 Catholic
1:15:32 guy
1:15:32 Louis
1:15:32 Free
1:15:33 and
1:15:33 then
1:15:33 refused
1:15:34 to
1:15:34 listen
1:15:34 to
1:15:34 another
1:15:35 word
1:15:35 from
1:15:35 John
1:15:35 O’Neill
1:15:36 about
1:15:36 it
1:15:36 so
1:15:36 what
1:15:36 we
1:15:36 know
1:15:37 now
1:15:37 from
1:15:37 Scott
1:15:38 because
1:15:38 he’s
1:15:38 given
1:15:39 certainly
1:15:39 a lot
1:15:40 of
1:15:40 context
1:15:40 to
1:15:41 how
1:15:41 he
1:15:41 actually
1:15:41 sees
1:15:42 things
1:15:42 is
1:15:43 here’s
1:15:43 who
1:15:44 lies
1:15:44 to
1:15:44 you
1:15:44 and
1:15:44 here’s
1:15:45 doesn’t
1:15:46 US
1:15:46 government
1:15:47 lies
1:15:47 to
1:15:47 you
1:15:48 Israeli
1:15:48 government
1:15:49 lies
1:15:49 to
1:15:50 you
1:15:50 the
1:15:51 Israelis
1:15:51 clearly
1:15:52 lie
1:15:52 to
1:15:52 you
1:15:53 mendacious
1:15:53 bunch
1:15:54 Saudis
1:15:54 lie
1:15:54 to
1:15:55 you
1:15:56 but
1:15:56 you
1:15:56 know
1:15:56 who
1:15:56 doesn’t
1:15:57 lie
1:15:57 to
1:15:57 you
1:15:57 actually
1:15:58 Hezbollah
1:15:58 doesn’t
1:15:59 lie
1:15:59 to
1:15:59 you
1:16:00 Al-Qaeda
1:16:00 doesn’t
1:16:00 lie
1:16:00 to
1:16:00 you
1:16:00 I
1:16:01 didn’t
1:16:01 cite
1:16:01 Al-Qaeda
1:16:02 or
1:16:02 I
1:16:03 cite
1:16:03 Osama
1:16:03 himself
1:16:05 I
1:16:05 cited
1:16:05 Michael
1:16:06 Shoyer
1:16:06 the
1:16:06 chief
1:16:06 of
1:16:06 the
1:16:07 CIA
1:16:07 bin
1:16:08 so
1:16:08 make
1:16:08 it
1:16:09 clear
1:16:09 here
1:16:10 the
1:16:10 Iranians
1:16:11 saying
1:16:11 Hezbollah
1:16:12 the
1:16:12 Iranians
1:16:13 got
1:16:13 straight up
1:16:14 I hear
1:16:14 you
1:16:14 but
1:16:14 you’re
1:16:15 interrupting
1:16:15 and
1:16:16 like
1:16:16 please
1:16:16 just
1:16:17 honestly
1:16:17 it’s
1:16:17 not
1:16:17 about
1:16:17 the
1:16:18 content
1:16:18 but
1:16:18 like
1:16:18 honestly
1:16:19 how
1:16:19 come
1:16:19 you’re
1:16:19 not
1:16:19 saying
1:16:19 him
1:16:20 isn’t
1:16:20 that
1:16:20 weird
1:16:20 that
1:16:20 you
1:16:20 just
1:16:21 said
1:16:21 he
1:16:21 trusts
1:16:22 Hezbollah
1:16:22 even
1:16:22 though
1:16:22 he
1:16:22 didn’t
1:16:23 say
1:16:23 anything
1:16:23 about
1:16:23 trusting
1:16:24 Hezbollah
1:16:24 I’m
1:16:24 not
1:16:25 calling
1:16:25 out
1:16:25 the
1:16:25 content
1:16:26 I’m
1:16:26 calling
1:16:26 out
1:16:26 the
1:16:27 interruptions
1:16:27 He
1:16:27 hasn’t
1:16:27 interrupted
1:16:28 you
1:16:28 it’s
1:16:28 great
1:16:29 I’m
1:16:29 loving
1:16:30 the
1:16:30 back
1:16:30 and
1:16:30 forth
1:16:30 it’s
1:16:30 great
1:16:31 but
1:16:31 just
1:16:32 a
1:16:32 little
1:16:32 less
1:16:33 talking
1:16:33 over
1:16:33 each
1:16:33 other
1:16:33 that’s
1:16:33 all
1:16:34 yeah
1:16:34 so
1:16:35 I mean
1:16:35 again
1:16:35 the
1:16:36 sort
1:16:36 of
1:16:36 view
1:16:36 of
1:16:36 the
1:16:37 regime
1:16:37 in
1:16:37 Iran
1:16:37 and
1:16:38 I
1:16:38 think
1:16:38 Scott
1:16:38 wisely
1:16:39 said
1:16:39 at
1:16:39 the
1:16:39 beginning
1:16:40 of
1:16:40 this
1:16:40 discussion
1:16:41 like
1:16:41 what
1:16:42 did
1:16:42 you
1:16:42 say
1:16:42 I
1:16:42 don’t
1:16:42 have
1:16:43 any
1:16:44 love
1:16:44 for
1:16:44 the
1:16:44 Ayatollah
1:16:45 I’m
1:16:45 a
1:16:45 Texan
1:16:45 I
1:16:45 don’t
1:16:46 have
1:16:46 any
1:16:46 love
1:16:46 for
1:16:46 the
1:16:46 Ayatollah
1:16:47 in
1:16:47 Iran
1:16:48 and
1:16:48 yet
1:16:48 despite
1:16:48 the
1:16:49 fact
1:16:49 Scott
1:16:49 doesn’t
1:16:50 have
1:16:50 love
1:16:50 for
1:16:50 the
1:16:50 Ayatollah
1:16:50 and
1:16:51 I
1:16:52 agree
1:16:53 with
1:16:53 him
1:16:53 and
1:16:53 I
1:16:53 think
1:16:54 he’s
1:16:54 being
1:16:54 sincere
1:16:55 in
1:16:56 every
1:16:56 discussion
1:16:56 that
1:16:57 we’ve
1:16:57 had
1:16:57 on
1:16:57 every
1:16:58 topic
1:16:58 it’s
1:16:58 always
1:16:59 about
1:16:59 everyone’s
1:17:00 lying
1:17:00 except
1:17:00 the
1:17:01 Ayatollah
1:17:01 in
1:17:01 Iran
1:17:01 he’s
1:17:02 not
1:17:02 lying
1:17:02 about
1:17:02 having
1:17:02 a
1:17:03 nuclear
1:17:03 weapons
1:17:03 program
1:17:05 he
1:17:05 didn’t
1:17:05 actually
1:17:06 support
1:17:06 all of
1:17:06 these
1:17:07 terrorist
1:17:07 organizations
1:17:08 that
1:17:08 he
1:17:08 founded
1:17:09 financed
1:17:09 and
1:17:10 supported
1:17:10 to
1:17:10 kill
1:17:10 Americans
1:17:11 that
1:17:11 it
1:17:11 wasn’t
1:17:12 the
1:17:12 Ayatollah
1:17:12 in
1:17:12 Iran
1:17:13 he’s
1:17:14 he’s
1:17:14 not
1:17:15 lying
1:17:15 about
1:17:16 his
1:17:18 deception
1:17:18 campaign
1:17:19 against
1:17:19 the
1:17:19 United
1:17:20 States
1:17:21 he’s
1:17:21 not
1:17:21 lying
1:17:22 about
1:17:23 negotiations
1:17:24 with
1:17:24 the
1:17:24 Americans
1:17:24 it’s
1:17:25 Americans
1:17:25 fault
1:17:26 all
1:17:26 the
1:17:26 time
1:17:27 so
1:17:27 he
1:17:27 he’s
1:17:27 presented
1:17:28 all
1:17:29 the
1:17:29 time
1:17:29 in
1:17:29 Scott’s
1:17:30 conception
1:17:30 here
1:17:31 as
1:17:31 a
1:17:31 sincere
1:17:32 actor
1:17:32 who
1:17:33 doesn’t
1:17:33 want
1:17:33 to
1:17:33 develop
1:17:33 nuclear
1:17:34 weapons
1:17:35 who
1:17:35 doesn’t
1:17:35 actually
1:17:36 want
1:17:38 he’s
1:17:38 just
1:17:38 always
1:17:38 a
1:17:39 victim
1:17:39 of
1:17:40 American
1:17:40 and
1:17:40 Israeli
1:17:41 aggression
1:17:41 I
1:17:41 think
1:17:41 it’s
1:17:41 an
1:17:42 interesting
1:17:42 conception
1:17:42 I think
1:17:43 let’s
1:17:43 talk
1:17:43 about
1:17:43 it
1:17:44 and
1:17:44 I
1:17:44 mean
1:17:45 I’m
1:17:45 fascinated
1:17:46 by the
1:17:46 conception
1:17:46 because
1:17:48 it’s
1:17:48 very
1:17:48 contrary
1:17:49 to
1:17:49 mine
1:17:50 obviously
1:17:50 it’s
1:17:50 very
1:17:51 contrary
1:17:51 to
1:17:51 I
1:17:51 think
1:17:52 decades
1:17:53 of
1:17:53 overwhelming
1:17:54 evidence
1:17:54 that the
1:17:55 Islamic
1:17:55 Republic
1:17:55 has
1:17:55 been
1:17:56 war
1:17:56 with
1:17:56 the
1:17:56 United
1:17:56 States
1:17:56 since
1:17:57 1979
1:17:58 and
1:17:58 you
1:17:58 know
1:17:59 I
1:17:59 don’t
1:18:00 take
1:18:00 too
1:18:00 much
1:18:00 stock
1:18:01 in
1:18:01 what
1:18:01 people
1:18:01 say
1:18:07 it
1:18:07 could
1:18:08 be
1:18:08 just
1:18:08 propaganda
1:18:09 but
1:18:09 when
1:18:09 it’s
1:18:09 actually
1:18:11 operationalized
1:18:12 then
1:18:12 you
1:18:12 start
1:18:12 to
1:18:13 ask
1:18:13 well
1:18:13 maybe
1:18:13 it’s
1:18:13 not
1:18:14 just
1:18:15 propaganda
1:18:15 maybe
1:18:16 it’s
1:18:16 intention
1:18:18 operationalized
1:18:18 into
1:18:19 capabilities
1:18:19 you know
1:18:20 what we’re
1:18:20 forgetting
1:18:21 here
1:18:21 and again
1:18:21 it’s
1:18:22 this
1:18:22 causal
1:18:23 relationship
1:18:23 it’s
1:18:23 we
1:18:24 aggress
1:18:24 against
1:18:25 Iran
1:18:25 and
1:18:25 the
1:18:25 Israelis
1:18:26 aggress
1:18:26 against
1:18:27 Iran
1:18:27 and
1:18:27 Iran
1:18:27 is
1:18:28 always
1:18:28 reacting
1:18:29 let’s
1:18:29 give
1:18:30 the
1:18:30 Iranians
1:18:30 their
1:18:31 due
1:18:31 because
1:18:32 Khomeini
1:18:32 made it
1:18:32 very
1:18:33 clear
1:18:33 when
1:18:33 he
1:18:33 established
1:18:34 the
1:18:34 Islamic
1:18:34 Republic
1:18:35 that
1:18:35 there
1:18:35 will
1:18:35 be
1:18:36 a
1:18:36 revolutionary
1:18:37 and
1:18:38 expansionist
1:18:39 regime
1:18:39 and
1:18:39 they
1:18:40 will
1:18:40 expand
1:18:40 their
1:18:41 power
1:18:41 through
1:18:41 the
1:18:41 Middle
1:18:42 East
1:18:42 and
1:18:42 so
1:18:42 he
1:18:42 built
1:18:43 and
1:18:43 to
1:18:43 his
1:18:44 credit
1:18:44 was
1:18:44 very
1:18:45 successful
1:18:45 until
1:18:45 October
1:18:46 7th
1:18:46 this
1:18:47 axis
1:18:47 of
1:18:47 resistance
1:18:48 as
1:18:48 he
1:18:48 calls
1:18:48 it
1:18:49 which
1:18:49 are
1:18:49 these
1:18:49 terror
1:18:50 proxy
1:18:50 armies
1:18:51 Hezbollah
1:18:52 Hamas
1:18:52 Palestinian
1:18:52 Islamic
1:18:53 Jihad
1:18:53 the
1:18:54 Iraqi
1:18:54 Shiite
1:18:55 militias
1:18:55 the
1:18:55 Houthis
1:18:56 in
1:18:56 Yemen
1:18:57 and
1:18:58 certainly
1:18:58 supporting
1:18:58 the
1:18:59 Assad
1:18:59 regime
1:18:59 in
1:18:59 Syria
1:19:00 he
1:19:00 built
1:19:00 a
1:19:01 very
1:19:03 impressive
1:19:03 and
1:19:03 deadly
1:19:04 axis
1:19:04 that
1:19:05 he
1:19:05 turned
1:19:05 against
1:19:05 the
1:19:06 United
1:19:06 States
1:19:06 and
1:19:06 against
1:19:07 Israel
1:19:07 which
1:19:08 saw
1:19:08 its
1:19:08 culmination
1:19:08 on
1:19:09 October
1:19:09 7th
1:19:09 I
1:19:09 think
1:19:10 after
1:19:10 October
1:19:11 7th
1:19:11 that
1:19:12 was
1:19:12 a
1:19:12 huge
1:19:13 miscalculation
1:19:13 for
1:19:14 Khamenei
1:19:14 and we
1:19:14 seen
1:19:14 the
1:19:15 results
1:19:15 of
1:19:15 what’s
1:19:15 happened
1:19:15 to
1:19:16 his
1:19:16 axis
1:19:16 of
1:19:17 resistance
1:19:17 through
1:19:18 quite
1:19:18 devastating
1:19:19 Israeli
1:19:20 military
1:19:20 capabilities
1:19:21 over
1:19:21 the
1:19:21 past
1:19:22 number
1:19:22 of
1:19:22 months
1:19:23 but
1:19:23 he
1:19:23 has
1:19:24 an
1:19:24 ideology
1:19:24 and
1:19:25 I
1:19:25 think
1:19:25 where
1:19:25 I
1:19:26 agree
1:19:26 with
1:19:26 Scott
1:19:27 is
1:19:27 I’m
1:19:28 not
1:19:28 sure
1:19:28 if
1:19:29 Khamenei
1:19:29 would
1:19:29 actually
1:19:29 use
1:19:29 a
1:19:30 nuclear
1:19:30 weapon
1:19:30 against
1:19:31 Israel
1:19:31 the
1:19:31 United
1:19:32 States
1:19:32 because
1:19:32 I
1:19:32 don’t
1:19:32 think
1:19:33 Khamenei
1:19:33 is
1:19:34 suicidal
1:19:35 but
1:19:35 I
1:19:35 think
1:19:35 what
1:19:35 Khamenei
1:19:36 wants
1:19:36 is
1:19:37 a
1:19:37 nuclear
1:19:38 weapon
1:19:39 as
1:19:39 a
1:19:39 backstop
1:19:40 for
1:19:40 his
1:19:40 conventional
1:19:41 power
1:19:42 right
1:19:42 it’s
1:19:42 very
1:19:43 much
1:19:43 the
1:19:44 Kim
1:19:49 what
1:19:49 I’m
1:19:49 actually
1:19:49 going
1:19:49 to
1:19:50 do
1:19:50 is
1:19:50 threaten
1:19:50 South
1:19:51 Korea
1:19:51 with
1:19:52 having
1:19:52 massive
1:19:53 conventional
1:19:53 capabilities
1:19:53 on
1:19:54 the
1:19:54 DMZ
1:19:54 that
1:19:54 I
1:19:55 could
1:19:55 take
1:19:55 South
1:19:55 Korea
1:19:55 in
1:19:56 a
1:19:56 week
1:19:57 so
1:19:57 you
1:19:57 the
1:19:58 United
1:19:58 States
1:19:58 and
1:19:58 South
1:19:59 Korea
1:19:59 have
1:19:59 no
1:20:00 military
1:20:00 option
1:20:00 that’s
1:20:01 Khamenei’s
1:20:01 view
1:20:01 he
1:20:02 can
1:20:02 actually
1:20:03 building up
1:20:03 this
1:20:04 massive
1:20:04 ballistic
1:20:05 missile
1:20:05 arsenal
1:20:06 that
1:20:06 he’s
1:20:06 unleashed
1:20:06 in the
1:20:07 past
1:20:07 12
1:20:08 days
1:20:08 that
1:20:09 according
1:20:09 to
1:20:10 again
1:20:10 the
1:20:10 US
1:20:11 and
1:20:11 Israel
1:20:11 was
1:20:12 going
1:20:12 to
1:20:12 go
1:20:12 from
1:20:13 2,000
1:20:13 to
1:20:14 6,000
1:20:14 to
1:20:15 20,000
1:20:16 that
1:20:16 from
1:20:16 Khamenei’s
1:20:17 perspective
1:20:17 he didn’t
1:20:17 need to
1:20:18 drop a
1:20:18 nuclear
1:20:19 bomb
1:20:19 on
1:20:20 Tel Aviv
1:20:20 what
1:20:20 he
1:20:20 needed
1:20:21 to
1:20:21 do
1:20:21 was
1:20:21 use
1:20:21 the
1:20:22 threat
1:20:22 of
1:20:22 nuclear
1:20:23 escalation
1:20:23 in
1:20:24 order
1:20:24 to
1:20:24 use
1:20:24 his
1:20:25 conventional
1:20:25 capabilities
1:20:26 his
1:20:26 missiles
1:20:27 to
1:20:27 destroy
1:20:28 Tel Aviv
1:20:28 and
1:20:28 you’ve
1:20:29 already
1:20:29 seen
1:20:29 the
1:20:29 damage
1:20:30 from
1:20:30 just
1:20:31 a
1:20:31 few
1:20:32 dozen
1:20:33 ballistic
1:20:33 missiles
1:20:33 getting
1:20:34 through
1:20:34 the
1:20:34 kind
1:20:34 of
1:20:35 damage
1:20:35 that
1:20:35 he’s
1:20:35 wrought
1:20:35 on
1:20:36 Tel Aviv
1:20:36 already
1:20:37 that
1:20:37 is
1:20:37 the
1:20:38 conception
1:20:38 that
1:20:38 Khamenei
1:20:39 has
1:20:39 it’s
1:20:39 a
1:20:39 revolutionary
1:20:40 regime
1:20:40 it
1:20:41 aggresses
1:20:41 and
1:20:41 I
1:20:42 do
1:20:42 think
1:20:42 it’s
1:20:42 interesting
1:20:42 and
1:20:43 I
1:20:43 think
1:20:43 we
1:20:43 should
1:20:43 talk
1:20:43 about
1:20:44 it
1:20:44 actually
1:20:45 that’s
1:20:45 a
1:20:45 good
1:20:45 cue
1:20:46 let’s
1:20:46 take
1:20:47 a
1:20:47 bath
1:20:47 and
1:20:47 break
1:20:49 okay
1:20:49 we
1:20:49 took
1:20:50 a
1:20:50 quick
1:20:50 break
1:20:50 and
1:20:51 now
1:20:51 Scott
1:20:52 yeah
1:20:52 okay
1:20:53 so
1:20:53 a few
1:20:54 things
1:20:54 there
1:20:54 first
1:20:54 of
1:20:55 all
1:20:56 on
1:20:56 Ahmad
1:20:56 the
1:20:57 pre
1:20:58 2003
1:20:59 nuclear
1:20:59 weapons
1:21:00 research
1:21:01 the
1:21:02 CIA
1:21:03 estimate
1:21:03 in
1:21:04 2007
1:21:05 concluded
1:21:05 that
1:21:05 all
1:21:05 research
1:21:06 had
1:21:06 stopped
1:21:06 in
1:21:07 2003
1:21:07 and
1:21:08 Seymour
1:21:08 Hirsch
1:21:08 reported
1:21:09 that
1:21:09 the
1:21:09 reasoning
1:21:10 behind
1:21:10 that
1:21:11 was
1:21:12 mainly
1:21:12 that
1:21:13 America
1:21:13 had
1:21:13 gotten
1:21:13 rid
1:21:13 of
1:21:14 Saddam
1:21:14 Hussein
1:21:14 for
1:21:14 them
1:21:15 now
1:21:15 in
1:21:16 Gareth
1:21:16 Porter’s
1:21:16 book
1:21:17 Manufactured
1:21:17 Crisis
1:21:18 he
1:21:18 shows
1:21:19 that
1:21:19 the
1:21:19 major
1:21:20 conclusion
1:21:21 that
1:21:21 the
1:21:22 DIA
1:21:23 had
1:21:23 made
1:21:24 that
1:21:24 the
1:21:25 Iranians
1:21:25 were
1:21:26 researching
1:21:26 nuclear
1:21:26 weapons
1:21:27 was
1:21:27 based
1:21:27 on
1:21:27 some
1:21:28 invoices
1:21:28 that
1:21:28 they
1:21:29 had
1:21:29 intercepted
1:21:29 for
1:21:29 some
1:21:30 dual
1:21:30 use
1:21:31 materials
1:21:31 some
1:21:32 specialty
1:21:32 magnets
1:21:33 and
1:21:33 things
1:21:33 that
1:21:34 they
1:21:34 thought
1:21:34 boy
1:21:34 this
1:21:35 looks
1:21:35 like
1:21:35 this
1:21:35 could
1:21:35 be
1:21:35 part
1:21:36 of
1:21:37 a
1:21:38 weaponization
1:21:38 program
1:21:38 a secret
1:21:39 program
1:21:39 here
1:21:40 and
1:21:40 you know
1:21:40 Gareth
1:21:41 Porter
1:21:41 who’s
1:21:42 a really
1:21:42 great
1:21:42 critic
1:21:42 of
1:21:42 all
1:21:43 of
1:21:43 these
1:21:43 policies
1:21:43 and
1:21:44 claims
1:21:45 says
1:21:45 hey
1:21:45 this
1:21:45 was
1:21:45 a
1:21:46 good
1:21:46 faith
1:21:47 misunderstanding
1:21:47 by
1:21:48 DIA
1:21:48 they were
1:21:48 doing
1:21:49 their job
1:21:50 but it
1:21:50 turned out
1:21:50 the
1:21:51 IAEA
1:21:51 later
1:21:51 when
1:21:52 America
1:21:52 gave
1:21:52 them
1:21:52 that
1:21:53 information
1:21:53 the
1:21:54 IAEA
1:21:54 went
1:21:54 and
1:21:54 verified
1:21:55 oh
1:21:55 there’s
1:21:55 the
1:21:55 magnet
1:21:56 and
1:21:56 there’s
1:21:56 this
1:21:56 and
1:21:57 there’s
1:21:57 that
1:21:57 and
1:21:57 all
1:21:57 those
1:21:57 dual
1:21:58 use
1:21:58 items
1:21:58 actually
1:21:58 were
1:21:59 being
1:21:59 used
1:21:59 for
1:22:00 civilian
1:22:00 purposes
1:22:01 and
1:22:01 so
1:22:01 then
1:22:02 as
1:22:02 Gareth
1:22:03 writes
1:22:03 in his
1:22:03 book
1:22:04 the
1:22:20 there
1:22:20 ever
1:22:21 was
1:22:21 a
1:22:21 nuclear
1:22:22 weapons
1:22:22 research
1:22:23 program
1:22:24 in
1:22:24 the
1:22:24 country
1:22:25 before
1:22:25 2003
1:22:26 was
1:22:26 the
1:22:26 smoking
1:22:27 laptop
1:22:28 and
1:22:28 I’m
1:22:28 sorry
1:22:28 I
1:22:28 think
1:22:28 I
1:22:29 misspoke
1:22:29 earlier
1:22:29 when I
1:22:29 said
1:22:30 that
1:22:30 the
1:22:30 laptop
1:22:31 was
1:22:31 in
1:22:32 2005
1:22:32 that
1:22:32 was
1:22:33 just
1:22:33 the
1:22:33 Washington
1:22:33 Post
1:22:34 story
1:22:34 that
1:22:34 had
1:22:34 a
1:22:34 bunch
1:22:34 of
1:22:34 stuff
1:22:35 about
1:22:35 it
1:22:35 that
1:22:35 was
1:22:35 in
1:22:36 2003
1:22:37 as
1:22:37 well
1:22:37 or
1:22:37 2004
1:22:38 possibly
1:22:39 so
1:22:39 this
1:22:39 was
1:22:40 why
1:22:41 the
1:22:41 but
1:22:41 it
1:22:42 was
1:22:42 still
1:22:42 all
1:22:43 again
1:22:43 forged
1:22:44 by
1:22:50 had
1:22:50 nothing
1:22:50 in
1:22:50 it
1:22:51 at
1:22:52 least
1:22:52 the
1:22:52 accusations
1:22:52 and
1:22:53 it
1:22:53 weren’t
1:22:53 past
1:22:53 2003
1:22:54 and
1:22:54 so
1:22:55 there’s
1:22:56 really
1:22:56 no
1:22:56 reason
1:22:56 to
1:22:57 believe
1:22:57 that
1:22:57 there
1:22:57 was
1:22:58 actually
1:22:58 a
1:22:58 nuclear
1:22:58 weapons
1:22:59 research
1:22:59 program
1:23:00 even
1:23:00 before
1:23:01 2003
1:23:01 which
1:23:02 then
1:23:02 again
1:23:03 the
1:23:03 National
1:23:03 Intelligence
1:23:04 Council
1:23:04 says
1:23:05 ended
1:23:05 in
1:23:06 2003
1:23:06 and
1:23:07 hasn’t
1:23:07 been
1:23:07 restarted
1:23:07 since
1:23:08 then
1:23:08 Can I ask you a question
1:23:09 not a comment by me
1:23:10 but a question
1:23:11 just your perspective
1:23:11 so just so I
1:23:12 understand
1:23:12 this
1:23:12 so
1:23:12 the
1:23:13 nuclear
1:23:14 archive
1:23:14 this
1:23:15 massive
1:23:15 archive
1:23:16 that
1:23:16 the
1:23:16 Israelis
1:23:17 were able
1:23:17 to
1:23:17 take
1:23:17 out
1:23:17 of
1:23:18 Tehran
1:23:19 bring
1:23:19 to
1:23:19 the
1:23:19 United
1:23:20 States
1:23:20 bring
1:23:20 to
1:23:20 the
1:23:21 IAEA
1:23:21 which
1:23:22 is
1:23:22 very
1:23:23 detailed
1:23:24 blueprints
1:23:24 it’s
1:23:25 just the
1:23:25 alleged
1:23:25 studies
1:23:26 documents
1:23:26 again
1:23:26 it’s
1:23:26 the
1:23:26 same
1:23:27 stuff
1:23:27 from
1:23:27 the
1:23:27 smoking
1:23:28 laptop
1:23:28 yeah
1:23:28 so
1:23:28 let
1:23:28 me
1:23:29 just
1:23:29 ask
1:23:29 you
1:23:29 because
1:23:30 it’s
1:23:30 huge
1:23:30 and
1:23:31 it’s
1:23:31 very
1:23:31 detailed
1:23:31 and
1:23:32 it
1:23:32 shows
1:23:32 clearly
1:23:33 that
1:23:33 Iran
1:23:33 had
1:23:33 an
1:23:34 active
1:23:42 are you
1:23:42 suggesting
1:23:42 that
1:23:43 that’s
1:23:43 all
1:23:43 been
1:23:43 forged
1:23:44 by
1:23:45 Israel
1:23:46 yes
1:23:46 nothing
1:23:46 in the
1:23:47 smoking
1:23:47 laptop
1:23:47 held up
1:23:48 not
1:23:48 the
1:23:48 laptop
1:23:49 but
1:23:49 this
1:23:50 entire
1:23:51 archive
1:23:51 that
1:23:51 they
1:23:51 pulled
1:23:51 out
1:23:52 with
1:23:53 you’re
1:23:53 thinking
1:23:53 of
1:23:53 like
1:23:54 blueprints
1:23:55 photo op
1:23:55 with all
1:23:55 the
1:23:56 documents
1:23:58 behind
1:23:58 them
1:23:58 I’ve
1:23:58 seen
1:23:58 it
1:23:59 I’ve
1:23:59 seen
1:23:59 many
1:24:00 of
1:24:00 the
1:24:00 documents
1:24:01 there’s
1:24:01 thousands
1:24:01 of
1:24:02 pages
1:24:02 I’m
1:24:03 asking
1:24:03 this
1:24:03 is
1:24:03 not
1:24:03 what
1:24:03 I’m
1:24:04 claiming
1:24:05 is
1:24:05 that
1:24:05 all
1:24:05 forged
1:24:06 by
1:24:06 Israel
1:24:06 is
1:24:06 that
1:24:07 not
1:24:07 all
1:24:07 about
1:24:07 the
1:24:08 uranium
1:24:09 tetrafluoride
1:24:09 and
1:24:09 the
1:24:09 warhead
1:24:09 that
1:24:10 David
1:24:10 Albright
1:24:11 debunked
1:24:11 and
1:24:12 all
1:24:12 the
1:24:12 same
1:24:12 claims
1:24:13 that
1:24:13 were
1:24:13 in
1:24:13 the
1:24:13 smoking
1:24:14 laptop
1:24:14 from
1:24:14 the
1:24:14 Bush
1:24:15 years
1:24:15 David
1:24:15 David
1:24:16 Albright
1:24:17 actually wrote
1:24:17 an entire
1:24:18 book
1:24:18 it’s
1:24:18 a
1:24:18 very
1:24:18 detailed
1:24:19 book
1:24:19 your
1:24:19 listeners
1:24:20 should
1:24:20 Google
1:24:20 it’s
1:24:21 David
1:24:21 Albright
1:24:22 and
1:24:22 the
1:24:22 archive
1:24:23 where
1:24:23 he
1:24:23 goes
1:24:24 in
1:24:24 he
1:24:24 went
1:24:24 in
1:24:25 detail
1:24:25 and
1:24:26 he
1:24:27 confirms
1:24:27 the
1:24:28 information
1:24:28 in
1:24:28 that
1:24:29 archive
1:24:29 that
1:24:29 Iran
1:24:30 had
1:24:30 an
1:24:30 active
1:24:31 program
1:24:31 under
1:24:32 something
1:24:32 called
1:24:32 Ahmad
1:24:33 to
1:24:33 develop
1:24:34 five
1:24:34 atomic
1:24:35 weapons
1:24:35 so
1:24:35 again
1:24:36 you
1:24:36 and
1:24:36 I
1:24:36 can
1:24:37 debate
1:24:37 this
1:24:37 all
1:24:37 day
1:24:38 this
1:24:38 would
1:24:38 have
1:24:38 been
1:24:38 before
1:24:39 Natanz
1:24:39 was
1:24:39 even
1:24:40 dug
1:24:40 and
1:24:40 before
1:24:40 single
1:24:41 centrifuge
1:24:41 spinning
1:24:42 right
1:24:42 I’m
1:24:42 just
1:24:43 making
1:24:43 sure
1:24:43 everybody
1:24:43 understands
1:24:44 assuming
1:24:44 that
1:24:44 was
1:24:44 true
1:24:45 we’re
1:24:45 talking
1:24:45 about
1:24:45 a
1:24:45 piece
1:24:45 of
1:24:45 paper
1:24:46 it’s
1:24:46 not
1:24:46 a
1:24:46 piece
1:24:47 of
1:24:47 paper
1:24:47 it’s
1:24:47 a
1:24:47 massive
1:24:48 archive
1:24:48 I’m
1:24:49 just
1:24:49 asking
1:24:49 the
1:24:49 question
1:24:50 you
1:24:50 believe
1:24:51 Mossad
1:24:51 fabricated
1:24:52 all
1:24:52 of
1:24:52 this
1:24:52 as
1:24:53 a
1:24:53 lie
1:24:53 to
1:24:54 deceive
1:24:54 the
1:24:54 United
1:24:55 States
1:24:55 the
1:24:55 IAEA
1:24:56 and
1:24:56 international
1:24:56 community
1:24:57 that’s
1:24:57 just
1:24:57 my
1:24:57 question
1:24:58 my
1:24:59 understanding
1:24:59 is that
1:24:59 there’s
1:25:00 nothing
1:25:00 significant
1:25:01 in
1:25:01 the
1:25:02 2018
1:25:02 archive
1:25:03 that
1:25:03 was
1:25:03 not
1:25:04 already
1:25:04 in
1:25:05 the
1:25:06 debunked
1:25:06 claims
1:25:06 from
1:25:06 the
1:25:07 laptop
1:25:07 but
1:25:07 my
1:25:08 question
1:25:08 is
1:25:09 is
1:25:09 not
1:25:10 that
1:25:10 it’s
1:25:11 debunked
1:25:11 because
1:25:11 we
1:25:11 can
1:25:11 argue
1:25:11 about
1:25:12 whether
1:25:12 it’s
1:25:12 debunked
1:25:12 or not
1:25:13 but
1:25:13 are
1:25:13 you
1:25:14 saying
1:25:14 Mossad
1:25:15 fabricated
1:25:25 where
1:25:25 did
1:25:25 the
1:25:25 M.E.K.
1:25:27 got it
1:25:27 from
1:25:27 the
1:25:28 Israelis
1:25:28 Scott
1:25:28 I’m not
1:25:28 asking
1:25:28 about
1:25:28 the
1:25:29 laptop
1:25:29 I’m
1:25:29 asking
1:25:30 about
1:25:30 this
1:25:31 huge
1:25:31 archive
1:25:31 that
1:25:31 was
1:25:32 sitting
1:25:32 in
1:25:32 a
1:25:32 warehouse
1:25:32 in
1:25:33 Tehran
1:25:34 full
1:25:34 I don’t
1:25:35 know
1:25:35 the
1:25:35 truth
1:25:35 behind
1:25:36 those
1:25:36 documents
1:25:36 I
1:25:37 don’t
1:25:37 believe
1:25:38 Israeli
1:25:38 claims
1:25:39 of
1:25:39 what
1:25:39 they
1:25:40 were
1:25:40 and
1:25:40 where
1:25:40 they
1:25:40 came
1:25:41 from
1:25:41 without
1:25:42 for
1:25:42 example
1:25:42 reading
1:25:43 Albright’s
1:25:43 book
1:25:43 and
1:25:44 seeing
1:25:44 what
1:25:44 he
1:25:44 has
1:25:44 to
1:25:44 say
1:25:45 about
1:25:45 all
1:25:45 of
1:25:45 that
1:25:46 I
1:25:52 there
1:25:52 you
1:25:52 say
1:25:52 that
1:25:52 there’s
1:25:52 a
1:25:53 document
1:25:53 that
1:25:53 has
1:25:53 a
1:25:53 plan
1:25:54 to
1:25:54 make
1:25:54 five
1:25:55 bombs
1:25:55 but
1:25:56 isn’t
1:25:56 the
1:25:56 rest
1:25:56 of the
1:25:56 proof
1:25:56 the
1:25:57 same
1:25:57 green
1:25:58 salt
1:25:58 experiments
1:25:59 and
1:25:59 the
1:25:59 warhead
1:26:00 for
1:26:00 the
1:26:00 missile
1:26:00 that
1:26:00 David
1:26:01 Albright
1:26:01 showed
1:26:02 was
1:26:03 obviously
1:26:03 fake
1:26:04 because
1:26:04 the
1:26:04 warhead
1:26:05 was
1:26:06 purportedly
1:26:06 being
1:26:07 designed
1:26:07 for a
1:26:07 missile
1:26:07 that
1:26:08 was
1:26:08 now
1:26:08 going
1:26:08 to
1:26:08 have
1:26:08 an
1:26:09 entirely
1:26:09 different
1:26:10 nose
1:26:10 cone
1:26:10 on
1:26:10 it
1:26:11 David
1:26:11 Albright
1:26:11 again
1:26:12 we should
1:26:12 bring
1:26:13 David
1:26:13 Albright
1:26:13 here
1:26:14 David
1:26:14 Albright
1:26:14 is a
1:26:15 prominent
1:26:15 physicist
1:26:15 and
1:26:16 nuclear
1:26:16 proliferation
1:26:17 expert
1:26:17 known for
1:26:18 his detailed
1:26:18 research
1:26:19 and publication
1:26:19 on nuclear
1:26:20 weapons
1:26:20 he has a
1:26:21 bunch of
1:26:21 books
1:26:21 peddling
1:26:22 peril
1:26:23 Iran’s
1:26:23 perilous
1:26:23 pursuit
1:26:23 of
1:26:24 nuclear
1:26:24 weapons
1:26:25 plutonium
1:26:25 and
1:26:26 highly
1:26:26 enriched
1:26:26 uranium
1:26:27 1996
1:26:28 and so
1:26:28 on
1:26:28 yeah
1:26:29 so
1:26:30 folks
1:26:30 should
1:26:31 read
1:26:31 the
1:26:31 book
1:26:32 on the
1:26:32 archive
1:26:33 because
1:26:33 David
1:26:33 had
1:26:35 full
1:26:35 access
1:26:35 to the
1:26:36 archive
1:26:36 all the
1:26:37 detailed
1:26:37 documents
1:26:38 and
1:26:38 blueprints
1:26:38 and he
1:26:39 writes
1:26:39 a book
1:26:39 that
1:26:40 again
1:26:40 the
1:26:40 conclusion
1:26:41 of
1:26:41 which
1:26:41 is
1:26:42 Iran
1:26:42 had
1:26:42 an
1:26:43 active
1:26:44 nuclear
1:26:44 weapons
1:26:44 program
1:26:45 no
1:26:45 no
1:26:45 the
1:26:45 conclusion
1:26:45 of
1:26:46 which
1:26:46 was
1:26:46 they
1:26:46 were
1:26:47 researching
1:26:47 it
1:26:48 right
1:26:48 before
1:26:48 2003
1:26:49 they had
1:26:49 no
1:26:49 nuclear
1:26:50 material
1:26:50 to
1:26:51 introduce
1:26:51 into a
1:26:52 single
1:26:52 machine
1:26:52 right
1:26:53 well
1:26:53 they
1:26:53 had
1:26:55 already
1:26:56 built
1:26:56 a
1:26:56 covert
1:26:56 enrichment
1:26:57 facility
1:26:57 which
1:26:57 was
1:26:58 only
1:26:58 no
1:26:58 they
1:26:58 hadn’t
1:26:58 it
1:26:58 was
1:26:59 closed
1:26:59 Natanz
1:27:00 was
1:27:12 putting
1:27:12 in
1:27:12 place
1:27:13 the
1:27:13 component
1:27:14 parts
1:27:15 for
1:27:16 a
1:27:16 nuclear
1:27:17 weapons
1:27:17 capability
1:27:18 and
1:27:19 Ahmad
1:27:20 showed
1:27:21 conclusively
1:27:21 unless you
1:27:22 believe
1:27:22 Mossad
1:27:23 fabricated
1:27:23 at all
1:27:24 that
1:27:24 they
1:27:24 actually
1:27:25 had
1:27:25 the
1:27:25 plan
1:27:25 to
1:27:26 build
1:27:26 nuclear
1:27:27 warheads
1:27:27 again
1:27:27 Seymour
1:27:27 Hirsch
1:27:28 says
1:27:28 that
1:27:28 it
1:27:28 was
1:27:29 when
1:27:29 Seymour
1:27:29 Hirsch
1:27:30 was not
1:27:30 a
1:27:30 nuclear
1:27:30 weapons
1:27:31 expert
1:27:31 David
1:27:32 Albright
1:27:32 has
1:27:32 you saw
1:27:32 the
1:27:32 archive
1:27:33 Hirsch’s
1:27:34 sources
1:27:34 said
1:27:35 you’re
1:27:35 claiming
1:27:35 that
1:27:35 America
1:27:36 invaded
1:27:37 Iraq
1:27:37 and
1:27:37 overthrew
1:27:38 Saddam
1:27:38 Hussein
1:27:38 for
1:27:38 them
1:27:39 that
1:27:39 was
1:27:39 when
1:27:39 they
1:27:40 gave
1:27:40 up
1:27:40 even
1:27:41 considering
1:27:41 the
1:27:41 need
1:27:42 for
1:27:42 it
1:27:42 remember
1:27:42 the
1:27:43 Iranians
1:27:43 held a
1:27:44 million
1:27:44 man
1:27:44 vigil
1:27:45 for
1:27:45 the
1:27:45 Americans
1:27:46 on
1:27:46 September
1:27:47 11th
1:27:47 the
1:27:47 Iranians
1:27:48 hated
1:27:48 the
1:27:48 Taliban
1:27:49 in fact
1:27:49 the
1:27:49 Americans
1:27:49 thought
1:27:50 Iran
1:27:50 might
1:27:51 invade
1:27:51 Afghanistan
1:27:52 earlier
1:27:52 in
1:27:52 2001
1:27:53 and
1:27:53 they
1:27:53 hated
1:27:54 Saddam
1:27:54 Hussein
1:27:55 so
1:27:55 they
1:28:08 You’re
1:28:08 asking
1:28:09 me
1:28:09 what
1:28:09 I
1:28:09 already
1:28:10 answered
1:28:10 you
1:28:10 I
1:28:12 fabricated
1:28:12 that
1:28:12 entire
1:28:12 I
1:28:13 already
1:28:13 told
1:28:13 you
1:28:13 I
1:28:14 don’t
1:28:14 take
1:28:14 their
1:28:14 word
1:28:14 for
1:28:15 anything
1:28:15 and
1:28:16 as far
1:28:17 as I
1:28:17 understand
1:28:17 the
1:28:18 accusations
1:28:18 in there
1:28:18 are the
1:28:18 same
1:28:19 ones
1:28:19 from
1:28:19 the
1:28:19 laptop
1:28:20 that
1:28:20 are
1:28:20 already
1:28:21 discredited
1:28:21 and I
1:28:21 haven’t
1:28:22 read
1:28:22 David
1:28:22 Albright’s
1:28:22 book
1:28:23 you’re
1:28:23 distracting
1:28:24 from
1:28:24 me
1:28:24 refuting
1:28:25 this
1:28:25 giant
1:28:26 list
1:28:26 of
1:28:26 false
1:28:26 claims
1:28:27 that
1:28:27 you
1:28:27 made
1:28:27 previously
1:28:28 that
1:28:28 I
1:28:28 haven’t
1:28:28 got
1:28:28 a
1:28:28 chance
1:28:29 all
1:28:29 agree
1:28:29 you’re
1:28:29 going
1:28:29 to
1:28:29 read
1:28:29 the
1:28:29 book
1:28:30 maybe
1:28:30 Lex
1:28:31 you’re
1:28:31 going
1:28:31 to
1:28:31 read
1:28:31 the
1:28:31 book
1:28:32 viewers
1:28:32 you should
1:28:32 read
1:28:32 the
1:28:33 book
1:28:33 I
1:28:33 think
1:28:33 David
1:28:33 Albright
1:28:34 has
1:28:34 done
1:28:34 a
1:28:34 meticulous
1:28:35 job
1:28:35 it’s
1:28:35 by the
1:28:35 way
1:28:35 just
1:28:36 just
1:28:36 warning
1:28:36 it’s
1:28:37 a
1:28:37 big
1:28:37 book
1:28:38 very
1:28:38 detailed
1:28:39 hundreds
1:28:39 of
1:28:39 pages
1:28:39 and
1:28:40 he
1:28:40 goes
1:28:40 through
1:28:40 it
1:28:40 in
1:28:41 meticulous
1:28:41 detail
1:28:42 in
1:28:42 analyzing
1:28:43 this
1:28:44 archive
1:28:44 and showed
1:28:44 again
1:28:44 that
1:28:45 Iran
1:28:45 had
1:28:46 an
1:28:46 active
1:28:47 nuclear
1:28:47 weapons
1:28:48 program
1:28:48 designed
1:28:48 to
1:28:48 build
1:28:59 war
1:28:59 with
1:29:00 Iraq
1:29:00 for
1:29:00 Ariel
1:29:00 Sharon
1:29:01 so
1:29:01 just
1:29:01 to
1:29:02 clarify
1:29:02 Hugh
1:29:03 Mark
1:29:03 and
1:29:04 David
1:29:04 Albright
1:29:06 believe
1:29:06 that
1:29:07 Iran
1:29:08 was
1:29:08 developing
1:29:08 a
1:29:08 nuclear
1:29:09 weapon
1:29:10 and
1:29:10 you
1:29:10 Scott
1:29:10 are
1:29:11 saying
1:29:11 they
1:29:11 were
1:29:11 not
1:29:11 before
1:29:12 2003
1:29:13 just
1:29:14 to
1:29:14 summarize
1:29:15 what
1:29:15 we were
1:29:15 just
1:29:15 talking
1:29:15 about
1:29:16 well
1:29:16 I
1:29:16 can
1:29:16 tell
1:29:16 you
1:29:17 that
1:29:17 so
1:29:18 Gareth’s
1:29:18 book
1:29:18 came
1:29:18 out
1:29:18 in
1:29:19 2014
1:29:20 which
1:29:20 is
1:29:20 before
1:29:20 this
1:29:21 archive
1:29:21 was
1:29:22 supposedly
1:29:22 revealed
1:29:22 in
1:29:23 Tehran
1:29:23 but
1:29:24 in
1:29:25 Gareth’s
1:29:25 book
1:29:25 he
1:29:25 shows
1:29:26 that
1:29:26 the
1:29:27 CIA
1:29:27 and
1:29:27 national
1:29:28 intelligence
1:29:28 estimate
1:29:28 of
1:29:29 2007
1:29:30 that
1:29:30 said
1:29:30 that
1:29:30 there
1:29:30 was
1:29:30 a
1:29:31 program
1:29:31 before
1:29:32 2003
1:29:32 and
1:29:33 was
1:29:33 halted
1:29:34 after
1:29:34 America
1:29:35 invaded
1:29:35 Iraq
1:29:36 was
1:29:37 based
1:29:37 on
1:29:38 one
1:29:38 the
1:29:39 the
1:29:39 DIA’s
1:29:40 mistaken
1:29:41 but
1:29:41 sincere
1:29:43 interpretation
1:29:44 of these
1:29:44 invoices
1:29:45 for these
1:29:46 dual use
1:29:47 technologies
1:29:47 and then
1:29:48 the smoking
1:29:48 laptop
1:29:49 which was
1:29:50 completely
1:29:50 fake
1:29:50 and funneled
1:29:51 into the
1:29:51 stream
1:29:52 by the
1:29:53 Mujahideen
1:29:53 e-cult
1:29:54 communist
1:29:54 terrorist
1:29:54 cult
1:29:54 the same
1:29:55 people
1:29:55 who
1:29:56 come
1:29:56 off
1:29:56 with
1:29:57 you
1:29:57 know
1:29:57 10
1:29:57 major
1:29:57 hoax
1:29:58 the
1:29:58 NCRI
1:29:58 they
1:29:58 just
1:29:59 put
1:29:59 out
1:29:59 the
1:30:00 NCRI
1:30:00 the
1:30:00 National
1:30:00 Council
1:30:01 for
1:30:01 Resistance
1:30:01 in
1:30:25 No
1:30:25 but
1:30:25 but
1:30:25 let’s
1:30:26 talk
1:30:26 about
1:30:26 that
1:30:26 they
1:30:26 had
1:30:27 interesting
1:30:28 history
1:30:28 according
1:30:28 to
1:30:29 NIE
1:30:29 they
1:30:29 had
1:30:30 a
1:30:30 nuclear
1:30:30 weapons
1:30:31 research
1:30:31 program
1:30:32 that
1:30:32 never
1:30:33 made
1:30:33 anything
1:30:34 at
1:30:34 all
1:30:34 so you
1:30:35 can try
1:30:35 to conflate
1:30:35 that if you
1:30:35 want
1:30:36 but I think
1:30:37 everybody
1:31:07 the Supreme
1:31:07 Supreme
1:31:37 million people
1:31:37 people
1:31:37 had been
1:31:38 had been
1:31:39 killed
1:31:39 so they
1:31:39 were
1:31:40 they were
1:31:41 afraid
1:31:41 that the
1:31:41 United
1:31:42 States
1:31:42 was
1:31:42 going
1:31:42 to
1:31:43 march
1:31:43 from
1:31:44 Baghdad
1:31:44 to
1:31:44 Tehran
1:31:46 so they
1:31:46 make a
1:31:46 decision
1:31:48 to end
1:31:49 their
1:31:50 active
1:31:50 Ahmad
1:31:51 program
1:31:52 they
1:31:53 make a
1:31:53 decision
1:31:53 to
1:31:54 build
1:31:54 out
1:31:54 the
1:31:54 key
1:31:55 capabilities
1:31:55 they
1:31:56 need
1:31:56 to
1:31:56 retain
1:31:57 an
1:31:57 Iranian
1:31:58 nuclear
1:31:58 weapons
1:31:59 option
1:32:00 specifically
1:32:00 the
1:32:01 enrichment
1:32:01 capabilities
1:32:02 at
1:32:03 Natanz
1:32:03 and then
1:32:04 Fordow
1:32:05 and at
1:32:05 Iraq
1:32:06 giving them
1:32:06 the
1:32:07 plutonium
1:32:07 route
1:32:08 and then
1:32:08 what they
1:32:09 do is
1:32:09 they take
1:32:10 the members
1:32:10 of the
1:32:10 Ahmad
1:32:11 program
1:32:11 the nuclear
1:32:11 weapons
1:32:12 scientists
1:32:12 that have
1:32:12 worked
1:32:13 on this
1:32:14 and they
1:32:14 disperse
1:32:14 them
1:32:15 so they’re
1:32:16 now no
1:32:16 longer
1:32:17 in a
1:32:18 formal
1:32:19 weapons
1:32:19 program
1:32:20 they’re
1:32:20 put in
1:32:20 a
1:32:21 number
1:32:21 of
1:32:22 different
1:32:22 research
1:32:22 centers
1:32:23 and
1:32:23 universities
1:32:24 and
1:32:24 Mohsen
1:32:25 Fakhrizade
1:32:25 who you
1:32:26 mentioned
1:32:27 earlier
1:32:28 who’s
1:32:28 in some
1:32:28 respects
1:32:29 I wouldn’t
1:32:29 call him
1:32:30 the Oppenheimer
1:32:31 of the
1:32:32 Iranian
1:32:32 nuclear
1:32:33 weapons
1:32:33 program
1:32:33 he’s
1:32:34 more like
1:32:36 who was
1:32:36 in the
1:32:36 Oppenheimer
1:32:37 movie
1:32:37 Leslie
1:32:37 Grove
1:32:39 the guy
1:32:39 who was
1:32:39 actually
1:32:40 responsible
1:32:40 for the
1:32:41 organization
1:32:42 and the
1:32:43 training
1:32:43 and the
1:32:44 recruitment
1:32:44 and the
1:32:45 guy that
1:32:45 actually ran
1:32:46 the program
1:32:46 as opposed
1:32:47 to Oppenheimer
1:32:47 the sort
1:32:48 of brilliant
1:32:48 nuclear
1:32:49 physicist
1:32:50 this is
1:32:51 Fakhrizade
1:32:52 so Fakhrizade
1:32:53 takes control
1:32:53 of this
1:32:54 program
1:32:55 and now
1:32:55 it is
1:32:56 dispersed
1:32:57 and it
1:32:57 is
1:32:59 unstructured
1:32:59 in that
1:33:00 sense
1:33:00 because
1:33:01 they
1:33:01 recognize
1:33:02 that if
1:33:03 they continue
1:33:03 with this
1:33:04 the United
1:33:04 States
1:33:05 may march
1:33:06 to Tehran
1:33:06 and so
1:33:07 the NIE
1:33:08 says
1:33:08 Iran is
1:33:09 retaining
1:33:09 the key
1:33:10 capabilities
1:33:10 the enrichment
1:33:11 capabilities
1:33:11 to give
1:33:12 them an
1:33:12 option
1:33:12 for a
1:33:12 nuclear
1:33:13 weapon
1:33:13 but we
1:33:14 the NIE
1:33:15 have decided
1:33:15 or we
1:33:16 have concluded
1:33:17 that they
1:33:17 no longer
1:33:18 have an
1:33:18 active
1:33:19 structured
1:33:20 nuclear
1:33:20 weapons
1:33:21 program
1:33:21 however
1:33:22 since then
1:33:22 what have
1:33:23 we seen
1:33:23 we’ve seen
1:33:24 them actually
1:33:25 do what
1:33:26 many suspected
1:33:26 they would do
1:33:27 which is
1:33:28 build all
1:33:28 the key
1:33:29 capabilities
1:33:29 that they
1:33:30 need
1:33:30 so that
1:33:31 at the time
1:33:31 of their
1:33:32 choosing
1:33:32 they can
1:33:33 decide
1:33:34 to develop
1:33:35 a nuclear
1:33:35 bomb
1:33:36 whether it’s
1:33:36 a crude
1:33:36 nuclear device
1:33:37 as you
1:33:37 described
1:33:38 whether it’s
1:33:38 a nuclear
1:33:39 warhead
1:33:40 we’ve had
1:33:40 that discussion
1:33:42 so far
1:33:42 but just
1:33:43 sorry
1:33:43 just to
1:33:43 finish
1:33:44 so
1:33:44 just
1:33:45 understand
1:33:46 the brilliance
1:33:47 of Iranian
1:33:48 nuclear
1:33:49 deception
1:33:49 right
1:33:50 I just
1:33:50 I think
1:33:50 it’s
1:33:50 really
1:33:50 interesting
1:33:51 to get
1:33:51 in the
1:33:51 minds
1:33:52 of the
1:33:52 Ayatollah
1:33:52 and understand
1:33:53 this
1:33:53 because
1:33:54 he doesn’t
1:33:55 want to provoke
1:33:55 the United
1:33:55 States
1:33:57 he doesn’t
1:33:57 want to see
1:33:57 another
1:33:59 Iraq style
1:33:59 invasion
1:34:00 this time
1:34:00 of his
1:34:00 country
1:34:02 he’s
1:34:02 building
1:34:02 this
1:34:03 capability
1:34:03 on the
1:34:03 enrichment
1:34:04 side
1:34:04 and on
1:34:04 the
1:34:05 reprocessing
1:34:05 side
1:34:06 he is
1:34:06 framing
1:34:07 this
1:34:07 as I’m
1:34:07 only
1:34:08 building
1:34:08 a
1:34:08 civilian
1:34:08 nuclear
1:34:09 program
1:34:09 he’s
1:34:09 taking
1:34:10 the
1:34:10 weapons
1:34:10 scientists
1:34:11 who are
1:34:11 building
1:34:12 part
1:34:13 of an
1:34:13 active
1:34:14 nuclear
1:34:14 weapons
1:34:14 program
1:34:16 and he’s
1:34:16 dispersing
1:34:17 them
1:34:17 putting
1:34:17 them
1:34:18 under
1:34:18 the
1:34:19 guidance
1:34:19 and
1:34:19 direction
1:34:19 of
1:34:20 Fakhrizade
1:34:21 and starting
1:34:22 to build
1:34:22 out
1:34:22 these
1:34:23 capabilities
1:34:23 I mean
1:34:24 I admire
1:34:25 I have to say
1:34:26 I really
1:34:26 admire the
1:34:27 way he’s
1:34:27 played
1:34:27 this
1:34:28 three-dimensional
1:34:28 nuclear
1:34:29 chess
1:34:29 game
1:34:29 it’s
1:34:30 very
1:34:30 very
1:34:30 interesting
1:34:31 and I
1:34:31 think
1:34:31 he made
1:34:32 a tragic
1:34:33 mistake
1:34:34 about
1:34:35 six
1:34:35 weeks
1:34:35 ago
1:34:36 when
1:34:36 he
1:34:36 rejected
1:34:37 the
1:34:37 offer
1:34:37 from
1:34:38 Trump
1:34:38 at
1:34:39 Oman
1:34:40 and then
1:34:40 provoked
1:34:41 both an
1:34:41 Israeli
1:34:42 and then
1:34:42 an
1:34:42 American
1:34:43 strike
1:34:44 but he
1:34:44 was
1:34:44 playing
1:34:44 this
1:34:45 game
1:34:46 almost
1:34:46 perfectly
1:34:47 before
1:34:47 then
1:34:48 in
1:34:48 building
1:34:48 out
1:34:48 these
1:34:49 capabilities
1:34:50 and
1:34:50 I
1:34:50 think
1:34:51 what
1:34:51 he
1:34:51 should
1:34:51 have
1:34:51 done
1:34:51 if
1:34:52 I
1:34:52 were
1:34:52 him
1:34:52 I
1:34:52 would
1:34:52 have
1:34:53 waited
1:34:53 out
1:34:53 Trump
1:34:54 I
1:34:54 would
1:34:54 have
1:34:54 waited
1:34:55 three
1:34:55 and a
1:34:55 half
1:34:55 years
1:34:55 I
1:34:55 would
1:34:55 have
1:34:56 taken
1:34:56 the
1:34:56 offer
1:34:56 in
1:34:56 Oman
1:34:57 which
1:34:57 gave
1:34:57 him
1:34:58 enrichment
1:34:58 capability
1:34:59 above
1:34:59 ground
1:35:00 this
1:35:01 consortium
1:35:01 that was
1:35:01 going to
1:35:01 be built
1:35:02 in three
1:35:02 and a
1:35:02 half
1:35:02 years
1:35:03 would
1:35:03 never
1:35:03 be
1:35:03 built
1:35:04 and even
1:35:04 if
1:35:04 it was
1:35:04 built
1:35:05 he
1:35:05 could
1:35:05 just
1:35:05 say
1:35:05 I’m
1:35:05 not
1:35:06 interested
1:35:06 anymore
1:35:07 and
1:35:07 challenge
1:35:07 the
1:35:08 next
1:35:08 president
1:35:08 whoever
1:35:09 that
1:35:09 is
1:35:09 Republican
1:35:10 and Democrat
1:35:10 to do
1:35:11 anything
1:35:11 about
1:35:11 it
1:35:11 and I
1:35:11 think
1:35:11 the
1:35:12 political
1:35:13 calculation
1:35:14 should
1:35:14 have
1:35:14 been
1:35:14 the
1:35:15 next
1:35:15 president
1:35:15 is
1:35:15 not
1:35:15 going
1:35:16 to
1:35:16 do
1:35:16 anything
1:35:16 about
1:35:16 this
1:35:17 I’ll
1:35:18 be
1:35:18 able
1:35:18 to
1:35:18 then
1:35:18 be
1:35:18 able
1:35:19 to
1:35:19 complete
1:35:19 my
1:35:20 nuclear
1:35:20 weapons
1:35:20 program
1:35:21 but he
1:35:22 challenged
1:35:22 Trump
1:35:22 he
1:35:22 thought
1:35:23 Trump
1:35:23 was
1:35:23 a
1:35:23 paper
1:35:24 tiger
1:35:24 he
1:35:25 rejected
1:35:25 that
1:35:25 offer
1:35:25 at
1:35:26 Oman
1:35:27 and
1:35:27 we’ve
1:35:27 seen
1:35:28 what’s
1:35:28 happened
1:35:28 over
1:35:28 the
1:35:28 past
1:35:29 couple
1:35:29 weeks
1:35:30 two
1:35:30 things
1:35:31 one
1:35:31 can
1:35:31 you
1:35:31 go
1:35:31 and
1:35:32 respond
1:35:32 to
1:35:32 certain
1:35:32 things
1:35:33 that
1:35:33 you
1:35:34 heard
1:35:34 and
1:35:35 two
1:35:35 can
1:35:35 we
1:35:36 generally
1:35:36 move
1:35:37 in
1:35:37 the
1:35:37 direction
1:35:38 of
1:35:38 the
1:35:38 modern
1:35:39 day
1:35:39 and
1:35:39 trying
1:35:40 to
1:35:40 see
1:35:40 what
1:35:40 is
1:35:40 the
1:35:41 right
1:35:48 history
1:35:48 which
1:35:48 is
1:35:49 really
1:35:49 important
1:35:49 but
1:35:50 sort
1:35:50 of
1:35:50 moving
1:35:50 forward
1:35:51 but
1:35:52 go ahead
1:35:52 please
1:35:53 I’m not
1:35:53 sure how much
1:35:53 time we have
1:35:55 I kind of
1:35:55 hoped
1:35:56 that we could
1:35:56 talk about
1:35:58 Israel’s role
1:35:59 in Iraq
1:35:59 War II
1:36:00 and for
1:36:01 that matter
1:36:02 in Barack
1:36:02 Obama’s
1:36:02 dirty war
1:36:03 in Syria
1:36:03 that led
1:36:04 to the rise
1:36:04 of the
1:36:05 bin Laden
1:36:05 Knights
1:36:05 there
1:36:05 it’s
1:36:06 all part
1:36:06 of
1:36:07 America’s
1:36:07 Israel
1:36:07 policy
1:36:08 so I
1:36:08 don’t
1:36:08 want
1:36:08 to
1:36:09 I
1:36:09 rather
1:36:09 go
1:36:09 back
1:36:10 before
1:36:10 we
1:36:10 go
1:36:10 forward
1:36:11 but
1:36:11 I
1:36:11 also
1:36:12 do
1:36:12 I
1:36:12 need
1:36:12 to
1:36:13 go
1:36:13 back
1:36:13 over
1:36:13 so
1:36:13 many
1:36:14 claims
1:36:14 that
1:36:14 he’s
1:36:14 made
1:36:14 here
1:36:14 that
1:36:15 I
1:36:16 strongly
1:36:17 prefer
1:36:17 we
1:36:17 go
1:36:18 because
1:36:18 there’s
1:36:18 so
1:36:19 much
1:36:19 history
1:36:19 we’re
1:36:19 going
1:36:19 to
1:36:20 lose
1:36:20 ourselves
1:36:20 in it
1:36:20 there’s
1:36:21 not
1:36:21 enough
1:36:21 hours
1:36:22 we
1:36:23 should
1:36:24 take
1:36:24 certain
1:36:24 moments
1:36:25 in
1:36:25 history
1:36:25 that
1:36:26 instruct
1:36:26 the
1:36:27 modern
1:36:27 day
1:36:28 but
1:36:28 let’s
1:36:28 not
1:36:28 get
1:36:29 lost
1:36:29 there
1:36:29 if
1:36:29 it’s
1:36:29 okay
1:36:30 sure
1:36:30 this
1:36:30 is
1:36:30 such
1:36:30 a
1:36:31 fascinating
1:36:31 conversation
1:36:32 although
1:36:32 we’re
1:36:32 talking
1:36:32 about
1:36:33 you
1:36:33 know
1:36:33 the
1:36:34 JCPOA
1:36:34 and the
1:36:34 time
1:36:35 between
1:36:35 then
1:36:35 and now
1:36:35 like
1:36:36 quite
1:36:36 a bit
1:36:36 already
1:36:37 too
1:36:37 so
1:36:38 we’ll
1:36:38 be
1:36:38 going
1:36:38 back
1:36:38 over
1:36:38 some
1:36:39 of
1:36:39 that
1:36:39 no
1:36:39 I
1:36:39 mean
1:36:40 modern
1:36:40 day
1:36:40 I
1:36:41 don’t
1:36:41 mean
1:36:41 this
1:36:41 week
1:36:43 a lot
1:36:43 of
1:36:44 stuff
1:36:46 will
1:36:47 happen
1:36:47 tomorrow
1:36:47 and
1:36:48 the
1:36:48 next
1:36:48 week
1:36:49 and
1:36:49 we
1:36:49 everyone
1:36:50 wants
1:36:50 to
1:36:50 know
1:36:51 what
1:36:52 is
1:36:52 going
1:36:52 to
1:36:52 happen
1:36:52 what
1:36:53 is
1:36:53 the
1:36:53 worst
1:36:53 case
1:36:53 what
1:36:54 is
1:36:54 the
1:36:54 best
1:36:54 case
1:36:55 should
1:36:55 we
1:36:55 be
1:36:55 freaking
1:36:56 out
1:36:56 what
1:36:56 do
1:36:56 we
1:36:56 need
1:36:56 to
1:36:57 understand
1:36:57 about
1:36:57 today
1:36:57 that’s
1:36:57 all
1:36:58 right
1:36:59 so
1:36:59 there’s
1:36:59 a lot
1:36:59 of
1:36:59 things
1:36:59 to
1:37:00 address
1:37:00 here
1:37:00 so
1:37:00 first
1:37:00 of
1:37:01 all
1:37:01 something
1:37:01 that
1:37:02 me
1:37:02 and
1:37:02 Mr.
1:37:03 Dubowitz
1:37:03 agree
1:37:03 about
1:37:04 Mark
1:37:05 something
1:37:05 that
1:37:05 Mark
1:37:06 and I
1:37:06 agree
1:37:06 about
1:37:07 is
1:37:08 that
1:37:09 there
1:37:09 actually
1:37:09 is
1:37:10 not
1:37:10 a
1:37:10 threat
1:37:11 of
1:37:11 an
1:37:12 aggressive
1:37:12 first
1:37:12 strike
1:37:13 by
1:37:13 Iran
1:37:14 I’m
1:37:14 a little
1:37:15 surprised
1:37:15 to hear
1:37:15 him
1:37:15 say
1:37:16 that
1:37:16 but
1:37:16 I’m
1:37:16 grateful
1:37:16 to
1:37:16 hear
1:37:16 him
1:37:17 say
1:37:17 it
1:37:17 is
1:37:17 honest
1:37:18 I
1:37:18 would
1:37:20 you
1:37:20 know
1:37:20 advise
1:37:21 you
1:37:21 for
1:37:22 you
1:37:22 may
1:37:22 be
1:37:22 unfamiliar
1:37:23 with
1:37:23 this
1:37:23 but
1:37:23 I
1:37:23 can
1:37:23 tell
1:37:24 you
1:37:25 anyone
1:37:25 in
1:37:25 America
1:37:25 who
1:37:26 drives
1:37:26 for
1:37:26 a
1:37:26 living
1:37:27 and
1:37:28 listens
1:37:28 to
1:37:28 AM
1:37:28 radio
1:37:29 have
1:37:30 heard
1:37:30 claims
1:37:30 that
1:37:31 Iran
1:37:31 was
1:37:31 making
1:37:32 nuclear
1:37:32 weapons
1:37:33 probably
1:37:34 50,000
1:37:34 times
1:37:35 in the
1:37:35 last
1:37:35 25
1:37:36 years
1:37:38 over
1:37:38 and
1:37:39 over
1:37:39 and
1:37:39 over
1:37:40 again
1:37:40 we
1:37:40 hear
1:37:40 this
1:37:41 propaganda
1:37:41 they
1:37:43 still
1:37:44 don’t
1:37:44 have
1:37:44 a
1:37:45 single
1:37:45 atom
1:37:45 bomb
1:37:46 the
1:37:46 reason
1:37:46 why
1:37:47 they
1:37:47 haven’t
1:37:47 been
1:37:47 able
1:37:47 to
1:37:48 cobbled
1:37:48 together
1:37:49 an
1:37:49 atom
1:37:49 bomb
1:37:50 in
1:37:50 this
1:37:51 1940s
1:37:51 technology
1:37:52 is
1:37:52 because
1:37:52 they
1:37:52 have
1:37:53 not
1:37:53 tried
1:37:53 to
1:37:54 okay
1:37:55 so
1:37:55 people
1:37:55 can
1:37:56 you know
1:37:56 just
1:37:57 essentially
1:37:57 flog
1:37:57 this
1:37:58 dead
1:37:58 horse
1:37:59 pretend
1:37:59 there’s
1:37:59 this
1:37:59 threat
1:38:00 oh
1:38:00 he’s
1:38:00 gonna
1:38:00 break
1:38:01 out
1:38:01 any
1:38:01 day
1:38:01 now
1:38:02 but
1:38:02 here’s
1:38:02 the
1:38:02 thing
1:38:02 about
1:38:03 that
1:38:03 as
1:38:03 the
1:38:04 Ayatollah
1:38:04 well
1:38:05 knows
1:38:06 George
1:38:07 W
1:38:07 Bush
1:38:08 Barack
1:38:08 Obama
1:38:09 Donald
1:38:09 Trump
1:38:10 Joe
1:38:10 Biden
1:38:11 and
1:38:11 now
1:38:11 Trump
1:38:11 again
1:38:12 have
1:38:12 all
1:38:13 vowed
1:38:13 with
1:38:14 all
1:38:14 sincerity
1:38:15 that
1:38:15 they
1:38:16 would
1:38:16 bomb
1:38:17 Iran
1:38:17 off
1:38:17 the
1:38:18 face
1:38:18 of
1:38:18 the
1:38:18 earth
1:38:19 if
1:38:20 they
1:38:20 attempted
1:38:21 to
1:38:21 break
1:38:22 out
1:38:22 and
1:38:22 make
1:38:22 a
1:38:23 nuclear
1:38:23 weapon
1:38:24 Hillary
1:38:24 Clinton
1:38:24 when she
1:38:24 ran
1:38:24 said
1:38:25 they’d
1:38:25 be
1:38:26 obliterated
1:38:26 from
1:38:26 the
1:38:26 face
1:38:26 of
1:38:26 the
1:38:27 earth
1:38:27 Barack
1:38:27 Obama
1:38:28 did
1:38:28 an
1:38:28 interview
1:38:28 with
1:38:29 Jeffrey
1:38:29 Goldberg
1:38:29 in
1:38:29 the
1:38:30 Atlantic
1:38:30 in
1:38:31 2012
1:38:31 called
1:38:32 as
1:38:32 president
1:38:33 I
1:38:33 don’t
1:38:34 bluff
1:38:34 and
1:38:34 essentially
1:38:35 the
1:38:35 interview
1:38:35 is
1:38:35 him
1:38:36 begging
1:38:36 Jeffrey
1:38:37 Goldberg
1:38:37 to
1:38:38 explain
1:38:38 to
1:38:38 the
1:38:38 Israelis
1:38:39 that
1:38:39 he
1:38:44 out
1:38:45 for
1:38:45 a
1:38:45 nuke
1:38:45 I’ll
1:38:46 nuke
1:38:46 him
1:38:46 if
1:38:46 I
1:38:47 have
1:38:47 to
1:38:48 he
1:38:48 didn’t
1:38:48 say
1:38:48 that
1:38:49 but
1:38:49 the
1:38:49 implication
1:38:49 was
1:38:50 no
1:38:50 US
1:38:51 president
1:38:51 ever
1:38:51 said
1:38:51 they’re
1:38:51 going
1:38:52 obliterate
1:38:52 Iran
1:38:53 Hillary
1:38:54 Clinton
1:38:54 did
1:38:55 all options
1:38:55 are on
1:38:55 the
1:38:55 table
1:38:56 anyone
1:38:56 can
1:38:56 google
1:38:57 her
1:38:57 word
1:38:57 she was
1:38:58 never
1:38:58 our
1:38:58 president
1:38:58 no I said
1:38:59 she was running
1:38:59 for president
1:39:00 but she was
1:39:00 never
1:39:00 our
1:39:00 president
1:39:01 but no
1:39:01 US
1:39:01 president
1:39:01 ever
1:39:01 said
1:39:02 they’d
1:39:02 obliterate
1:39:02 Iran
1:39:03 nobody
1:39:03 ever
1:39:03 said
1:39:03 the
1:39:04 implication
1:39:05 was
1:39:06 clear
1:39:06 under
1:39:07 W.
1:39:07 Bush
1:39:07 Barack
1:39:08 Obama
1:39:08 Trump
1:39:09 Biden
1:39:09 and
1:39:09 Trump
1:39:10 again
1:39:10 that
1:39:10 if
1:39:12 they broke
1:39:12 out
1:39:13 toward
1:39:13 a
1:39:13 nuclear
1:39:14 weapon
1:39:14 America
1:39:15 would
1:39:15 do
1:39:16 whatever
1:39:16 it
1:39:16 took
1:39:17 to
1:39:17 prevent
1:39:18 that
1:39:18 from
1:39:18 happening
1:39:19 so
1:39:19 that
1:39:21 was
1:39:21 always
1:39:21 the
1:39:22 case
1:39:22 there
1:39:22 but
1:39:23 please
1:39:23 clarify
1:39:23 just to
1:39:23 be
1:39:24 accurate
1:39:24 and
1:39:24 I’m
1:39:24 almost
1:39:25 talking
1:39:25 about
1:39:26 nuking
1:39:26 Iran
1:39:26 no one’s
1:39:27 talking
1:39:27 about
1:39:28 bombing
1:39:28 Iran
1:39:28 to
1:39:29 smithereens
1:39:29 or
1:39:30 obliterating
1:39:30 or any
1:39:30 that
1:39:31 that’s
1:39:31 really
1:39:31 not
1:39:31 true
1:39:32 I mean
1:39:32 Barack
1:39:32 Obama
1:39:33 changed
1:39:34 America’s
1:39:34 nuclear
1:39:34 posture
1:39:35 to
1:39:35 say
1:39:36 because
1:39:36 it
1:39:36 used
1:39:36 to
1:39:36 say
1:39:36 we
1:39:37 reserve
1:39:37 the
1:39:37 right
1:39:37 to
1:39:37 use
1:39:37 a
1:39:38 nuclear
1:39:38 first
1:39:38 strike
1:39:38 against
1:39:39 any
1:39:39 country
1:39:40 and
1:39:40 he
1:39:40 changed
1:39:40 that
1:39:41 to
1:39:41 say
1:39:41 no
1:39:42 we
1:39:42 promise
1:39:43 not
1:39:43 to
1:39:43 use
1:39:43 a
1:39:44 nuclear
1:39:44 first
1:39:44 strike
1:39:45 against
1:39:45 any
1:39:45 non-nuclear
1:39:46 weapon
1:39:46 state
1:39:47 except
1:39:47 maybe
1:39:48 Iran
1:39:49 okay
1:39:50 that’s
1:39:50 true
1:39:51 all right
1:39:51 and so
1:39:52 in fact
1:39:53 that was
1:39:53 the
1:39:53 threat
1:39:54 and
1:39:54 I
1:39:54 got
1:39:55 more
1:39:55 here
1:39:55 okay
1:39:57 Netanyahu
1:39:57 also
1:39:57 did
1:39:58 an
1:39:58 interview
1:39:58 with
1:39:58 Jeffrey
1:39:59 Goldberg
1:39:59 back
1:40:00 when
1:40:00 Ehud
1:40:00 Barak
1:40:01 was
1:40:01 his
1:40:01 defense
1:40:02 minister
1:40:03 in
1:40:04 I think
1:40:04 this is
1:40:04 also
1:40:05 2012
1:40:05 it might
1:40:05 have been
1:40:06 2014
1:40:07 where the
1:40:07 two of
1:40:07 them
1:40:08 explained
1:40:08 that they
1:40:09 agreed
1:40:09 with what
1:40:09 he said
1:40:10 too
1:40:10 that
1:40:11 the threat
1:40:11 is not
1:40:11 of a
1:40:11 nuclear
1:40:12 first
1:40:12 strike
1:40:13 unlike
1:40:14 every
1:40:15 AM radio
1:40:15 audience
1:40:16 has been
1:40:16 led to
1:40:17 believe
1:40:17 that the
1:40:17 Ayatollah
1:40:18 as soon
1:40:18 as he
1:40:18 gets an
1:40:19 atom bomb
1:40:20 he will
1:40:20 nuke
1:40:21 Tel Aviv
1:40:21 and he
1:40:22 doesn’t care
1:40:22 if all
1:40:22 of Persia
1:40:23 is nuked
1:40:23 by Israel’s
1:40:24 200 nukes
1:40:25 in response
1:40:25 he’s trying
1:40:26 to cause
1:40:26 the end
1:40:26 of the
1:40:27 world
1:40:28 by causing
1:40:28 a nuclear
1:40:29 war
1:40:29 and all
1:40:29 these
1:40:29 things
1:40:30 well
1:40:30 Netanyahu
1:40:31 himself
1:40:31 admitted
1:40:32 that that’s
1:40:32 not true
1:40:34 I’m just
1:40:35 agreeing with
1:40:35 you so you
1:40:35 don’t have
1:40:36 to stop
1:40:36 but I’m
1:40:36 agreeing
1:40:36 with
1:40:36 you
1:40:37 I know
1:40:37 but I’m
1:40:37 agreeing
1:40:38 with
1:40:38 you
1:40:38 so it’s
1:40:38 all right
1:40:39 so Netanyahu
1:40:41 told Jeffrey
1:40:41 Goldberg
1:40:43 that he was
1:40:44 not concerned
1:40:44 about a
1:40:45 first strike
1:40:46 that his
1:40:46 only concern
1:40:47 was that
1:40:48 talented young
1:40:48 Israelis
1:40:49 would move
1:40:49 to Miami
1:40:50 that there
1:40:50 would be
1:40:51 a brain
1:40:51 drain
1:40:53 that was
1:40:53 his words
1:40:54 a brain
1:40:54 drain
1:40:55 from Israel
1:40:56 and that
1:40:57 also then
1:40:57 Hezbollah
1:40:58 as this is
1:40:58 what he put
1:40:59 it and I
1:40:59 agree with
1:40:59 this that
1:41:00 conventional
1:41:01 forces would
1:41:01 have a bit
1:41:02 more freedom
1:41:02 of action
1:41:03 in the region
1:41:04 if Iran
1:41:04 was sitting
1:41:05 on an
1:41:05 A-bomb
1:41:06 neither
1:41:07 of them
1:41:07 said
1:41:08 that there
1:41:09 was a
1:41:09 threat
1:41:09 of an
1:41:09 offensive
1:41:10 first strike
1:41:11 against Israel
1:41:11 and I would
1:41:12 point out
1:41:12 and I’m
1:41:13 skipping ahead
1:41:13 to Trump
1:41:13 but I’m
1:41:14 skipping back
1:41:14 here again
1:41:15 in a second
1:41:15 because I got
1:41:17 more things
1:41:17 to refute
1:41:18 but Trump
1:41:18 just said
1:41:19 the other
1:41:19 day when he
1:41:19 announced
1:41:20 American
1:41:20 airstrikes
1:41:21 there
1:41:21 that this
1:41:22 has
1:41:22 neutralized
1:41:23 a threat
1:41:23 to Israel
1:41:24 he did
1:41:24 not even
1:41:25 pretend
1:41:25 that it
1:41:25 was a
1:41:25 threat
1:41:26 to the
1:41:26 United
1:41:26 States
1:41:27 that he
1:41:27 had
1:41:27 ended
1:41:28 in doing
1:41:28 so
1:41:28 actually
1:41:28 he said
1:41:29 exactly
1:41:29 that
1:41:30 well
1:41:31 actually
1:41:31 you can
1:41:31 google
1:41:32 the state
1:41:38 he announced
1:41:39 his great
1:41:39 victory
1:41:40 in bombing
1:41:41 which is
1:41:41 what I
1:41:41 just said
1:41:42 right
1:41:42 President
1:41:43 Trump
1:41:43 sends out
1:41:44 20 truth
1:41:44 posts a
1:41:45 day
1:41:45 so let’s
1:41:46 look at
1:41:47 the many
1:41:47 many
1:41:48 things
1:41:48 things
1:41:48 about
1:41:48 how
1:41:49 I
1:41:49 always
1:41:50 believe
1:41:50 Hezbollah
1:41:51 and I
1:41:52 always
1:41:52 believe
1:41:53 the
1:41:53 Ayatollah
1:41:54 when in
1:41:54 fact
1:41:54 I
1:41:55 did
1:41:55 not
1:41:55 quote
1:41:55 the
1:41:56 Ayatollah
1:41:56 and I
1:41:57 did
1:41:57 not
1:41:57 quote
1:41:58 Hezbollah
1:41:58 on anything
1:41:59 I did
1:41:59 quote
1:42:00 Osama
1:42:00 bin Laden
1:42:01 taking
1:42:02 responsibility
1:42:03 for the
1:42:03 Gopar
1:42:04 Towers
1:42:04 attack
1:42:05 which
1:42:05 he
1:42:06 shared
1:42:06 that
1:42:07 with
1:42:07 Abdelbari
1:42:08 Atwan
1:42:08 anyone
1:42:08 can
1:42:08 read
1:42:09 it
1:42:09 and
1:42:09 he
1:42:10 agrees
1:42:10 with
1:42:10 Michael
1:42:10 Scheuer
1:42:11 the
1:42:11 former
1:42:11 chief
1:42:11 of
1:42:11 the
1:42:11 CIA
1:42:12 bin
1:42:12 Laden
1:42:12 unit
1:42:13 who
1:42:13 also
1:42:18 who
1:42:18 did
1:42:18 they
1:42:19 attack
1:42:19 they
1:42:19 killed
1:42:20 19
1:42:21 American
1:42:21 airmen
1:42:22 which
1:42:22 was
1:42:22 the
1:42:22 number
1:42:23 one
1:42:24 complaint
1:42:24 of
1:42:25 Al-Qaeda
1:42:25 against
1:42:25 the
1:42:26 United
1:42:26 States
1:42:26 that
1:42:27 we
1:42:27 had
1:42:28 air
1:42:28 forces
1:42:29 and
1:42:29 armies
1:42:30 stationed
1:42:30 in
1:42:30 Saudi
1:42:30 Arabia
1:42:31 in
1:42:31 order
1:42:31 to
1:42:31 bomb
1:42:31 and
1:42:32 blockade
1:42:32 Iraq
1:42:33 which
1:42:33 again
1:42:33 this
1:42:33 was
1:42:34 the
1:42:34 thing
1:42:34 you
1:42:34 had
1:42:34 asked
1:42:34 about
1:42:35 before
1:42:35 was
1:42:35 part
1:42:36 of
1:42:36 the
1:42:36 dual
1:42:36 containment
1:42:37 policy
1:42:37 in
1:42:38 the
1:42:38 1990
1:42:38 Scott
1:42:39 you’re
1:42:39 saying
1:42:39 damn
1:42:40 wait a second
1:42:41 the fact
1:42:42 you’re
1:42:42 sitting
1:42:42 here
1:42:42 saying
1:42:51 don’t
1:42:51 trust
1:42:52 but
1:42:52 be
1:42:53 polite
1:42:53 right
1:42:54 that’s
1:42:54 what
1:42:54 he
1:42:54 meant
1:42:55 verify
1:42:55 means
1:42:56 we
1:42:56 we
1:42:57 know
1:42:57 with
1:42:57 sensors
1:42:58 and
1:42:58 cameras
1:42:58 and
1:42:59 inspections
1:42:59 what’s
1:42:59 going
1:43:00 on
1:43:00 no
1:43:00 one
1:43:01 can
1:43:01 find
1:43:01 a
1:43:02 quote
1:43:02 that
1:43:02 I
1:43:02 said
1:43:02 here
1:43:03 about
1:43:03 how
1:43:03 we
1:43:03 can
1:43:04 trust
1:43:04 the
1:43:05 Ayatollah
1:43:05 because
1:43:05 he
1:43:06 promised
1:43:06 this
1:43:06 or
1:43:06 that
1:43:06 or
1:43:07 the
1:43:07 other
1:43:07 thing
1:43:07 I
1:43:08 didn’t
1:43:08 say
1:43:08 that
1:43:09 right
1:43:09 what
1:43:09 I’m
1:43:10 talking
1:43:10 about
1:43:10 is
1:43:11 the
1:43:11 process
1:43:12 they
1:43:12 sign
1:43:12 agreements
1:43:13 and
1:43:13 then
1:43:13 we
1:43:13 have
1:43:14 inspectors
1:43:14 to
1:43:14 verify
1:43:14 their
1:43:15 claims
1:43:15 and
1:43:15 as
1:43:16 anyone
1:43:16 can
1:43:16 search
1:43:16 at
1:43:17 IAEA.org
1:43:18 they
1:43:18 have
1:43:18 continued
1:43:19 to
1:43:19 verify
1:43:19 the
1:43:20 non-diversion
1:43:21 of
1:43:21 nuclear
1:43:21 material
1:43:21 in
1:43:22 Iran
1:43:22 to
1:43:22 any
1:43:23 military
1:43:23 or
1:43:23 other
1:43:23 special
1:43:24 IAEA
1:43:24 has
1:43:24 now
1:43:24 said
1:43:25 that
1:43:25 they
1:43:25 actually
1:43:25 can
1:43:25 no
1:43:26 longer
1:43:26 do
1:43:26 this
1:43:27 before
1:43:29 this
1:43:29 war
1:43:30 started
1:43:30 so
1:43:30 I
1:43:30 mean
1:43:30 at
1:43:30 the
1:43:31 end
1:43:31 of
1:43:31 the
1:43:31 day
1:43:31 let’s
1:43:31 just
1:43:31 be
1:43:33 factually
1:43:33 accurate
1:43:34 and
1:43:34 the
1:43:34 fact
1:43:34 of
1:43:34 the
1:43:34 matter
1:43:35 is
1:43:35 anybody
1:43:35 who
1:43:35 knows
1:43:36 anything
1:43:36 about
1:43:36 nuclear
1:43:37 weapons
1:43:37 program
1:43:38 knows
1:43:38 that
1:43:38 we
1:43:38 do
1:43:38 not
1:43:39 have
1:43:39 100%
1:43:40 certainty
1:43:40 on
1:43:40 anything
1:43:40 I
1:43:41 mean
1:43:41 Scott
1:43:41 is
1:43:42 making
1:43:42 claims
1:43:42 here
1:43:43 that
1:43:43 the
1:43:44 Mossad
1:43:44 is
1:43:44 fabricating
1:43:45 the CIA
1:43:45 is
1:43:45 fabricating
1:43:46 everybody’s
1:43:46 fabricating
1:43:47 but he’s
1:43:47 also
1:43:47 assuming
1:43:48 that
1:43:48 we
1:43:48 have
1:43:48 100%
1:43:49 certainty
1:43:49 about
1:43:49 what
1:43:50 Iran
1:43:50 is
1:43:50 doing
1:43:51 inside
1:43:51 a
1:43:51 country
1:43:52 more
1:43:52 than
1:43:52 two
1:43:52 and
1:43:52 a
1:43:52 half
1:43:53 times
1:43:53 the
1:43:53 size
1:43:53 of
1:43:53 Texas
1:43:54 as
1:43:55 Scott
1:43:55 rightly
1:43:56 said
1:43:56 mountainous
1:43:57 incredibly
1:43:57 difficult
1:43:58 to
1:43:58 monitor
1:43:59 incredibly
1:43:59 difficult
1:43:59 to
1:44:00 surveil
1:44:00 they
1:44:01 built
1:44:01 underground
1:44:02 facilities
1:44:02 at
1:44:02 Natanz
1:44:03 and
1:44:03 Fordow
1:44:04 without
1:44:04 our
1:44:04 knowledge
1:44:05 they
1:44:05 didn’t
1:44:05 disclose
1:44:06 it
1:44:06 we
1:44:06 finally
1:44:07 found
1:44:07 out
1:44:07 about
1:44:07 it
1:44:10 the
1:44:10 fact
1:44:10 of
1:44:10 the
1:44:12 facilities
1:44:12 are
1:44:12 there
1:44:12 and
1:44:13 by
1:44:13 the
1:44:13 way
1:44:13 you
1:44:13 keep
1:44:13 saying
1:44:14 that
1:44:14 I
1:44:14 just
1:44:14 say
1:44:14 lies
1:44:15 lies
1:44:15 lies
1:44:15 but
1:44:15 I
1:44:16 have
1:44:16 explained
1:44:17 exactly
1:44:17 what
1:44:17 I
1:44:17 meant
1:44:18 I’ve
1:44:18 cited
1:44:18 my
1:44:19 sources
1:44:19 and
1:44:19 I
1:44:20 haven’t
1:44:20 just
1:44:20 sat
1:44:21 here
1:44:21 and
1:44:22 that’s
1:44:22 a
1:44:27 exactly
1:44:28 how
1:44:28 I
1:44:28 know
1:44:28 what
1:44:28 the
1:44:29 IAEA
1:44:29 said
1:44:30 about
1:44:30 the
1:44:31 state
1:44:31 of
1:44:31 inspections
1:44:32 here
1:44:32 or
1:44:32 what
1:44:33 Robert
1:44:34 Kelly
1:44:34 told
1:44:34 the
1:44:34 Christian
1:44:35 science
1:44:35 monitor
1:44:35 about
1:44:36 Parchin
1:44:36 and the
1:44:36 rest
1:44:37 and on
1:44:37 and on
1:44:38 and on
1:44:38 you know
1:44:38 I sit
1:44:38 here
1:44:39 like I’m
1:44:39 just
1:44:40 saying
1:44:40 well that’s
1:44:41 not true
1:44:41 because I
1:44:42 don’t like
1:44:42 it
1:44:42 when in
1:44:42 fact
1:44:42 I’m
1:44:43 explaining
1:44:43 exactly
1:44:44 why
1:44:44 your
1:44:44 claims
1:44:45 are not
1:44:45 true
1:44:45 which
1:44:46 they’re
1:44:46 not
1:44:47 just
1:44:47 like
1:44:47 saying
1:44:48 that
1:44:48 I
1:44:48 said
1:44:49 I
1:44:49 trust
1:44:50 Hezbollah
1:44:50 when
1:44:50 anyone
1:44:51 can
1:44:51 rewind
1:44:51 that
1:44:51 and
1:44:52 break
1:44:53 their
1:44:53 finger
1:44:53 trying
1:44:53 to
1:44:53 find
1:44:54 the
1:44:54 part
1:44:54 where
1:44:54 I
1:44:54 said
1:44:54 that
1:44:55 because
1:44:55 I
1:44:55 never
1:44:55 did
1:44:56 and
1:44:57 now
1:44:58 you
1:44:58 brought
1:44:58 up
1:44:59 the
1:45:00 DPRK
1:45:00 well
1:45:02 in
1:45:03 2002
1:45:03 when
1:45:04 George W.
1:45:04 Bush
1:45:05 said
1:45:05 that
1:45:05 they
1:45:05 were
1:45:05 part
1:45:05 of
1:45:05 the
1:45:05 axis
1:45:06 of
1:45:06 evil
1:45:06 they
1:45:06 were
1:45:07 part
1:45:07 of
1:45:07 the
1:45:07 NPT
1:45:08 and
1:45:08 they
1:45:08 had
1:45:08 a
1:45:09 safeguards
1:45:09 agreement
1:45:09 with
1:45:09 the
1:45:10 IAEA
1:45:11 and
1:45:12 yes
1:45:12 they
1:45:12 had
1:45:12 bought
1:45:13 centrifuge
1:45:13 equipment
1:45:13 from
1:45:14 AQ
1:45:14 Con
1:45:14 but
1:45:14 they
1:45:15 had
1:45:15 not
1:45:15 used
1:45:15 it
1:45:16 it
1:45:16 was
1:45:16 John
1:45:16 Bolton’s
1:45:17 lie
1:45:17 that
1:45:17 they
1:45:18 were
1:45:18 enriching
1:45:18 uranium
1:45:19 to
1:45:19 weapons
1:45:19 grade
1:45:19 and
1:45:20 violating
1:45:20 the
1:45:21 agreed
1:45:21 framework
1:45:22 John
1:45:22 Bolton
1:45:22 and
1:45:23 George W.
1:45:23 Bush
1:45:24 in the fall
1:45:24 of
1:45:24 2002
1:45:24 then
1:45:25 canceled
1:45:25 the
1:45:25 agreed
1:45:26 framework
1:45:26 deal
1:45:26 that
1:45:26 Bill
1:45:27 Clinton
1:45:27 had
1:45:27 struck
1:45:28 based
1:45:28 on
1:45:28 this
1:45:29 misinformation
1:45:30 they
1:45:30 added
1:45:30 new
1:45:31 sanctions
1:45:32 and
1:45:32 they
1:45:32 launched
1:45:32 what
1:45:32 was
1:45:33 called
1:45:33 the
1:45:33 proliferation
1:45:34 security
1:45:34 initiative
1:45:35 which
1:45:35 was
1:45:35 an
1:45:35 illegal
1:45:36 and
1:45:36 unilateral
1:45:37 claim
1:45:37 of the
1:45:38 authority
1:45:38 to
1:45:38 seize
1:45:38 any
1:45:39 North
1:45:39 Korean
1:45:39 ship
1:45:39 on
1:45:39 the
1:45:40 high
1:45:40 seas
1:45:40 if
1:45:40 they
1:45:41 suspected
1:45:41 of
1:45:42 proliferation
1:45:42 and
1:45:42 then
1:45:43 they
1:45:43 added
1:45:43 them
1:45:44 to
1:45:44 the
1:45:44 nuclear
1:45:45 posture
1:45:45 review
1:45:46 putting
1:45:46 them
1:45:46 on
1:45:46 the
1:45:46 short
1:45:47 list
1:45:47 for
1:45:47 a
1:45:47 potential
1:45:48 first
1:45:48 strike
1:45:48 and
1:45:48 it
1:45:49 was
1:45:49 only
1:45:49 then
1:45:50 in
1:45:51 the
1:45:51 end
1:45:51 of
1:45:52 2002
1:45:52 after
1:45:52 these
1:45:53 four or
1:45:53 five
1:45:54 major
1:45:54 things
1:45:54 that
1:45:54 the
1:45:54 Bush
1:45:55 government
1:45:55 did
1:45:56 to
1:45:56 antagonize
1:45:56 them
1:45:57 that
1:45:57 North
1:45:58 Korea
1:45:58 then
1:45:58 announced
1:45:59 that
1:45:59 they
1:45:59 were
1:45:59 going
1:45:59 to
1:45:59 withdraw
1:46:00 from
1:46:00 the
1:46:00 treaty
1:46:01 and
1:46:01 begin
1:46:01 making
1:46:02 nuclear
1:46:02 weapons
1:46:02 which
1:46:02 is
1:46:02 what
1:46:03 they
1:46:03 did
1:46:03 and
1:46:03 then
1:46:04 as
1:46:04 we
1:46:04 know
1:46:05 from
1:46:05 all
1:46:05 the
1:46:05 scientists
1:46:05 say
1:46:06 every
1:46:06 time
1:46:06 that
1:46:06 they
1:46:07 tested
1:46:07 a
1:46:07 nuclear
1:46:08 bomb
1:46:08 it’s
1:46:08 been
1:46:08 a
1:46:09 plutonium
1:46:09 bomb
1:46:10 and
1:46:10 never
1:46:10 tested
1:46:11 not
1:46:11 never
1:46:11 once
1:46:12 used
1:46:12 a
1:46:12 uranium
1:46:13 bomb
1:46:13 there’s
1:46:13 no
1:46:14 evidence
1:46:14 that
1:46:14 John
1:46:15 Bolton’s
1:46:15 claims
1:46:16 there
1:46:16 that
1:46:16 they
1:46:16 were
1:46:16 enriching
1:46:17 uranium
1:46:17 were
1:46:17 ever
1:46:17 true
1:46:18 and
1:46:18 they
1:46:18 had
1:46:19 you
1:46:19 know
1:46:19 Sig
1:46:19 Hecker
1:46:20 who’s
1:46:20 this
1:46:21 important
1:46:21 American
1:46:21 nuclear
1:46:22 expert
1:46:22 went
1:46:22 and
1:46:22 toured
1:46:22 their
1:46:23 facilities
1:46:24 and
1:46:24 all
1:46:24 of
1:46:24 these
1:46:24 things
1:46:24 and
1:46:24 so
1:46:25 we
1:46:25 know
1:46:26 quite
1:46:26 a bit
1:46:26 about
1:46:26 what
1:46:27 they
1:46:27 have
1:46:27 and
1:46:27 it
1:46:28 was
1:46:29 simply
1:46:29 Bush
1:46:30 pushed
1:46:30 North
1:46:31 Korea
1:46:31 to
1:46:31 nukes
1:46:31 as
1:46:32 Gordon
1:46:32 Prather
1:46:32 wrote
1:46:33 in
1:46:33 his
1:46:33 last
1:46:33 great
1:46:34 article
1:46:34 for
1:46:34 us
1:46:35 at
1:46:36 antiwar.com
1:46:36 and
1:46:36 it
1:46:36 was
1:46:36 through
1:46:37 this
1:46:37 exact
1:46:37 kind
1:46:37 of
1:46:38 belligerence
1:46:38 when
1:46:38 we
1:46:39 already
1:46:39 had
1:46:39 a
1:46:39 deal
1:46:40 that
1:46:40 we
1:46:40 could
1:46:41 have
1:46:42 in
1:46:43 your
1:46:44 analysis
1:46:50 constant
1:46:51 theme
1:46:51 is
1:46:51 the
1:46:52 United
1:46:52 States
1:46:53 and
1:46:53 Israel
1:46:54 and
1:46:54 the
1:46:55 West
1:46:55 we
1:46:56 constantly
1:46:57 aggress
1:46:57 against
1:46:58 North
1:46:58 Korea
1:46:59 against
1:47:00 Iran
1:47:00 against
1:47:01 Russia
1:47:02 against
1:47:02 these
1:47:03 countries
1:47:03 and
1:47:04 they
1:47:04 respond
1:47:04 to
1:47:05 us
1:47:07 in
1:47:07 ways
1:47:08 that
1:47:09 they
1:47:10 build
1:47:11 nuclear
1:47:11 weapons
1:47:12 programs
1:47:12 that
1:47:12 are
1:47:13 peaceful
1:47:13 but
1:47:13 we
1:47:14 force
1:47:14 them
1:47:15 to
1:47:15 develop
1:47:16 nuclear
1:47:16 weapons
1:47:17 they
1:47:17 don’t
1:47:17 actually
1:47:18 mean
1:47:18 to
1:47:18 kill
1:47:19 us
1:47:19 it’s
1:47:19 not
1:47:20 right
1:47:22 that
1:47:22 you’re
1:47:23 saying
1:47:23 that
1:47:23 everything
1:47:23 I
1:47:24 say
1:47:24 is
1:47:24 that
1:47:24 everyone
1:47:25 anyone
1:47:25 else
1:47:25 does
1:47:25 is
1:47:26 a
1:47:26 reaction
1:47:26 but
1:47:26 that’s
1:47:26 not
1:47:26 true
1:47:27 the
1:47:27 subject
1:47:28 here
1:47:28 is
1:47:29 what
1:47:29 has
1:47:29 America
1:47:30 done
1:47:31 to
1:47:31 make
1:47:31 things
1:47:32 worse
1:47:32 rather
1:47:32 than
1:47:33 better
1:47:33 I’m
1:47:34 citing
1:47:35 provocations
1:47:36 that
1:47:36 doesn’t
1:47:36 mean
1:47:36 I’m
1:47:37 saying
1:47:37 that
1:47:37 everything
1:47:38 that
1:47:38 happens
1:47:38 in
1:47:38 the
1:47:39 world
1:47:39 is
1:47:39 only
1:47:40 an
1:47:40 equal
1:47:40 and
1:47:40 opposite
1:47:41 reaction
1:47:41 to
1:47:41 an
1:47:42 American
1:47:42 provocation
1:47:43 and
1:47:43 you
1:47:43 can’t
1:47:43 find
1:47:43 me
1:47:44 saying
1:47:44 that
1:47:44 you
1:47:44 can
1:47:45 somehow
1:47:45 try to
1:47:46 paraphrase
1:47:46 me
1:47:47 claiming
1:47:47 that
1:47:48 somehow
1:47:48 or
1:47:48 something
1:47:48 like
1:47:48 that
1:47:49 but
1:47:49 that’s
1:47:49 what’s
1:47:49 at
1:47:50 issue
1:47:50 right
1:47:51 is
1:47:51 as I
1:47:51 said
1:47:52 for
1:47:52 example
1:47:52 there’s
1:47:53 the
1:47:53 Reuters
1:47:53 story
1:47:53 that
1:47:54 says
1:47:54 that
1:47:54 after
1:47:54 Israel
1:47:55 did
1:47:55 the
1:47:55 sabotage
1:47:56 which
1:47:56 bragged
1:47:56 about
1:47:56 at
1:47:57 Natanz
1:47:57 in
1:47:58 April
1:47:58 of
1:47:58 21
1:47:59 that
1:47:59 was
1:47:59 when
1:47:59 they
1:48:00 started
1:48:00 enriching
1:48:00 up
1:48:01 to
1:48:01 60
1:48:01 percent
1:48:02 okay
1:48:02 so
1:48:02 now
1:48:03 I’m
1:48:03 saying
1:48:03 that
1:48:03 and
1:48:03 I’m
1:48:04 just
1:48:04 denying
1:48:04 the
1:48:05 agency
1:48:05 of
1:48:05 the
1:48:06 Iranians
1:48:06 or
1:48:06 anything
1:48:06 I said
1:48:07 that
1:48:07 no
1:48:07 I’m
1:48:07 not
1:48:07 I’m
1:48:07 just
1:48:08 citing
1:48:08 the
1:48:08 Reuters
1:48:08 news
1:48:09 agency
1:48:10 saying
1:48:10 that
1:48:11 this
1:48:12 proactive
1:48:13 action
1:48:13 by
1:48:14 Israel
1:48:15 caused
1:48:15 a
1:48:15 negative
1:48:16 reaction
1:48:16 by
1:48:16 your
1:48:16 own
1:48:17 lights
1:48:17 a
1:48:17 very
1:48:18 negative
1:48:18 reaction
1:48:19 in
1:48:19 their
1:48:20 beginning
1:48:20 to
1:48:26 no
1:48:26 one
1:48:26 ever
1:48:27 does
1:48:27 anything
1:48:28 except
1:48:28 in
1:48:28 reaction
1:48:28 to
1:48:29 Israel
1:48:29 and
1:48:30 America
1:48:30 except
1:48:30 that
1:48:30 I’m
1:48:31 just
1:48:31 citing
1:48:32 specific
1:48:32 examples
1:48:33 of
1:48:33 where
1:48:33 that’s
1:48:33 exactly
1:48:34 the
1:48:34 case
1:48:34 Donald
1:48:35 Trump
1:48:35 withdrew
1:48:35 from
1:48:35 the
1:48:36 deal
1:48:36 he
1:48:36 could
1:48:36 have
1:48:36 stayed
1:48:36 in
1:48:37 the
1:48:37 deal
1:48:37 and
1:48:37 tried
1:48:37 hard
1:48:37 to
1:48:38 make
1:48:38 it
1:48:38 better
1:48:38 he
1:48:39 didn’t
1:48:39 well
1:48:39 he
1:48:40 has
1:48:40 done
1:48:41 America
1:48:41 he
1:48:41 did
1:48:42 try
1:48:42 US
1:48:42 government
1:48:43 has
1:48:43 made
1:48:44 numerous
1:48:45 mistakes
1:48:45 if
1:48:45 this
1:48:45 podcast
1:48:46 is
1:48:46 all
1:48:46 about
1:48:47 American
1:48:47 government
1:48:48 and
1:48:48 mistakes
1:48:48 that’s
1:48:48 made
1:48:49 it’s
1:48:49 a
1:48:49 huge
1:48:49 then
1:48:49 we
1:48:50 can
1:48:50 spend
1:48:50 four
1:48:50 hours
1:48:50 on
1:48:51 it
1:48:51 can
1:48:51 we
1:48:52 please
1:48:53 get
1:48:53 to
1:48:53 today
1:48:55 talk
1:48:55 about
1:48:55 use
1:48:56 everything
1:48:56 we
1:48:56 just
1:48:56 talked
1:48:56 about
1:48:57 and
1:48:57 talk
1:48:57 about
1:48:58 today
1:48:59 what
1:48:59 is
1:49:00 maybe
1:49:00 Mark
1:49:00 can
1:49:01 you
1:49:01 lay out
1:49:01 what
1:49:01 is
1:49:01 the
1:49:02 best
1:49:02 case
1:49:02 and
1:49:02 worst
1:49:02 case
1:49:05 that
1:49:05 can
1:49:06 happen
1:49:06 now
1:49:06 so
1:49:07 Lex
1:49:07 I
1:49:07 think
1:49:07 the
1:49:07 best
1:49:08 case
1:49:08 and
1:49:08 something
1:49:09 I’ve
1:49:09 advocated
1:49:10 for
1:49:10 I’ve
1:49:10 been
1:49:10 working
1:49:10 on
1:49:11 this
1:49:11 for
1:49:11 22
1:49:12 years
1:49:13 is
1:49:13 that
1:49:13 the
1:49:13 Iranians
1:49:14 return
1:49:14 to
1:49:15 negotiations
1:49:15 at
1:49:15 Oman
1:49:17 sit
1:49:17 down
1:49:17 with
1:49:17 the
1:49:17 United
1:49:18 States
1:49:18 and
1:49:19 conclude
1:49:19 an
1:49:19 agreement
1:49:20 that
1:49:21 peacefully
1:49:21 and
1:49:22 permanently
1:49:22 and
1:49:22 fully
1:49:23 dismantles
1:49:23 their
1:49:24 nuclear
1:49:24 program
1:49:25 they
1:49:25 agree
1:49:26 to
1:49:26 that
1:49:26 which
1:49:26 means
1:49:27 they
1:49:27 shut
1:49:28 down
1:49:28 any
1:49:28 remaining
1:49:29 facilities
1:49:29 they
1:49:30 give
1:49:30 up
1:49:30 all
1:49:30 the
1:49:31 remaining
1:49:31 centrifuges
1:49:32 and
1:49:32 enriched
1:49:32 material
1:49:32 that
1:49:33 they
1:49:33 could
1:49:33 use
1:49:33 to
1:49:33 develop
1:49:34 nuclear
1:49:34 weapons
1:49:35 they
1:49:35 let
1:49:35 the
1:49:36 IAEA
1:49:36 in
1:49:37 in
1:49:37 order
1:49:37 to
1:49:38 supervise
1:49:39 this
1:49:39 they
1:49:41 actually
1:49:41 commit
1:49:42 to
1:49:42 not
1:49:43 rebuilding
1:49:43 this
1:49:43 nuclear
1:49:44 program
1:49:45 and
1:49:45 we
1:49:45 commit
1:49:46 as
1:49:46 we’ve
1:49:46 done
1:49:47 with
1:49:47 23
1:49:47 other
1:49:48 countries
1:49:48 to
1:49:49 helping
1:49:49 them
1:49:50 provide
1:49:51 civilian
1:49:51 nuclear
1:49:52 energy
1:49:52 because
1:49:52 it
1:49:53 seems
1:49:53 to
1:49:53 me
1:49:54 a
1:49:54 little
1:49:55 fanciful
1:49:56 that
1:49:57 Khamenei
1:49:57 would
1:49:58 build
1:49:58 a
1:49:59 civilian
1:49:59 nuclear
1:50:00 program
1:50:01 under
1:50:01 80
1:50:01 meters
1:50:02 of
1:50:02 concrete
1:50:03 surrounded
1:50:03 by
1:50:04 rock
1:50:06 and
1:50:06 take
1:50:07 all
1:50:07 the
1:50:08 risks
1:50:08 he’s
1:50:08 taken
1:50:09 and
1:50:09 by
1:50:09 the
1:50:09 way
1:50:09 he
1:50:10 faces
1:50:10 a
1:50:10 risk
1:50:10 to
1:50:10 his
1:50:11 regime
1:50:12 spent
1:50:13 a
1:50:13 half
1:50:13 a
1:50:13 trillion
1:50:14 dollars
1:50:14 to
1:50:14 do
1:50:15 this
1:50:15 when
1:50:15 it
1:50:16 makes
1:50:16 no
1:50:17 commercial
1:50:17 sense
1:50:18 but
1:50:18 let’s
1:50:19 take him
1:50:19 at his
1:50:19 word
1:50:20 that he
1:50:20 wants
1:50:20 civilian
1:50:21 nuclear
1:50:21 energy
1:50:21 let’s
1:50:22 build
1:50:22 it
1:50:22 for him
1:50:23 as long
1:50:23 as there’s
1:50:23 no
1:50:24 enrichment
1:50:26 or reprocessing
1:50:26 that gives
1:50:26 him the
1:50:27 key
1:50:27 capabilities
1:50:28 that he
1:50:28 could
1:50:28 if he
1:50:29 decides
1:50:29 to build
1:50:30 nuclear
1:50:30 weapons
1:50:30 that seems
1:50:31 to me
1:50:31 a
1:50:31 thoughtful
1:50:33 approach
1:50:34 I think
1:50:34 Scott would
1:50:35 probably agree
1:50:35 with it
1:50:36 proliferation
1:50:36 proof
1:50:37 he can’t
1:50:37 build
1:50:37 nuclear
1:50:38 weapons
1:50:38 and we
1:50:39 can do
1:50:39 this
1:50:41 what can
1:50:42 Trump do
1:50:42 to help
1:50:43 make that
1:50:43 happen
1:50:44 I think
1:50:44 what he
1:50:45 can do
1:50:45 is he
1:50:46 can say
1:50:46 to the
1:50:47 Iranians
1:50:47 look I
1:50:47 made you
1:50:48 that offer
1:50:48 last time
1:50:49 you
1:50:50 rejected
1:50:50 it
1:50:51 now that
1:50:51 offer is
1:50:52 no longer
1:50:52 on the
1:50:52 table
1:50:53 because that
1:50:53 offer gave
1:50:53 you
1:50:54 enrichment
1:50:54 equipment
1:50:55 now
1:50:55 temporarily
1:50:56 but I
1:50:56 now see
1:50:57 the game
1:50:57 that you
1:50:57 would have
1:50:57 played
1:50:58 when I
1:50:58 left
1:50:59 office
1:51:00 to turn
1:51:00 that
1:51:00 enrichment
1:51:02 capability
1:51:03 into
1:51:03 nuclear
1:51:03 weapons
1:51:03 so
1:51:05 that
1:51:05 deal
1:51:05 is
1:51:05 off
1:51:05 the
1:51:06 table
1:51:06 but here’s
1:51:07 the deal
1:51:07 that’s
1:51:07 on the
1:51:07 table
1:51:07 it’s
1:51:08 a
1:51:08 one
1:51:08 page
1:51:08 deal
1:51:09 you
1:51:10 give
1:51:10 up
1:51:10 your
1:51:10 nuclear
1:51:11 capabilities
1:51:12 we
1:51:12 help
1:51:13 you
1:51:13 build
1:51:14 civilian
1:51:14 nuclear
1:51:14 energy
1:51:15 I
1:51:15 think
1:51:15 that’s
1:51:16 best
1:51:16 case
1:51:17 I
1:51:17 think
1:51:18 worst
1:51:18 case
1:51:19 is
1:51:20 that
1:51:21 the
1:51:21 Iranians
1:51:22 do
1:51:22 what
1:51:22 they’ve
1:51:22 unfortunately
1:51:23 been
1:51:23 doing
1:51:24 and rejecting
1:51:25 these
1:51:25 deals
1:51:26 and
1:51:26 holding
1:51:27 firm
1:51:27 that
1:51:27 they
1:51:28 want
1:51:28 to
1:51:28 retain
1:51:28 this
1:51:29 enrichment
1:51:29 capability
1:51:30 and
1:51:30 the
1:51:31 only
1:51:31 reason
1:51:31 they
1:51:31 want
1:51:31 to
1:51:32 retain
1:51:32 enrichment
1:51:32 capability
1:51:33 is
1:51:33 their
1:51:33 option
1:51:33 to
1:51:34 develop
1:51:34 nuclear
1:51:34 weapons
1:51:35 otherwise
1:51:35 they
1:51:35 can
1:51:35 have
1:51:36 civilian
1:51:36 energy
1:51:37 tomorrow
1:51:37 makes
1:51:38 much
1:51:38 more
1:51:38 commercial
1:51:39 sense
1:51:39 to do
1:51:39 that
1:51:40 and
1:51:40 the
1:51:40 entire
1:51:41 international
1:51:41 community
1:51:42 would
1:51:42 help
1:51:42 them
1:51:42 and
1:51:42 pay
1:51:42 for
1:51:43 that
1:51:44 I
1:51:44 worry
1:51:44 that
1:51:44 they’re
1:51:45 going
1:51:45 to
1:51:45 just
1:51:45 remain
1:51:46 intransigent
1:51:46 at
1:51:47 the
1:51:47 negotiating
1:51:47 table
1:51:48 and I
1:51:48 think
1:51:49 if
1:51:49 they
1:51:49 do
1:51:49 that
1:51:50 then
1:51:50 what
1:51:50 I
1:51:50 worry
1:51:51 that
1:51:51 they’re
1:51:51 going
1:51:51 to
1:51:51 do
1:51:52 is
1:51:52 whatever
1:51:52 remaining
1:51:53 capabilities
1:51:54 they have
1:51:54 left
1:51:55 they’ll
1:51:55 bide
1:51:55 their
1:51:56 time
1:51:57 they’ll
1:51:57 wait
1:51:57 for the
1:51:58 opportunity
1:51:58 maybe
1:51:58 it’s
1:51:58 not
1:51:59 now
1:51:59 maybe
1:51:59 it’s
1:51:59 Trump’s
1:52:00 gone
1:52:00 and
1:52:00 they
1:52:01 will
1:52:01 rebuild
1:52:01 this
1:52:02 nuclear
1:52:02 weapons
1:52:03 program
1:52:04 and
1:52:04 they’ll
1:52:04 be
1:52:04 then
1:52:05 inviting
1:52:06 further
1:52:07 strikes
1:52:08 further
1:52:08 war
1:52:09 and
1:52:10 further
1:52:10 suffering
1:52:11 and
1:52:11 I
1:52:11 worry
1:52:11 that
1:52:12 that
1:52:12 is
1:52:13 the
1:52:13 worst
1:52:13 case
1:52:13 and
1:52:14 by
1:52:14 the
1:52:14 way
1:52:14 as part
1:52:14 of
1:52:14 that
1:52:14 worst
1:52:15 case
1:52:15 in
1:52:15 retaining
1:52:15 the
1:52:16 capabilities
1:52:17 the
1:52:18 extra
1:52:18 worst
1:52:18 case
1:52:19 is
1:52:19 they
1:52:19 take
1:52:19 those
1:52:20 capabilities
1:52:20 and
1:52:20 they
1:52:20 go
1:52:20 for
1:52:20 a
1:52:21 nuclear
1:52:21 bomb
1:52:22 now
1:52:22 if
1:52:22 Scott’s
1:52:22 right
1:52:23 and
1:52:23 the
1:52:24 regime
1:52:24 has
1:52:24 never
1:52:24 had
1:52:24 any
1:52:25 desire
1:52:30 is
1:52:31 been
1:52:31 fabricated
1:52:31 all
1:52:32 of
1:52:32 this
1:52:32 has
1:52:32 been
1:52:33 result
1:52:33 of
1:52:33 U.S.
1:52:33 and
1:52:34 Israeli
1:52:36 intelligence
1:52:37 mendacity
1:52:38 and we
1:52:38 don’t have
1:52:38 to worry
1:52:39 about a
1:52:39 nuclear
1:52:39 weapon
1:52:39 I
1:52:40 personally
1:52:40 worry
1:52:41 about
1:52:41 it
1:52:41 knowing
1:52:41 this
1:52:42 regime
1:52:43 looking
1:52:43 at
1:52:44 two
1:52:44 and a
1:52:44 half
1:52:45 decades
1:52:45 of
1:52:46 nuclear
1:52:46 deception
1:52:47 I
1:52:47 worry
1:52:48 that
1:52:48 they
1:52:48 want
1:52:48 to
1:52:48 retain
1:52:48 those
1:52:49 capabilities
1:52:50 and
1:52:50 at
1:52:50 time
1:52:50 of
1:52:51 their
1:52:51 choosing
1:52:52 develop
1:52:53 a
1:52:53 nuclear
1:52:53 bomb
1:52:53 so
1:52:53 I
1:52:54 think
1:52:54 if
1:52:54 you’re
1:52:54 responsible
1:52:55 and
1:52:56 you’re
1:52:56 trying
1:52:56 to
1:52:56 think
1:52:56 through
1:53:01 an
1:53:02 possibility
1:53:02 and
1:53:02 you’ve
1:53:02 got to
1:53:02 try
1:53:03 to
1:53:03 mitigate
1:53:03 that
1:53:04 at
1:53:04 the
1:53:05 negotiating
1:53:05 table
1:53:06 through
1:53:06 a
1:53:06 full
1:53:07 dismantlement
1:53:07 deal
1:53:08 or
1:53:10 it’s
1:53:10 the
1:53:10 least
1:53:13 good
1:53:13 option
1:53:14 for sure
1:53:15 is
1:53:15 you’re
1:53:15 going to
1:53:15 have to
1:53:16 go back
1:53:16 in
1:53:16 there
1:53:17 either
1:53:17 the
1:53:17 Israelis
1:53:19 and
1:53:19 or
1:53:19 the
1:53:19 United
1:53:19 States
1:53:20 and
1:53:20 you’re
1:53:20 going to
1:53:20 have
1:53:20 to
1:53:21 continue
1:53:21 to
1:53:22 use
1:53:22 both
1:53:23 covert
1:53:23 action
1:53:24 and
1:53:24 air
1:53:24 power
1:53:25 to
1:53:25 destroy
1:53:26 those
1:53:26 capabilities
1:53:26 can
1:53:26 I
1:53:27 just
1:53:27 even
1:53:28 dig
1:53:28 in
1:53:28 further
1:53:29 on the
1:53:29 worst
1:53:29 case
1:53:29 do
1:53:29 you
1:53:30 think
1:53:30 it’s
1:53:30 possible
1:53:30 to
1:53:30 have
1:53:31 where
1:53:32 U.S.
1:53:33 gets
1:53:33 pulled
1:53:33 into
1:53:34 a
1:53:34 feet
1:53:35 on
1:53:35 the
1:53:35 ground
1:53:36 full
1:53:36 on
1:53:37 war
1:53:37 with
1:53:37 Iran
1:53:39 I
1:53:39 think
1:53:39 one
1:53:39 must
1:53:39 never
1:53:40 dismiss
1:53:40 possibilities
1:53:41 because
1:53:41 as I
1:53:41 said
1:53:42 you’ve
1:53:42 got to
1:53:42 plan
1:53:43 against
1:53:43 worst
1:53:44 case
1:53:44 options
1:53:45 and I
1:53:45 think
1:53:45 that’s
1:53:45 what
1:53:45 the
1:53:45 Israel
1:53:46 lobby
1:53:46 has
1:53:46 in
1:53:46 store
1:53:46 for
1:53:47 you
1:53:47 guys
1:53:49 American
1:53:49 lives
1:53:49 mean
1:53:50 nothing
1:53:50 to
1:53:50 the
1:53:51 Israel
1:53:51 first
1:53:51 do
1:53:51 they
1:53:52 don’t
1:53:52 care
1:53:52 that
1:53:52 Israel
1:53:53 motivated
1:53:53 September
1:53:54 11th
1:53:54 and killed
1:53:55 3,000
1:53:55 of our
1:53:55 guys
1:53:56 at the
1:53:56 airport
1:53:56 yesterday
1:53:57 had a
1:53:57 big
1:53:57 American
1:53:58 flag
1:53:58 with all
1:53:59 the red
1:53:59 and white
1:53:59 stripes
1:54:00 made out
1:54:00 of the
1:54:00 names
1:54:00 of the
1:54:01 dead
1:54:01 of
1:54:01 September
1:54:02 11th
1:54:02 who
1:54:02 were killed
1:54:03 by people
1:54:03 motivated
1:54:04 by Israel’s
1:54:05 crimes
1:54:05 in
1:54:06 Palestine
1:54:06 and in
1:54:06 Lebanon
1:54:08 and enforcing
1:54:09 Bill Clinton’s
1:54:09 dual
1:54:10 containment
1:54:10 policy
1:54:11 from
1:54:12 Saudi
1:54:12 Arabia
1:54:12 they
1:54:12 don’t
1:54:13 care
1:54:13 about
1:54:13 that
1:54:13 they
1:54:13 don’t
1:54:14 care
1:54:14 about
1:54:15 4,500
1:54:15 Americans
1:54:15 who
1:54:16 died
1:54:16 in
1:54:16 Iraq
1:54:16 War
1:54:16 II
1:54:17 or
1:54:17 the
1:54:17 million
1:54:18 something
1:54:18 people
1:54:18 who
1:54:19 died
1:54:19 in
1:54:19 Iraq
1:54:19 War
1:54:19 II
1:54:19 the
1:54:20 half
1:54:20 a
1:54:20 million
1:54:20 in
1:54:21 Syria
1:54:21 as
1:54:22 long
1:54:22 as
1:54:23 the
1:54:23 Shiite
1:54:24 crescent
1:54:24 somehow
1:54:24 is
1:54:25 limited
1:54:25 they’ll
1:54:25 even
1:54:26 celebrate
1:54:27 openly
1:54:27 I don’t
1:54:27 know
1:54:27 about
1:54:27 him
1:54:28 but
1:54:28 I
1:54:28 know
1:54:28 Ben
1:54:28 Shapiro
1:54:29 and
1:54:29 many
1:54:29 other
1:54:29 leaders
1:54:30 of
1:54:30 the
1:54:30 Israel
1:54:30 lobby
1:54:30 in
1:54:31 America
1:54:32 celebrated
1:54:32 the
1:54:33 overthrow
1:54:33 of Bashar
1:54:34 al-Assad
1:54:35 in Syria
1:54:36 by
1:54:36 Abu
1:54:37 Mohammed
1:54:37 al-Jolani
1:54:38 the
1:54:38 leader
1:54:39 of
1:54:39 al-Qaeda
1:54:39 in
1:54:40 Iraq
1:54:40 in
1:54:40 Syria
1:54:41 why
1:54:41 because
1:54:41 he’s
1:54:41 not
1:54:41 a
1:54:42 Shiite
1:54:42 he’s
1:54:42 not
1:54:42 an
1:54:43 Alawite
1:54:43 friends
1:54:44 with
1:54:44 the
1:54:44 Shiites
1:54:44 and
1:54:44 friends
1:54:45 with
1:54:45 Iran
1:54:45 and
1:54:45 friends
1:54:46 with
1:54:46 Hezbollah
1:54:46 and
1:54:47 so
1:54:47 that’s
1:54:47 good
1:54:47 for
1:54:48 Israel
1:54:48 even
1:54:48 though
1:54:49 it’s
1:54:49 the
1:54:49 worst
1:54:49 thing
1:54:49 you
1:54:50 could
1:54:50 possibly
1:54:50 imagine
1:54:51 for
1:54:51 the
1:54:52 United
1:54:52 States
1:54:52 of
1:54:52 America
1:54:53 those
1:54:53 sworn
1:54:54 loyal
1:54:54 to
1:54:54 Osama
1:54:54 bin
1:54:55 Laden
1:54:55 and
1:54:55 Iman
1:54:56 al-Zawahiri
1:54:57 ruling
1:54:57 Damascus
1:54:58 now
1:54:58 their
1:54:59 own
1:54:59 ISIS
1:55:00 caliphate
1:55:00 in
1:55:00 our
1:55:01 era
1:55:01 and
1:55:02 this
1:55:02 is
1:55:02 why
1:55:02 they
1:55:02 always
1:55:03 pretend
1:55:03 they
1:55:04 go
1:55:04 oh
1:55:04 you
1:55:04 know
1:55:04 over
1:55:05 there
1:55:05 the
1:55:05 Muslims
1:55:05 the
1:55:05 terrorists
1:55:06 greatest
1:55:06 state
1:55:07 sponsors
1:55:07 of
1:55:07 terrorism
1:55:09 it’s
1:55:10 al-Qaeda
1:55:10 that
1:55:10 threatens
1:55:10 the
1:55:11 United
1:55:11 States
1:55:11 of
1:55:12 America
1:55:12 it
1:55:12 wasn’t
1:55:13 Hezbollah
1:55:13 that
1:55:13 knocked
1:55:13 those
1:55:14 towers
1:55:14 down
1:55:15 and
1:55:15 they
1:55:15 have
1:55:16 us
1:55:16 siding
1:55:17 with
1:55:17 our
1:55:18 enemies
1:55:18 against
1:55:24 42nd
1:55:24 Airborne
1:55:24 in
1:55:25 there
1:55:25 whether
1:55:26 Americans
1:55:26 are
1:55:26 going
1:55:26 to
1:55:26 have
1:55:26 to
1:55:26 do
1:55:27 a
1:55:27 regime
1:55:28 change
1:55:28 in
1:55:28 Tehran
1:55:28 I
1:55:29 wish
1:55:29 you’d
1:55:29 listen
1:55:29 and
1:55:30 not
1:55:30 put
1:55:31 words
1:55:31 in
1:55:31 my
1:55:31 mouth
1:55:32 I
1:55:33 heard
1:55:33 what
1:55:33 he
1:55:33 said
1:55:33 I
1:55:34 forced
1:55:34 them
1:55:35 to
1:55:35 say
1:55:35 what
1:55:36 the
1:55:36 worst
1:55:36 case
1:55:37 possibility
1:55:38 of
1:55:38 a
1:55:38 full
1:55:38 on
1:55:39 invasion
1:55:39 as
1:55:40 a
1:55:40 thought
1:55:40 experiment
1:55:41 and
1:55:41 you
1:55:41 can
1:55:41 let
1:55:41 him
1:55:42 finish
1:55:42 that
1:55:42 as
1:55:42 opposed
1:55:42 to
1:55:43 making
1:55:43 accusations
1:55:44 let’s
1:55:44 just
1:55:44 minimize
1:55:45 both
1:55:45 ways
1:55:46 accusations
1:55:46 please
1:55:47 let’s
1:55:47 just
1:55:47 talk
1:55:47 about
1:55:47 the
1:55:48 ideas
1:55:48 that’s
1:55:49 the
1:55:49 most
1:55:49 charitable
1:55:50 interpretation
1:55:50 of
1:55:50 those
1:55:51 ideas
1:55:52 I’m
1:55:52 from
1:55:52 the
1:55:52 United
1:55:52 States
1:55:53 of
1:55:53 America
1:55:53 unlike
1:55:54 him
1:55:54 and
1:55:54 I
1:55:54 care
1:55:54 about
1:55:54 the
1:55:55 future
1:55:55 of
1:55:55 this
1:55:55 country
1:55:56 unlike
1:55:56 him
1:55:57 who’s
1:55:57 here
1:55:57 to
1:55:57 serve
1:55:57 a
1:55:58 foreign
1:55:58 power
1:55:59 and
1:55:59 make
1:55:59 their
1:56:00 case
1:56:00 at
1:56:00 our
1:56:01 expense
1:56:01 Scott
1:56:03 and next
1:56:03 you’re
1:56:03 going to
1:56:03 say
1:56:04 that
1:56:04 I’m
1:56:04 an
1:56:05 American
1:56:06 you’re
1:56:06 just
1:56:07 hosting
1:56:07 the
1:56:07 show
1:56:07 I
1:56:08 don’t
1:56:08 know
1:56:08 seems
1:56:08 like
1:56:08 you’re
1:56:09 trying
1:56:09 to
1:56:09 be
1:56:09 fair
1:56:10 but
1:56:11 he
1:56:12 has
1:56:12 an
1:56:12 agenda
1:56:13 he’s
1:56:13 from
1:56:13 the
1:56:13 FDD
1:56:14 stop
1:56:15 it’s
1:56:15 not
1:56:16 about
1:56:16 being
1:56:16 fair
1:56:17 the
1:56:17 implication
1:56:18 here
1:56:19 is
1:56:19 somebody
1:56:19 is
1:56:20 un-American
1:56:20 because
1:56:20 where
1:56:20 they’re
1:56:21 from
1:56:21 I
1:56:21 didn’t
1:56:21 say
1:56:22 anyone
1:56:22 who’s
1:56:23 not
1:56:23 from
1:56:23 here
1:56:23 I’m
1:56:24 talking
1:56:24 about
1:56:24 him
1:56:25 okay
1:56:26 I
1:56:26 think
1:56:26 that’s
1:56:26 a
1:56:27 really
1:56:28 deeply
1:56:28 disrespectful
1:56:29 accusation
1:56:30 I’m
1:56:30 going to
1:56:30 ask you
1:56:31 does it
1:56:31 bother
1:56:31 you
1:56:31 that
1:56:32 when
1:56:32 Naftali
1:56:33 Bennett
1:56:34 bombed
1:56:34 a
1:56:34 UN
1:56:35 shelter
1:56:35 full of
1:56:36 106
1:56:36 women
1:56:36 and
1:56:36 children
1:56:37 in
1:56:37 Lebanon
1:56:38 in
1:56:39 1996
1:56:39 that
1:56:39 that’s
1:56:40 what
1:56:40 motivated
1:56:41 Mohammed
1:56:41 Atta
1:56:43 to join
1:56:43 al-Qaeda
1:56:43 and attack
1:56:44 our towers
1:56:44 I came to
1:56:44 this country
1:56:45 22 years
1:56:45 ago
1:56:46 I became
1:56:46 a proud
1:56:47 U.S.
1:56:47 citizen
1:56:48 10 years
1:56:48 ago
1:56:48 I’m
1:56:49 proud
1:56:49 to be
1:56:49 an
1:56:49 American
1:56:50 and
1:56:51 accusing
1:56:51 me
1:56:52 or
1:56:52 Lex
1:56:53 or any
1:56:53 immigrants
1:56:54 to this
1:56:54 country
1:56:54 of not
1:56:54 being
1:56:55 un-American
1:56:55 is
1:56:55 deeply
1:56:56 offensive
1:56:56 so
1:56:56 let me
1:56:57 answer
1:56:57 Lex’s
1:56:57 question
1:56:58 Lex
1:56:58 let’s
1:56:58 get back
1:56:58 to
1:56:58 your
1:56:59 question
1:56:59 because
1:56:59 I
1:57:00 think
1:57:00 it’s
1:57:00 an
1:57:00 important
1:57:01 question
1:57:01 what
1:57:01 are
1:57:02 the
1:57:02 chain
1:57:02 of
1:57:02 events
1:57:02 that
1:57:03 could
1:57:03 lead
1:57:04 500,000
1:57:04 mechanized
1:57:04 U.S.
1:57:05 troops
1:57:05 to have
1:57:05 to
1:57:05 invade
1:57:06 Iran
1:57:06 which
1:57:06 would
1:57:06 be
1:57:07 a
1:57:07 disaster
1:57:07 and
1:57:08 that’s
1:57:08 something
1:57:08 we
1:57:08 never
1:57:08 want
1:57:08 to
1:57:09 see
1:57:09 again
1:57:09 that’s
1:57:09 one
1:57:09 of
1:57:09 the
1:57:10 lessons
1:57:10 of
1:57:11 Iraq
1:57:11 and
1:57:11 I
1:57:11 think
1:57:12 Scott
1:57:12 has
1:57:12 done
1:57:12 a
1:57:12 good
1:57:12 job
1:57:13 over
1:57:13 the
1:57:13 years
1:57:14 in
1:57:15 demonstrating
1:57:16 that
1:57:16 we
1:57:16 don’t
1:57:16 want
1:57:16 to
1:57:16 do
1:57:16 that
1:57:17 again
1:57:17 so
1:57:18 is
1:57:18 there
1:57:18 such
1:57:19 a
1:57:20 scenario
1:57:21 I
1:57:21 think
1:57:21 one
1:57:21 must
1:57:21 never
1:57:21 rule
1:57:22 it
1:57:22 out
1:57:22 because
1:57:22 there
1:57:23 is
1:57:23 a
1:57:23 scenario
1:57:24 for
1:57:24 example
1:57:25 where
1:57:26 the
1:57:26 regime
1:57:27 collapses
1:57:28 and
1:57:28 the
1:57:29 regime
1:57:29 collapses
1:57:29 and
1:57:30 there’s
1:57:30 chaos
1:57:31 inside
1:57:31 Iran
1:57:32 not
1:57:32 suggesting
1:57:33 that’ll
1:57:33 happen
1:57:33 there
1:57:33 are
1:57:33 a
1:57:33 whole
1:57:34 bunch
1:57:34 of
1:57:34 scenarios
1:57:34 maybe
1:57:34 we
1:57:39 but
1:57:39 you
1:57:40 could
1:57:40 see
1:57:40 a
1:57:40 scenario
1:57:40 where
1:57:41 the
1:57:41 United
1:57:41 States
1:57:41 would
1:57:41 have
1:57:41 to
1:57:42 go
1:57:42 in
1:57:42 there
1:57:42 in
1:57:42 order
1:57:42 to
1:57:43 try
1:57:43 to
1:57:43 secure
1:57:45 military
1:57:46 and
1:57:46 nuclear
1:57:47 and
1:57:47 missile
1:57:48 assets
1:57:49 so
1:57:49 that
1:57:49 it
1:57:49 doesn’t
1:57:49 end
1:57:49 at
1:57:50 the
1:57:50 hands
1:57:50 of
1:57:51 warring
1:57:53 factional
1:57:53 and
1:57:53 ethnic
1:57:54 groups
1:57:54 that
1:57:54 Scott
1:57:55 referred
1:57:55 to
1:57:55 because
1:57:55 again
1:57:55 as
1:57:56 he’s
1:57:56 rightly
1:57:56 pointed
1:57:57 out
1:57:58 Iran
1:57:58 is
1:57:58 not
1:57:58 Persia
1:57:59 can’t
1:57:59 the
1:58:00 IDF
1:58:00 handle
1:58:00 it
1:58:01 so
1:58:01 can
1:58:01 I
1:58:02 just
1:58:02 finish
1:58:02 just
1:58:03 who
1:58:03 can
1:58:03 handle
1:58:05 I
1:58:05 think
1:58:05 that
1:58:06 it’s
1:58:06 a
1:58:06 potential
1:58:07 scenario
1:58:07 which
1:58:07 is
1:58:07 why
1:58:07 I
1:58:07 don’t
1:58:08 think
1:58:08 anybody
1:58:08 should
1:58:09 be
1:58:09 advocating
1:58:10 for
1:58:11 a
1:58:11 US
1:58:12 decapitation
1:58:13 of
1:58:13 the
1:58:13 regime
1:58:13 in
1:58:13 Iran
1:58:14 I
1:58:14 have
1:58:14 long
1:58:15 been
1:58:16 on
1:58:16 record
1:58:16 as
1:58:16 supporting
1:58:16 the
1:58:17 Iranian
1:58:17 people
1:58:18 providing
1:58:19 support
1:58:19 to
1:58:19 the
1:58:19 Iranian
1:58:20 people
1:58:20 to
1:58:20 at
1:58:20 one
1:58:21 point
1:58:21 take
1:58:21 back
1:58:21 their
1:58:22 country
1:58:22 and
1:58:22 take
1:58:22 back
1:58:22 their
1:58:23 flag
1:58:23 it’s
1:58:23 very
1:58:24 much
1:58:24 sort
1:58:24 of
1:58:24 Reagan
1:58:25 strategy
1:58:25 that
1:58:25 Reagan
1:58:25 ran
1:58:25 in
1:58:25 the
1:58:26 Cold
1:58:27 war
1:58:27 of
1:58:28 maximum
1:58:28 pressure
1:58:28 on
1:58:28 the
1:58:29 regime
1:58:29 maximum
1:58:30 support
1:58:30 for
1:58:31 anti-Soviet
1:58:31 dissidents
1:58:31 while
1:58:32 by the
1:58:32 way
1:58:32 he
1:58:32 was
1:58:33 negotiating
1:58:33 arms
1:58:33 control
1:58:33 agreements
1:58:34 for
1:58:34 the
1:58:34 Soviet
1:58:34 Union
1:58:35 in
1:58:35 order
1:58:35 to
1:58:35 try
1:58:36 reduce
1:58:36 the
1:58:36 number
1:58:36 of
1:58:37 nuclear
1:58:37 tipped
1:58:38 ICBMs
1:58:38 that
1:58:38 both
1:58:39 countries
1:58:39 had
1:58:39 pointed
1:58:40 at
1:58:40 each
1:58:40 other
1:58:40 so
1:58:41 I
1:58:41 think
1:58:41 the
1:58:41 Reagan
1:58:42 strategy
1:58:42 of
1:58:42 providing
1:58:43 support
1:58:43 to
1:58:43 the
1:58:43 people
1:58:44 is
1:58:44 a
1:58:44 far
1:58:44 better
1:58:45 strategy
1:58:45 for
1:58:46 trying
1:58:46 to
1:58:46 get
1:58:47 transition
1:58:48 leadership
1:58:48 transition
1:58:49 government
1:58:50 transition
1:58:50 inside
1:58:51 Iran
1:58:51 but
1:58:51 I
1:58:51 think
1:58:51 the
1:58:52 scenario
1:58:52 of
1:58:53 decapitation
1:58:54 strikes
1:58:54 killing
1:58:54 Khamenei
1:58:55 taking
1:58:55 out
1:58:55 the
1:58:55 entire
1:58:56 government
1:58:57 could
1:58:57 potentially
1:58:57 lead
1:58:58 to
1:58:58 that
1:58:58 scenario
1:58:58 and
1:58:58 I
1:58:58 think
1:58:58 we
1:58:59 have
1:58:59 to
1:58:59 be
1:59:00 conscious
1:59:00 of
1:59:00 that
1:59:01 we
1:59:01 have
1:59:01 to
1:59:01 guard
1:59:01 against
1:59:02 that
1:59:02 I
1:59:03 think
1:59:03 Scott’s
1:59:03 right
1:59:04 if
1:59:04 a
1:59:05 scenario
1:59:05 happened
1:59:05 like
1:59:06 that
1:59:06 I
1:59:07 think
1:59:07 the
1:59:08 Israelis
1:59:08 have
1:59:08 demonstrated
1:59:09 extraordinary
1:59:10 capabilities
1:59:11 and they
1:59:11 could go
1:59:11 in there
1:59:12 and they
1:59:12 could
1:59:12 secure
1:59:13 loose
1:59:14 nuclear
1:59:14 materials
1:59:15 that you
1:59:15 would
1:59:15 be
1:59:15 worried
1:59:16 could
1:59:16 be
1:59:18 fashion
1:59:18 for
1:59:18 nuclear
1:59:19 weapons
1:59:19 Scott
1:59:20 doesn’t
1:59:20 seem
1:59:20 to
1:59:20 worry
1:59:20 about
1:59:20 these
1:59:21 materials
1:59:21 I
1:59:21 worry
1:59:21 about
1:59:22 these
1:59:22 materials
1:59:22 and
1:59:23 capabilities
1:59:23 in the
1:59:23 hands
1:59:24 of
1:59:24 anybody
1:59:25 because
1:59:25 they’re
1:59:25 all
1:59:26 capabilities
1:59:26 that
1:59:26 just
1:59:26 the
1:59:27 physics
1:59:27 of
1:59:27 it
1:59:27 you
1:59:27 can
1:59:28 produce
1:59:28 nuclear
1:59:28 weapons
1:59:29 so
1:59:30 best
1:59:30 case
1:59:31 scenario
1:59:32 negotiation
1:59:33 we
1:59:33 fully
1:59:33 dismantle
1:59:33 their
1:59:34 program
1:59:34 in
1:59:34 Amman
1:59:35 worst
1:59:36 case
1:59:36 scenario
1:59:37 is
1:59:37 having
1:59:38 to
1:59:38 return
1:59:39 for
1:59:39 continued
1:59:40 military
1:59:41 strikes
1:59:41 that
1:59:42 continue
1:59:42 to
1:59:43 escalate
1:59:43 the
1:59:43 situation
1:59:44 worst
1:59:44 worst
1:59:45 situation
1:59:45 some
1:59:45 kind
1:59:45 of
1:59:46 decapitation
1:59:46 strike
1:59:47 that
1:59:47 collapses
1:59:48 the
1:59:48 regime
1:59:48 and
1:59:49 causes
1:59:49 chaos
1:59:50 there
1:59:50 are
1:59:50 a whole
1:59:50 bunch
1:59:50 of
1:59:50 other
1:59:51 scenarios
1:59:51 we
1:59:51 can
1:59:51 talk
1:59:52 about
1:59:52 that
1:59:52 are
1:59:52 embedded
1:59:53 in
1:59:53 that
1:59:53 but
1:59:53 I
1:59:54 think
1:59:54 if
1:59:54 you’re
1:59:54 a
1:59:54 responsible
1:59:55 person
1:59:55 and
1:59:55 a
1:59:56 responsible
1:59:56 analyst
1:59:56 and
1:59:57 certainly
1:59:57 you’re
1:59:57 a
1:59:57 responsible
1:59:58 policy
1:59:58 maker
1:59:59 you’ve
1:59:59 got to
1:59:59 be
1:59:59 planning
1:59:59 for
2:00:00 all
2:00:00 of
2:00:00 these
2:00:00 scenarios
2:00:01 and
2:00:01 more
2:00:02 Scott
2:00:02 what do
2:00:02 you
2:00:02 think
2:00:02 is
2:00:02 the
2:00:03 best
2:00:03 case
2:00:03 and
2:00:03 worst
2:00:04 case
2:00:04 here
2:00:05 well
2:00:05 the
2:00:05 best
2:00:05 case
2:00:06 scenario
2:00:06 is
2:00:06 that
2:00:07 we
2:00:07 quit
2:00:07 right
2:00:07 now
2:00:08 and
2:00:08 that
2:00:08 we
2:00:10 Trump
2:00:10 figures
2:00:10 out
2:00:10 a
2:00:10 way
2:00:11 to
2:00:12 reorder
2:00:12 some
2:00:12 paragraphs
2:00:13 and
2:00:13 get
2:00:14 back
2:00:14 in
2:00:14 something
2:00:15 like
2:00:15 the
2:00:16 JCPOA
2:00:16 which
2:00:16 was
2:00:17 also
2:00:17 signed
2:00:17 with the
2:00:17 rest
2:00:18 UN
2:00:18 security
2:00:18 council
2:00:19 power
2:00:19 can
2:00:19 ask
2:00:19 you
2:00:20 like
2:00:20 is
2:00:21 JCPOA
2:00:21 is
2:00:21 a
2:00:21 pretty
2:00:21 good
2:00:22 approximation
2:00:22 of
2:00:22 what
2:00:23 would
2:00:23 be
2:00:23 a
2:00:23 good
2:00:23 deal
2:00:24 pretty
2:00:24 good
2:00:24 it
2:00:24 could
2:00:24 have
2:00:25 been
2:00:25 better
2:00:25 as I
2:00:25 said
2:00:26 at
2:00:26 the
2:00:26 beginning
2:00:26 Trump
2:00:26 could
2:00:27 have
2:00:27 gone
2:00:27 in
2:00:27 there
2:00:27 and
2:00:27 tried
2:00:27 to
2:00:28 negotiate
2:00:29 a
2:00:29 better
2:00:30 result
2:00:30 with
2:00:30 the
2:00:30 sunset
2:00:31 provisions
2:00:31 on
2:00:31 some
2:00:31 of
2:00:31 those
2:00:32 things
2:00:32 but
2:00:34 the
2:00:35 concept
2:00:35 that
2:00:35 America
2:00:36 is
2:00:36 going
2:00:36 to
2:00:36 insist
2:00:37 on
2:00:37 zero
2:00:37 enrichment
2:00:38 zero
2:00:38 nuclear
2:00:39 program
2:00:39 whatsoever
2:00:48 it’s
2:00:48 a
2:00:49 poison
2:00:49 pill
2:00:49 it’s
2:00:49 meant
2:00:50 to
2:00:50 fail
2:00:50 just
2:00:51 like
2:00:51 it
2:00:51 was
2:00:51 a
2:00:52 poison
2:00:52 pill
2:00:52 meant
2:00:53 to
2:00:53 destroy
2:00:53 the
2:00:53 talks
2:00:54 here
2:00:54 good
2:00:54 enough
2:00:55 to
2:00:55 start
2:00:55 a
2:00:55 war
2:00:56 again
2:00:56 as I
2:00:57 quoted
2:00:57 from
2:00:58 earlier
2:01:00 he
2:01:00 said
2:01:01 on
2:01:01 on TV
2:01:01 last
2:01:02 week
2:01:02 well
2:01:03 America
2:01:03 has
2:01:03 to
2:01:03 take
2:01:04 out
2:01:04 Fordo
2:01:04 now
2:01:04 because
2:01:05 now
2:01:05 they’re
2:01:05 more
2:01:06 likely
2:01:06 to
2:01:06 break
2:01:06 out
2:01:07 towards
2:01:07 a
2:01:07 nuke
2:01:07 I
2:01:07 think
2:01:08 that’s
2:01:08 exactly
2:01:09 right
2:01:09 so
2:01:10 there
2:01:10 still
2:01:11 is
2:01:11 or
2:01:12 there’s
2:01:12 strong
2:01:13 reason
2:01:20 to
2:01:21 point
2:01:21 of
2:01:21 fact
2:01:22 sort
2:01:22 of
2:01:22 interesting
2:01:23 we’ll
2:01:23 see
2:01:23 on the
2:01:23 battle
2:01:24 damage
2:01:24 assessment
2:01:24 but
2:01:24 they
2:01:25 actually
2:01:25 think
2:01:25 the
2:01:26 facility
2:01:26 was
2:01:26 destroyed
2:01:26 and
2:01:27 that
2:01:27 the
2:01:28 sensitive
2:01:29 centrifuges
2:01:29 were
2:01:30 destroyed
2:01:30 so
2:01:30 just
2:01:31 interesting
2:01:31 for
2:01:31 the
2:01:31 viewers
2:01:32 and
2:01:32 it
2:01:33 may
2:01:33 be
2:01:33 premature
2:01:34 all
2:01:34 the
2:01:34 uranium
2:01:36 mines
2:01:36 and
2:01:37 all
2:01:37 the
2:01:37 aluminum
2:01:38 smelters
2:01:38 so
2:01:38 that
2:01:38 they
2:01:38 can’t
2:01:38 make
2:01:39 any
2:01:39 more
2:01:40 centrifuges
2:01:41 they’ve
2:01:41 already
2:01:42 they know
2:01:42 how to
2:01:42 make
2:01:43 centrifuges
2:01:43 so
2:01:44 at
2:01:44 this
2:01:44 point
2:01:45 you know
2:01:46 in
2:01:46 for
2:01:47 this
2:01:47 is
2:01:48 why
2:01:48 government
2:01:48 doesn’t
2:01:48 work
2:01:49 they
2:01:49 make
2:01:49 matters
2:01:49 worse
2:01:50 and
2:01:50 create
2:01:50 more
2:01:50 work
2:01:50 for
2:01:51 themselves
2:01:51 and
2:01:51 make
2:01:51 things
2:01:52 worse
2:01:52 and
2:01:52 worse
2:01:52 and
2:01:52 worse
2:01:53 we can
2:01:53 make
2:01:53 the
2:01:53 same
2:01:54 criticism
2:01:54 about
2:01:55 Russia’s
2:01:55 invasion
2:01:56 of
2:01:56 Ukraine
2:01:56 making
2:01:57 matters
2:01:57 worse
2:01:57 for
2:01:58 themselves
2:01:58 and
2:01:58 causing
2:01:59 them
2:01:59 to
2:02:00 escalate
2:02:00 even
2:02:00 further
2:02:01 now
2:02:01 America’s
2:02:01 in
2:02:01 the
2:02:02 situation
2:02:02 where
2:02:03 the
2:02:04 danger
2:02:04 that
2:02:04 Iran
2:02:05 will
2:02:05 now
2:02:05 break
2:02:05 out
2:02:06 to
2:02:06 a
2:02:06 nuke
2:02:06 is
2:02:13 Ayatollah
2:02:13 but
2:02:14 Benjamin
2:02:14 Netanyahu
2:02:15 says
2:02:15 we
2:02:15 should
2:02:16 he
2:02:16 said
2:02:16 just
2:02:16 the
2:02:17 other
2:02:17 day
2:02:17 that
2:02:18 if
2:02:18 we
2:02:18 get
2:02:18 rid
2:02:18 of
2:02:18 the
2:02:19 Ayatollah
2:02:19 that
2:02:19 will
2:02:20 solve
2:02:20 all
2:02:21 the
2:02:21 problems
2:02:22 which
2:02:22 is
2:02:22 just
2:02:23 crazy
2:02:23 to
2:02:23 think
2:02:23 that
2:02:24 they
2:02:24 have
2:02:24 Israeli
2:02:25 officials
2:02:25 have
2:02:25 been
2:02:25 tweeting
2:02:25 out
2:02:25 pictures
2:02:26 and
2:02:26 palling
2:02:26 around
2:02:27 with
2:02:27 the
2:02:27 son
2:02:27 of
2:02:27 the
2:02:28 shah
2:02:28 talking
2:02:29 about
2:02:29 reinstalling
2:02:30 his
2:02:30 royal
2:02:31 majesty’s
2:02:32 monarchy
2:02:33 sock
2:02:33 puppet
2:02:34 dictatorship
2:02:35 that’s
2:02:36 taking
2:02:36 back
2:02:36 Iran
2:02:37 for
2:02:37 the
2:02:37 people
2:02:37 of
2:02:38 Iran
2:02:39 giving
2:02:39 them
2:02:39 over
2:02:39 to
2:02:40 a
2:02:40 bunch
2:02:40 of
2:02:40 foreign
2:02:41 backed
2:02:41 exiles
2:02:42 was that
2:02:42 what
2:02:43 Trump
2:02:43 meant
2:02:43 when he
2:02:43 gave
2:02:43 that
2:02:44 speech
2:02:44 in
2:02:44 Qatar
2:02:44 saying
2:02:44 we
2:02:44 don’t
2:02:45 believe
2:02:45 in
2:02:46 neoconservatism
2:02:46 and spreading
2:02:47 democracy
2:02:47 anymore
2:02:47 he’s
2:02:48 just
2:02:48 setting
2:02:48 up
2:02:48 because
2:02:48 we’re
2:02:48 going
2:02:48 to
2:02:49 reinstall
2:02:49 a
2:02:50 monarch
2:02:50 can
2:02:50 you
2:02:50 go
2:02:51 into
2:02:51 the
2:02:51 analysis
2:02:51 of
2:02:52 best
2:02:52 case
2:02:52 and
2:02:52 worst
2:02:52 case
2:02:52 you
2:02:53 laid out
2:02:53 the
2:02:53 best
2:02:53 case
2:02:54 what
2:02:57 was
2:02:57 the
2:02:57 best
2:02:58 case
2:02:59 is
2:02:59 a
2:02:59 deal
2:03:00 you
2:03:02 guys
2:03:02 agree
2:03:03 on the
2:03:03 best
2:03:03 yeah
2:03:04 respect
2:03:04 their
2:03:05 right
2:03:05 to a
2:03:05 civilian
2:03:06 nuclear
2:03:06 program
2:03:07 and try
2:03:07 to
2:03:08 negotiate
2:03:08 as I
2:03:09 said
2:03:09 back
2:03:09 into
2:03:10 something
2:03:10 like
2:03:10 the
2:03:11 JCPOA
2:03:11 which
2:03:11 again
2:03:12 had
2:03:12 them
2:03:12 exporting
2:03:13 their
2:03:13 entire
2:03:14 stockpile
2:03:15 of uranium
2:03:15 out of
2:03:15 the
2:03:15 country
2:03:16 he
2:03:16 wants
2:03:16 no
2:03:17 nuclear
2:03:17 program
2:03:20 well
2:03:21 no
2:03:21 enrichment
2:03:22 capability
2:03:23 entire
2:03:23 dependence
2:03:24 on
2:03:24 other
2:03:24 countries
2:03:25 to
2:03:25 supply
2:03:25 their
2:03:26 fuel
2:03:26 needs
2:03:26 can
2:03:26 you
2:03:26 teach
2:03:26 me
2:03:27 the
2:03:27 difference
2:03:27 when
2:03:27 we
2:03:28 just
2:03:29 step
2:03:29 back
2:03:29 from
2:03:29 this
2:03:29 because
2:03:30 we
2:03:30 agree
2:03:30 on
2:03:30 some
2:03:30 and
2:03:31 we
2:03:31 disagree
2:03:31 on
2:03:32 a
2:03:32 major
2:03:32 issue
2:03:33 and
2:03:33 that
2:03:33 if
2:03:33 we
2:03:33 both
2:03:34 agree
2:03:34 Iran
2:03:34 deserves
2:03:35 a
2:03:35 civilian
2:03:36 nuclear
2:03:36 program
2:03:36 the
2:03:37 Ayatollah
2:03:37 is
2:03:37 never
2:03:38 going
2:03:38 to
2:03:38 give
2:03:38 in
2:03:39 on
2:03:39 enrichment
2:03:40 can
2:03:40 I
2:03:40 just
2:03:40 we
2:03:40 know
2:03:41 that
2:03:41 that
2:03:41 that’s
2:03:41 a
2:03:41 premise
2:03:42 for
2:03:49 that
2:03:49 Scott
2:03:50 I
2:03:50 think
2:03:50 it’s
2:03:50 again
2:03:50 important
2:03:51 the
2:03:51 distinction
2:03:52 here
2:03:52 right
2:03:52 we
2:03:53 both
2:03:53 agree
2:03:54 that
2:03:54 Iran
2:03:54 deserves
2:03:55 a
2:03:55 civilian
2:03:55 nuclear
2:03:56 program
2:03:57 23
2:03:57 countries
2:03:58 have
2:03:58 civilian
2:03:58 nuclear
2:03:59 programs
2:03:59 and
2:03:59 they
2:03:59 don’t
2:04:00 have
2:04:00 enrichment
2:04:00 and
2:04:01 they
2:04:01 don’t
2:04:01 have
2:04:02 reprocessing
2:04:02 where
2:04:02 we
2:04:03 differ
2:04:03 is
2:04:04 I
2:04:04 don’t
2:04:04 think
2:04:04 Iran
2:04:05 should
2:04:05 have
2:04:06 the
2:04:06 Iran
2:04:07 standard
2:04:07 I
2:04:07 think
2:04:07 that
2:04:08 Iran
2:04:08 should
2:04:08 agree
2:04:08 to
2:04:09 the
2:04:09 gold
2:04:09 standard
2:04:10 the
2:04:10 23
2:04:10 US
2:04:11 allies
2:04:11 have
2:04:11 agreed
2:04:11 to
2:04:12 so
2:04:12 have
2:04:13 civilian
2:04:13 nuclear
2:04:13 program
2:04:14 but
2:04:14 you
2:04:14 don’t
2:04:14 get
2:04:15 to
2:04:15 keep
2:04:15 the
2:04:15 key
2:04:16 enrichment
2:04:16 and
2:04:17 reprocessing
2:04:17 capabilities
2:04:17 that
2:04:17 you
2:04:18 need
2:04:18 to
2:04:18 develop
2:04:18 nuclear
2:04:19 weapons
2:04:19 do
2:04:19 you
2:04:19 think
2:04:19 that
2:04:20 Bill
2:04:20 Clinton
2:04:20 should
2:04:20 have
2:04:20 just
2:04:20 let
2:04:21 the
2:04:21 Chinese
2:04:21 sell
2:04:21 them
2:04:21 the
2:04:22 light
2:04:22 water
2:04:22 reactor
2:04:22 that
2:04:23 they
2:04:23 wanted
2:04:23 to
2:04:23 back
2:04:23 in
2:04:23 the
2:04:24 90s
2:04:24 yeah
2:04:25 and
2:04:25 America
2:04:25 of course
2:04:26 allowed
2:04:26 Russia
2:04:26 to
2:04:26 sell
2:04:27 them
2:04:27 a
2:04:27 heavy
2:04:27 water
2:04:28 reactor
2:04:28 for
2:04:28 the
2:04:28 same
2:04:28 purpose
2:04:29 but
2:04:29 I
2:04:29 agree
2:04:30 with
2:04:30 Scott
2:04:30 that
2:04:31 I
2:04:31 think
2:04:31 one
2:04:31 of
2:04:31 the
2:04:32 ways
2:04:32 out
2:04:32 of
2:04:33 this
2:04:33 is
2:04:34 yes
2:04:34 whether
2:04:34 it’s
2:04:35 the
2:04:35 Chinese
2:04:36 or
2:04:37 preferably
2:04:38 as
2:04:38 an
2:04:38 American
2:04:38 I
2:04:39 prefer
2:04:39 the
2:04:39 Americans
2:04:40 actually
2:04:40 sell
2:04:42 reactors
2:04:43 to
2:04:43 the
2:04:43 Iranians
2:04:43 a
2:04:44 great
2:04:45 nuclear
2:04:45 industry
2:04:45 in this
2:04:46 country
2:04:46 let’s
2:04:46 do
2:04:46 that
2:04:46 but
2:04:47 if
2:04:47 they
2:04:47 can’t
2:04:47 the
2:04:47 South
2:04:48 Koreans
2:04:48 can
2:04:49 the
2:04:49 Russians
2:04:49 can
2:04:50 the
2:04:50 Chinese
2:04:50 can
2:04:50 I
2:04:51 wouldn’t
2:04:51 want
2:04:51 to
2:04:51 have
2:04:52 significant
2:04:52 Russian
2:04:52 and
2:04:52 Chinese
2:04:53 influence
2:04:53 in
2:04:53 Iran
2:04:54 so
2:04:54 better
2:04:54 that
2:04:54 it
2:04:55 be
2:04:55 a
2:04:55 Western
2:04:55 country
2:04:56 that
2:04:56 does
2:04:56 it
2:04:57 nevertheless
2:04:58 provide
2:04:58 those
2:04:58 reactors
2:04:59 they’re
2:05:00 proliferation
2:05:00 proof
2:05:01 there’s
2:05:01 no
2:05:02 enrichment
2:05:02 and
2:05:02 no
2:05:03 reprocessing
2:05:03 you
2:05:03 buy
2:05:04 your
2:05:04 fuel
2:05:04 rods
2:05:04 from
2:05:05 abroad
2:05:05 you
2:05:05 put
2:05:05 them
2:05:05 in
2:05:05 the
2:05:06 reactors
2:05:06 you
2:05:06 power
2:05:06 the
2:05:07 Iranian
2:05:07 electrical
2:05:08 grid
2:05:08 which
2:05:08 is
2:05:08 in
2:05:09 terrible
2:05:09 shape
2:05:09 because
2:05:10 Ayatollah
2:05:11 has spent
2:05:11 a half
2:05:12 a trillion
2:05:12 dollars
2:05:12 trying to
2:05:13 build
2:05:13 nuclear
2:05:14 weapons
2:05:14 and not
2:05:14 trying to
2:05:15 provide
2:05:15 electricity
2:05:15 for his
2:05:16 people
2:05:16 let’s
2:05:17 help
2:05:17 him
2:05:17 let’s
2:05:17 help
2:05:17 his
2:05:18 people
2:05:18 get
2:05:19 electricity
2:05:19 but
2:05:20 the
2:05:20 key
2:05:20 difference
2:05:20 in
2:05:21 our
2:05:21 argument
2:05:21 and
2:05:21 it’s
2:05:21 a
2:05:22 fundamental
2:05:22 difference
2:05:22 Scott’s
2:05:23 right
2:05:23 like
2:05:24 the
2:05:24 key
2:05:24 difference
2:05:24 is
2:05:25 I
2:05:25 do
2:05:26 not
2:05:26 want
2:05:26 to
2:05:26 give
2:05:26 this
2:05:27 regime
2:05:28 enrichment
2:05:28 or
2:05:29 reprocessing
2:05:29 because
2:05:29 they
2:05:29 have
2:05:30 shown
2:05:30 over
2:05:31 time
2:05:31 for
2:05:31 whatever
2:05:32 reason
2:05:32 whether
2:05:32 you
2:05:32 believe
2:05:32 it’s
2:05:33 they
2:05:33 intended
2:05:34 to
2:05:34 or
2:05:34 we
2:05:34 were
2:05:35 lying
2:05:35 about
2:05:35 it
2:05:35 or
2:05:36 we
2:05:36 broke
2:05:36 them
2:05:36 it
2:05:37 doesn’t
2:05:37 matter
2:05:37 what
2:05:38 they
2:05:38 have
2:05:38 shown
2:05:38 over
2:05:38 the
2:05:39 past
2:05:39 number
2:05:39 of
2:05:39 years
2:05:40 is
2:05:40 they
2:05:40 gone
2:05:41 up
2:05:41 from
2:05:42 3.67%
2:05:43 enriched
2:05:43 uranium
2:05:44 for
2:05:44 civilian
2:05:44 purpose
2:05:45 all
2:05:45 the way
2:05:45 up
2:05:45 to
2:05:46 60%
2:05:46 which
2:05:47 is
2:05:47 99%
2:05:48 of
2:05:48 what
2:05:48 you
2:05:48 need
2:05:48 for
2:05:48 weapons
2:05:49 grade
2:05:49 since
2:05:49 we’ve
2:05:50 seen
2:05:50 them
2:05:50 do
2:05:50 it
2:05:51 before
2:05:51 we
2:05:51 don’t
2:05:51 want
2:05:51 to
2:05:51 see
2:05:52 them
2:05:52 do
2:05:52 it
2:05:53 again
2:05:53 so
2:05:54 no
2:05:54 enrichment
2:05:55 full
2:05:55 dismantlement
2:05:56 full
2:05:56 deal
2:05:57 and
2:05:57 then
2:05:57 there’s
2:05:58 a
2:05:58 peaceful
2:05:59 resolution
2:05:59 to
2:06:00 what
2:06:00 I
2:06:00 worry
2:06:01 about
2:06:01 is
2:06:02 positions
2:06:02 that
2:06:02 are
2:06:02 taken
2:06:03 that
2:06:03 undermine
2:06:03 President
2:06:04 Trump’s
2:06:05 negotiating
2:06:06 leverage
2:06:06 in
2:06:06 Oman
2:06:07 Can I
2:06:08 ask you
2:06:08 you were
2:06:08 saying
2:06:09 you supported
2:06:09 the JCP
2:06:10 you were
2:06:11 opposed
2:06:14 to
2:06:14 withdrawing
2:06:14 from it
2:06:15 don’t you
2:06:15 think
2:06:15 that
2:06:15 Trump
2:06:16 could
2:06:16 have
2:06:16 gone
2:06:16 over
2:06:16 there
2:06:17 and
2:06:17 negotiate
2:06:17 to
2:06:18 make
2:06:18 it
2:06:18 better
2:06:18 and
2:06:19 would
2:06:19 you
2:06:19 agree
2:06:19 that
2:06:19 it
2:06:19 was
2:06:20 a
2:06:20 huge
2:06:20 mistake
2:06:21 to
2:06:21 withdraw
2:06:22 that
2:06:22 because
2:06:22 they
2:06:23 were
2:06:23 as
2:06:23 we
2:06:23 agreed
2:06:24 shipping
2:06:24 out
2:06:24 all
2:06:25 of
2:06:25 their
2:06:25 enriched
2:06:26 uranium
2:06:26 to
2:06:26 only
2:06:27 be
2:06:27 brought
2:06:27 back
2:06:27 in
2:06:27 a
2:06:27 form
2:06:28 that
2:06:28 they
2:06:28 could
2:06:28 not
2:06:29 use
2:06:29 to
2:06:29 make
2:06:29 nukes
2:06:30 the
2:06:37 to
2:06:37 have
2:06:37 enough
2:06:38 weapons
2:06:38 grade
2:06:38 uranium
2:06:38 for
2:06:38 a
2:06:39 single
2:06:39 gun
2:06:39 type
2:06:39 nuke
2:06:40 under
2:06:40 the
2:06:41 JCPOA
2:06:41 right
2:06:42 so
2:06:43 can I
2:06:43 let me
2:06:43 ask you
2:06:43 a question
2:06:44 yeah
2:06:44 because
2:06:44 you’re
2:06:44 right
2:06:44 I mean
2:06:45 I’m
2:06:45 glad
2:06:45 you’ve
2:06:45 pointed
2:06:46 out
2:06:46 because
2:06:46 I
2:06:47 I
2:06:47 tried
2:06:48 to
2:06:48 take
2:06:48 a
2:06:48 nuanced
2:06:49 position
2:06:49 during
2:06:49 the
2:06:50 JCPOA
2:06:50 debate
2:06:51 and
2:06:51 I
2:06:51 got
2:06:51 hammered
2:06:51 by
2:06:51 the
2:06:52 left
2:06:52 and
2:06:52 I
2:06:52 got
2:06:52 hammered
2:06:52 by
2:06:52 the
2:06:53 right
2:06:53 okay
2:06:54 the
2:06:55 left
2:06:55 hammered
2:06:55 me
2:06:56 because
2:06:56 I
2:06:56 criticized
2:06:56 the
2:06:57 JCPOA
2:06:57 because
2:06:57 it’s
2:06:58 fundamental
2:06:58 flaw
2:06:59 was
2:06:59 twofold
2:07:00 one
2:07:00 it
2:07:00 gave
2:07:01 Iran
2:07:01 enrichment
2:07:02 capability
2:07:02 that
2:07:02 would
2:07:02 expand
2:07:03 over
2:07:03 time
2:07:04 as
2:07:04 the
2:07:04 restrictions
2:07:05 sunsetted
2:07:06 right
2:07:06 and
2:07:07 number
2:07:07 two
2:07:07 the
2:07:08 sunsets
2:07:09 were
2:07:09 going
2:07:09 to
2:07:09 kick
2:07:09 in
2:07:09 and
2:07:10 Iran
2:07:10 would
2:07:10 emerge
2:07:10 with
2:07:11 this
2:07:11 industrial
2:07:11 size
2:07:12 program
2:07:12 which
2:07:13 we
2:07:13 would
2:07:13 not
2:07:13 be
2:07:13 able
2:07:13 to
2:07:14 stop
2:07:15 now
2:07:15 the
2:07:15 nuance
2:07:16 position
2:07:16 which
2:07:16 I
2:07:16 got
2:07:17 hammered
2:07:17 on
2:07:17 by
2:07:17 the
2:07:18 right
2:07:18 was
2:07:18 I
2:07:19 said
2:07:19 go
2:07:20 negotiate
2:07:20 with
2:07:20 the
2:07:20 Europeans
2:07:31 we
2:07:33 want
2:07:34 to
2:07:34 negotiate
2:07:35 a
2:07:35 deal
2:07:35 now
2:07:35 does
2:07:35 that
2:07:35 mean
2:07:36 we
2:07:36 have
2:07:36 to
2:07:36 give
2:07:36 you
2:07:36 more
2:07:37 sanctions
2:07:37 relief
2:07:37 yeah
2:07:37 probably
2:07:37 the
2:07:38 Iranians
2:07:38 are
2:07:38 not
2:07:38 going
2:07:38 to
2:07:39 agree
2:07:39 without
2:07:39 sanctions
2:07:40 relief
2:07:41 what
2:07:41 happened
2:07:41 is
2:07:42 the
2:07:42 Trump
2:07:42 administration
2:07:43 tried
2:07:43 to
2:07:44 negotiate
2:07:44 with
2:07:44 the
2:07:44 Europeans
2:07:45 the
2:07:45 Europeans
2:07:46 were
2:07:46 opposed
2:07:47 because
2:07:47 they
2:07:47 didn’t
2:07:47 want
2:07:47 to
2:07:48 revisit
2:07:48 the
2:07:48 agreement
2:07:49 we
2:07:49 knew
2:07:49 from
2:07:50 we
2:07:50 knew
2:07:50 the
2:07:50 Iranians
2:07:51 were
2:07:51 completely
2:07:51 opposed
2:07:52 and
2:07:52 there
2:07:52 was
2:07:52 no
2:07:52 way
2:07:52 they
2:07:52 were
2:07:52 going
2:08:00 to
2:08:00 that
2:08:01 point
2:08:01 that
2:08:02 President
2:08:02 Trump
2:08:02 decided
2:08:02 to
2:08:03 withdraw
2:08:03 from
2:08:03 the
2:08:04 agreement
2:08:04 but
2:08:05 what
2:08:05 I’m
2:08:05 asking
2:08:05 you
2:08:05 is
2:08:06 if
2:08:06 say
2:08:07 you
2:08:07 were
2:08:07 the
2:08:07 national
2:08:08 security
2:08:08 advisor
2:08:09 under
2:08:10 the
2:08:11 JCPOA
2:08:11 where
2:08:11 they’re
2:08:12 still
2:08:12 shipping
2:08:12 all
2:08:12 their
2:08:13 enriched
2:08:13 uranium
2:08:13 out
2:08:13 of
2:08:14 the
2:08:14 country
2:08:14 and
2:08:14 all
2:08:14 that
2:08:15 which
2:08:15 you
2:08:15 would
2:08:16 be
2:08:16 advising
2:08:16 him
2:08:17 to
2:08:17 not
2:08:17 leave
2:08:18 in
2:08:18 the
2:08:19 negotiations
2:08:19 to
2:08:20 improve
2:08:20 the
2:08:20 deal
2:08:21 would
2:08:21 you
2:08:21 have
2:08:21 been
2:08:22 willing
2:08:22 to
2:08:22 accept
2:08:23 some
2:08:23 level
2:08:23 of
2:08:24 enrichment
2:08:24 then
2:08:25 as
2:08:25 long
2:08:25 as
2:08:25 we’re
2:08:26 still
2:08:26 we
2:08:26 have
2:08:26 the
2:08:27 restriction
2:08:27 part
2:08:28 where
2:08:28 they’re
2:08:28 shipping
2:08:28 it
2:08:28 all
2:08:29 out
2:08:29 of
2:08:29 the
2:08:29 country
2:08:29 or
2:08:30 to
2:08:30 you
2:08:30 enrichment
2:08:31 at
2:08:31 all
2:08:31 is
2:08:32 always
2:08:32 a
2:08:32 red
2:08:33 line
2:08:33 essentially
2:08:34 equivalent
2:08:34 to
2:08:34 them
2:08:35 being
2:08:36 99%
2:08:36 of the
2:08:36 way
2:08:37 to
2:08:37 a
2:08:37 nuclear
2:08:37 weapon
2:08:38 look
2:08:39 enrichment
2:08:39 capability
2:08:40 is
2:08:40 a
2:08:40 red
2:08:40 line
2:08:40 it
2:08:41 has
2:08:41 to
2:08:41 be
2:08:41 a
2:08:41 red
2:08:42 line
2:08:42 and
2:08:42 even
2:08:43 though
2:08:43 you
2:08:43 know
2:08:43 it’s
2:08:43 protected
2:08:44 by
2:08:44 the
2:08:44 NPT
2:08:44 the
2:08:45 right
2:08:45 to
2:08:45 peace
2:08:45 for
2:08:45 nuclear
2:08:46 technology
2:08:46 they call
2:08:46 it a
2:08:47 loophole
2:08:47 but
2:08:48 they have
2:08:48 the right
2:08:49 to enrich
2:08:49 uranium
2:08:49 as
2:08:49 there’s
2:08:50 different
2:08:50 interpretations
2:08:51 of everything
2:08:52 including
2:08:52 agreements
2:08:54 there is
2:08:54 a
2:08:56 raging
2:08:57 debate
2:08:57 about
2:08:58 whether
2:08:58 the
2:08:58 NPT
2:08:59 actually
2:08:59 gives you
2:09:00 a right
2:09:00 to
2:09:00 enrich
2:09:00 in fact
2:09:00 the
2:09:01 Obama
2:09:01 administration
2:09:02 even
2:09:02 with
2:09:02 the
2:09:03 JCPOA
2:09:03 was not
2:09:04 willing
2:09:04 to
2:09:04 recognize
2:09:05 Iran’s
2:09:06 right
2:09:06 to
2:09:06 enrich
2:09:07 but
2:09:07 they
2:09:07 were
2:09:07 willing
2:09:08 to
2:09:08 recognize
2:09:08 its
2:09:09 de facto
2:09:10 reality
2:09:10 that they
2:09:10 were
2:09:11 enriching
2:09:14 Iran
2:09:14 is a
2:09:15 member
2:09:15 of
2:09:15 it
2:09:16 and
2:09:16 it
2:09:16 is
2:09:16 supposed
2:09:16 to
2:09:17 promote
2:09:18 peaceful
2:09:19 civilian
2:09:19 nuclear
2:09:20 energy
2:09:21 and
2:09:21 it’s
2:09:21 supposed
2:09:21 to
2:09:21 prevent
2:09:22 countries
2:09:22 from
2:09:22 developing
2:09:23 nuclear
2:09:23 weapons
2:09:23 I think
2:09:24 that’s
2:09:24 a
2:09:25 basic
2:09:25 summary
2:09:25 of it
2:09:25 and
2:09:26 it
2:09:26 mandates
2:09:27 that
2:09:27 non-nuclear
2:09:27 weapon
2:09:28 states
2:09:29 have
2:09:29 a
2:09:29 safeguards
2:09:30 agreement
2:09:30 with
2:09:30 the
2:09:31 IAEA
2:09:33 and
2:09:33 full of
2:09:33 additional
2:09:34 protocols
2:09:34 and
2:09:34 whatever
2:09:35 they
2:09:35 have
2:09:35 the
2:09:35 right
2:09:36 to
2:09:36 expect
2:09:36 well
2:09:36 no
2:09:37 they
2:09:37 had
2:09:37 an
2:09:37 additional
2:09:38 protocol
2:09:38 that
2:09:38 they
2:09:38 were
2:09:38 abiding
2:09:39 not
2:09:39 even
2:09:39 enriching
2:09:39 at
2:09:40 all
2:09:40 while
2:09:40 they
2:09:40 were
2:09:41 negotiating
2:09:41 with
2:09:41 the
2:09:41 E3
2:09:42 and
2:09:42 then
2:09:42 what
2:09:42 the
2:09:43 JCPOA
2:09:43 really
2:09:44 did
2:09:44 was
2:09:44 add
2:09:44 a
2:09:45 bunch
2:09:45 of
2:09:45 additional
2:09:46 protocols
2:09:46 and
2:09:47 subsidiary
2:09:47 arrangements
2:09:48 and
2:09:48 agreements
2:09:48 to
2:09:49 ratify
2:09:49 the
2:09:49 additional
2:09:49 protocol
2:09:49 I
2:10:09 while
2:10:09 they
2:10:09 were
2:10:10 negotiating
2:10:10 with
2:10:10 the
2:10:10 E3
2:10:11 in
2:10:11 the
2:10:12 W.
2:10:12 Bush
2:10:12 years
2:10:12 before
2:10:13 they
2:10:13 even
2:10:13 started
2:10:14 spinning
2:10:14 centrifuges
2:10:15 at
2:10:15 the
2:10:15 You
2:10:16 asked
2:10:16 me
2:10:16 what
2:10:16 I
2:10:16 would
2:10:17 advise
2:10:17 the
2:10:17 national
2:10:17 security
2:10:18 advisor
2:10:18 of the
2:10:18 United
2:10:18 States
2:10:18 or
2:10:19 if
2:10:19 I
2:10:19 was
2:10:19 the
2:10:19 national
2:10:19 security
2:10:20 advisor
2:10:20 of the
2:10:20 United
2:10:20 States
2:10:20 which
2:10:21 I
2:10:21 guess
2:10:21 I
2:10:21 can’t
2:10:21 be
2:10:21 because
2:10:22 I’m
2:10:22 a
2:10:22 foreigner
2:10:22 but
2:10:23 the
2:10:23 fact
2:10:23 of the
2:10:23 matter
2:10:24 is
2:10:24 I
2:10:24 think
2:10:24 you
2:10:24 could
2:10:24 still
2:10:25 be
2:10:25 national
2:10:25 security
2:10:26 advisor
2:10:27 I
2:10:28 think
2:10:28 he
2:10:28 was
2:10:28 taking
2:10:28 a
2:10:28 shot
2:10:29 back
2:10:29 at
2:10:29 the
2:10:29 fact
2:10:29 that
2:10:29 you
2:10:30 took
2:10:30 a
2:10:30 shot
2:10:31 you
2:10:31 know
2:10:31 what
2:10:31 Lex
2:10:31 I
2:10:32 think
2:10:32 that
2:10:32 you
2:10:32 probably
2:10:32 would
2:10:33 recognize
2:10:33 that
2:10:33 there
2:10:33 are
2:10:34 many
2:10:34 people
2:10:34 who
2:10:34 lobby
2:10:35 for
2:10:35 Israel’s
2:10:36 interests
2:10:36 in
2:10:36 the
2:10:36 United
2:10:36 States
2:10:37 who
2:10:37 clearly
2:10:37 don’t
2:10:38 care
2:10:38 that
2:10:38 much
2:10:39 about
2:10:39 what
2:10:40 happens
2:10:40 to
2:10:40 the
2:10:40 United
2:10:41 States
2:10:41 of
2:10:41 America
2:10:42 in
2:10:43 it
2:10:43 as
2:10:43 a
2:10:44 consequence
2:10:45 because
2:10:45 they
2:10:46 care
2:10:46 about
2:10:46 Israel
2:10:46 which
2:10:46 is
2:10:47 a
2:10:47 different
2:10:48 country
2:10:48 than
2:10:48 America
2:10:49 right
2:10:49 it’s
2:10:49 not
2:10:50 part
2:10:50 of
2:10:50 I
2:10:50 think
2:10:51 an
2:10:51 American
2:10:52 citizen
2:10:53 cares
2:10:53 primarily
2:10:54 about
2:10:54 America
2:10:55 that is
2:10:55 fundamental
2:10:56 belief
2:10:56 for me
2:10:57 to make
2:10:57 an
2:10:57 accusation
2:10:58 that they
2:10:58 don’t
2:10:58 requires
2:10:59 a
2:10:59 very
2:11:00 large
2:11:00 amount
2:11:00 of
2:11:01 proof
2:11:01 for
2:11:02 each
2:11:02 individual
2:11:03 I
2:11:03 don’t
2:11:03 care
2:11:03 that
2:11:04 American
2:11:04 and
2:11:05 Israel’s
2:11:05 interests
2:11:06 are
2:11:06 the
2:11:06 same
2:11:07 requires
2:11:07 a
2:11:08 tremendous
2:11:08 amount
2:11:08 of
2:11:09 cognitive
2:11:10 dissonance
2:11:10 by
2:11:11 those
2:11:11 who
2:11:11 support
2:11:12 Israel’s
2:11:12 interests
2:11:13 they say
2:11:14 they’re not
2:11:14 the same
2:11:15 sponsor of
2:11:15 terror
2:11:15 as
2:11:16 though
2:11:16 Iran
2:11:17 has
2:11:17 anything
2:11:18 to do
2:11:18 with
2:11:19 anti-American
2:11:20 terrorists
2:11:20 I
2:11:20 don’t
2:11:20 know
2:11:21 who
2:11:21 is
2:11:21 the
2:11:21 they
2:11:22 that
2:11:22 we’re
2:11:22 talking
2:11:22 about
2:11:23 but I
2:11:23 believe
2:11:24 American
2:11:25 citizens
2:11:26 care about
2:11:27 America
2:11:27 first
2:11:29 they may
2:11:29 discuss
2:11:29 other
2:11:30 nations
2:11:30 and the
2:11:31 interests
2:11:31 in the
2:11:32 Middle East
2:11:32 or in
2:11:33 Europe
2:11:35 and those
2:11:35 interests
2:11:36 might align
2:11:36 with their
2:11:36 own
2:11:37 worldview
2:11:37 whatever
2:11:38 but when
2:11:39 it comes
2:11:39 at the
2:11:39 end of
2:11:40 the
2:11:40 day
2:11:40 if
2:11:41 everybody
2:11:41 starts
2:11:41 a war
2:11:41 with
2:11:42 everybody
2:11:42 else
2:11:43 they’re
2:11:43 America
2:11:43 first
2:11:44 I’m
2:11:45 America
2:11:45 first
2:11:46 if there’s
2:11:46 a war
2:11:46 that breaks
2:11:47 out
2:11:47 and we
2:11:48 have to
2:11:48 pick up
2:11:48 guns
2:11:48 I’m
2:11:49 fighting
2:11:49 for
2:11:49 America
2:11:50 I’ll
2:11:50 take
2:11:50 them
2:11:50 on a
2:11:50 case
2:11:51 by
2:11:51 case
2:11:51 basis
2:11:52 I know
2:11:53 immigrants
2:11:54 who are
2:11:54 absolutely
2:11:55 super
2:11:56 patriots
2:11:56 who know
2:11:57 American
2:11:57 history
2:11:58 and love
2:11:58 and care
2:11:58 about
2:11:58 America
2:11:59 more than
2:11:59 their
2:11:59 next door
2:12:00 neighbors
2:12:01 were from
2:12:01 here
2:12:01 but that
2:12:02 ain’t
2:12:02 universal
2:12:03 okay
2:12:04 sure
2:12:04 let’s
2:12:05 talk about
2:12:05 case
2:12:05 by case
2:12:05 then
2:12:06 that’s
2:12:06 fine
2:12:06 I think
2:12:07 he’s
2:12:08 clearly
2:12:08 accusing
2:12:09 me
2:12:09 worse
2:12:09 war
2:12:10 with
2:12:10 Iran
2:12:10 he
2:12:10 was
2:12:11 entertaining
2:12:12 the possibility
2:12:12 of putting
2:12:12 ground
2:12:13 troops
2:12:13 in there
2:12:14 don’t
2:12:14 take
2:12:14 personal
2:12:15 shots
2:12:16 either
2:12:16 of you
2:12:16 you’ve
2:12:17 taken
2:12:17 personal
2:12:17 shots
2:12:18 let’s
2:12:18 not
2:12:18 do
2:12:18 it
2:12:19 you guys
2:12:19 are
2:12:19 just
2:12:19 having
2:12:20 fun
2:12:22 let me
2:12:22 respond
2:12:22 he said
2:12:23 there’s
2:12:23 a threat
2:12:25 from
2:12:26 Iranian
2:12:26 missiles
2:12:26 to
2:12:27 America’s
2:12:27 bases
2:12:28 in the
2:12:28 Middle
2:12:28 East
2:12:29 yeah
2:12:29 because
2:12:29 of
2:12:29 Israel
2:12:30 and
2:12:30 because
2:12:30 of
2:12:30 this
2:12:31 war
2:12:32 the first
2:12:32 time
2:12:32 Iran
2:12:33 ever
2:12:33 fired
2:12:33 missiles
2:12:34 at an
2:12:34 American
2:12:34 base
2:12:34 over there
2:12:35 was
2:12:35 in
2:12:36 response
2:12:37 to
2:12:37 Trump
2:12:38 bombing
2:12:38 them
2:12:38 it’s
2:12:38 never
2:12:39 Iran’s
2:12:39 fault
2:12:39 is that
2:12:40 what
2:12:40 everybody
2:12:40 thinks
2:12:41 it was
2:12:42 Iran
2:12:42 who
2:12:42 started
2:12:43 this
2:12:43 let’s
2:12:43 bring
2:12:43 it
2:12:44 back
2:12:44 Scott
2:12:45 Scott
2:12:46 it’s
2:12:46 remarkable
2:12:47 to me
2:12:47 I want
2:12:48 to reiterate
2:12:48 this
2:12:49 and then
2:12:49 Iran
2:12:50 shot
2:12:50 missiles
2:12:51 at
2:12:51 Qatar
2:12:52 and
2:12:52 Iraq
2:12:53 Scott
2:12:53 you’re
2:12:53 a
2:12:53 patriotic
2:12:54 American
2:12:55 God
2:12:55 bless
2:12:55 you
2:12:56 God
2:12:56 bless
2:12:56 the
2:12:56 United
2:12:57 States
2:12:57 thank
2:12:58 you
2:12:58 for
2:12:58 allowing
2:12:58 me
2:12:58 to
2:12:58 come
2:12:59 to
2:12:59 this
2:12:59 country
2:12:59 and
2:13:00 become
2:13:00 an
2:13:00 American
2:13:00 it’s
2:13:01 a
2:13:01 great
2:13:01 country
2:13:02 and
2:13:02 as
2:13:02 a
2:13:03 patriotic
2:13:03 American
2:13:04 I
2:13:05 assume
2:13:06 that
2:13:06 the
2:13:07 United
2:13:07 States
2:13:07 government
2:13:08 and
2:13:08 the
2:13:08 United
2:13:08 States
2:13:09 intelligence
2:13:09 community
2:13:09 and
2:13:09 the
2:13:10 United
2:13:10 States
2:13:10 military
2:13:12 has
2:13:12 America’s
2:13:13 best
2:13:13 interest
2:13:13 at
2:13:14 heart
2:13:14 however
2:13:15 we
2:13:15 have
2:13:15 learned
2:13:16 from
2:13:16 the
2:13:16 history
2:13:16 and
2:13:17 Scott
2:13:17 done
2:13:17 a
2:13:17 very
2:13:17 good
2:13:18 job
2:13:18 of
2:13:18 detailing
2:13:19 this
2:13:19 during
2:13:19 the
2:13:19 Iraq
2:13:20 war
2:13:20 that
2:13:21 the
2:13:21 United
2:13:21 States
2:13:22 gets
2:13:22 it
2:13:22 wrong
2:13:23 I
2:13:24 don’t
2:13:24 think
2:13:24 the
2:13:24 United
2:13:24 States
2:13:25 lied
2:13:25 us
2:13:25 into
2:13:25 war
2:13:26 but
2:13:26 the
2:13:26 United
2:13:26 States
2:13:27 got
2:13:27 it
2:13:27 wrong
2:13:27 so
2:13:27 I
2:13:27 think
2:13:28 Scott’s
2:13:28 right
2:13:28 we
2:13:29 must
2:13:29 make
2:13:29 sure
2:13:29 that
2:13:29 we
2:13:30 learn
2:13:30 the
2:13:30 lessons
2:13:30 of
2:13:31 Iraq
2:13:31 but
2:13:32 not
2:13:32 over
2:13:32 learn
2:13:32 the
2:13:32 lessons
2:13:33 of
2:13:33 Iraq
2:13:33 I
2:13:33 would
2:13:33 also
2:13:34 say
2:13:34 this
2:13:34 there
2:13:35 are
2:13:35 many
2:13:35 lobby
2:13:36 organizations
2:13:36 in
2:13:36 the
2:13:36 United
2:13:37 States
2:13:37 there
2:13:37 is
2:13:37 the
2:13:37 China
2:13:38 lobby
2:13:38 there
2:13:38 is
2:13:38 the
2:13:39 oil
2:13:39 lobby
2:13:40 there
2:13:40 is
2:13:40 the
2:13:41 pharmaceutical
2:13:41 lobby
2:13:42 there
2:13:42 is
2:13:42 the
2:13:42 Qatar
2:13:43 lobby
2:13:43 I
2:13:43 live
2:13:43 in
2:13:44 Washington
2:13:44 I
2:13:44 see
2:13:44 all
2:13:45 these
2:13:45 lobby
2:13:46 organizations
2:13:46 okay
2:13:47 fact of
2:13:47 the
2:13:47 matter
2:13:48 is
2:13:48 the
2:13:49 pro
2:13:49 Israel
2:13:49 lobby
2:13:50 which
2:13:50 actually
2:13:51 lobbies
2:13:51 in
2:13:51 support
2:13:51 of
2:13:52 the
2:13:52 U.S.-Israel
2:13:53 relationship
2:13:53 is
2:13:54 comprised
2:13:54 of
2:13:54 tens
2:13:54 of
2:13:55 millions
2:13:56 of
2:13:56 Christians
2:13:56 and
2:13:57 Jews
2:13:57 and
2:13:58 Hindus
2:13:58 and
2:13:58 yes
2:13:59 Muslims
2:14:00 who
2:14:00 believe
2:14:01 strongly
2:14:01 in
2:14:01 a
2:14:01 strong
2:14:02 U.S.-Israel
2:14:02 relationships
2:14:03 the
2:14:03 reason
2:14:03 that
2:14:04 relationship
2:14:04 has
2:14:04 been
2:14:04 so
2:14:05 strong
2:14:05 over
2:14:05 so
2:14:05 many
2:14:06 years
2:14:06 and
2:14:06 that
2:14:07 this
2:14:07 quote
2:14:07 lobby
2:14:08 has
2:14:08 been
2:14:08 so
2:14:08 successful
2:14:09 is
2:14:09 they’re
2:14:10 pushing
2:14:10 through
2:14:10 an
2:14:10 open
2:14:11 door
2:14:11 with
2:14:11 policymakers
2:14:12 not
2:14:12 because
2:14:13 some
2:14:14 nefarious
2:14:14 money
2:14:15 influence
2:14:15 but
2:14:15 because
2:14:16 at
2:14:16 the
2:14:16 end
2:14:16 of
2:14:16 the
2:14:16 day
2:14:16 the
2:14:16 interests
2:14:17 align
2:14:17 we
2:14:18 counter
2:14:18 terrorism
2:14:19 together
2:14:19 we
2:14:20 counter
2:14:20 nuclear
2:14:21 proliferation
2:14:21 together
2:14:22 and
2:14:22 we
2:14:22 believe
2:14:22 that
2:14:22 the
2:14:23 U.S.-Israel
2:14:23 relationship
2:14:24 is
2:14:24 a
2:14:24 strong
2:14:24 relationship
2:14:25 and
2:14:25 these
2:14:26 accusations
2:14:26 of
2:14:27 dual
2:14:27 loyalty
2:14:27 and
2:14:27 these
2:14:28 accusations
2:14:28 of
2:14:29 Israel
2:14:29 firsters
2:14:29 that
2:14:30 Scott’s
2:14:30 thrown
2:14:30 around
2:14:31 I
2:14:31 think
2:14:32 distract us
2:14:32 from the
2:14:32 conversation
2:14:33 which I
2:14:33 think we
2:14:33 should
2:14:34 return
2:14:34 to
2:14:35 let’s
2:14:35 talk
2:14:35 about
2:14:36 today
2:14:36 we’ve
2:14:36 talked
2:14:36 about
2:14:37 best
2:14:37 case
2:14:37 scenarios
2:14:38 we’ve
2:14:38 talked
2:14:39 about
2:14:40 worst
2:14:40 case
2:14:40 scenarios
2:14:41 and
2:14:41 we
2:14:41 talked
2:14:41 about
2:14:42 really
2:14:42 worst
2:14:42 case
2:14:43 scenarios
2:14:43 so
2:14:43 I
2:14:43 think
2:14:44 let’s
2:14:44 talk
2:14:44 about
2:14:45 the
2:14:45 way
2:14:45 forward
2:14:45 and
2:14:46 I’d
2:14:46 be
2:14:46 interested
2:14:46 in
2:14:46 hearing
2:14:47 from
2:14:47 Scott
2:14:47 where
2:14:48 he
2:14:48 thinks
2:14:48 we’re
2:14:48 going
2:14:49 and
2:14:49 I’m
2:14:49 certainly
2:14:50 I
2:14:51 don’t
2:14:51 crystal ball
2:14:51 these
2:14:52 things
2:14:52 it’s
2:14:52 always
2:14:52 difficult
2:14:52 to
2:14:53 predict
2:14:53 but
2:14:54 I
2:14:54 think
2:14:55 President
2:14:55 Trump
2:14:55 has
2:14:55 done
2:14:57 a
2:14:57 really
2:14:57 good
2:14:58 job
2:14:58 he has
2:14:58 led
2:14:59 this
2:15:00 right
2:15:00 he
2:15:00 has
2:15:00 not
2:15:01 been
2:15:01 you
2:15:01 know
2:15:02 the
2:15:03 at
2:15:03 the
2:15:03 beck and
2:15:04 call
2:15:04 of
2:15:04 Bibi
2:15:05 Netanyahu
2:15:05 or
2:15:06 Mohammed
2:15:06 bin
2:15:06 Salman
2:15:06 of
2:15:07 Saudi
2:15:07 Arabia
2:15:07 or
2:15:08 anyone
2:15:08 else
2:15:08 he
2:15:08 has
2:15:09 led
2:15:09 this
2:15:09 effort
2:15:09 he
2:15:09 has
2:15:10 made
2:15:10 these
2:15:10 decisions
2:15:11 this
2:15:11 is
2:15:11 a
2:15:11 man
2:15:12 who
2:15:12 throughout
2:15:12 his
2:15:13 entire
2:15:13 career
2:15:14 and
2:15:14 not
2:15:14 just
2:15:14 his
2:15:15 political
2:15:15 career
2:15:15 but
2:15:15 many
2:15:16 years
2:15:17 before
2:15:17 that
2:15:18 believed
2:15:18 that
2:15:18 an
2:15:18 Iranian
2:15:19 nuclear
2:15:19 weapon
2:15:20 was
2:15:20 a
2:15:20 threat
2:15:20 to
2:15:20 the
2:15:20 United
2:15:21 States
2:15:21 of
2:15:21 America
2:15:22 not
2:15:22 just
2:15:22 to
2:15:23 our
2:15:23 allies
2:15:23 but
2:15:23 the
2:15:23 United
2:15:24 States
2:15:24 of
2:15:24 America
2:15:24 and
2:15:24 he’s
2:15:24 been
2:15:25 very
2:15:25 clear
2:15:25 on
2:15:26 record
2:15:26 he
2:15:26 led
2:15:27 this
2:15:27 campaign
2:15:27 since
2:15:28 he
2:15:28 started
2:15:28 in
2:15:28 January
2:15:29 he
2:15:29 offered
2:15:30 negotiations
2:15:31 he
2:15:31 got
2:15:31 rebuffed
2:15:31 by
2:15:32 the
2:15:32 Iranians
2:15:32 in
2:15:32 Oman
2:15:33 he
2:15:33 put
2:15:34 pressure
2:15:34 on
2:15:34 the
2:15:34 regime
2:15:35 economically
2:15:36 he
2:15:36 continued
2:15:36 to
2:15:37 offer
2:15:38 negotiations
2:15:38 he
2:15:39 offered
2:15:39 a
2:15:39 very
2:15:39 good
2:15:40 something
2:15:40 that
2:15:40 I
2:15:40 thought
2:15:40 was
2:15:41 flawed
2:15:42 I
2:15:42 mean
2:15:43 Lex
2:15:43 I
2:15:43 gotta
2:15:43 tell
2:15:43 you
2:15:43 the
2:15:44 offer
2:15:44 in
2:15:44 Oman
2:15:45 that
2:15:45 he
2:15:45 gave
2:15:46 to
2:15:46 the
2:15:46 Iranians
2:15:46 I
2:15:46 thought
2:15:47 it
2:15:47 was
2:15:47 flawed
2:15:47 because
2:15:48 I
2:15:48 think
2:15:48 it
2:15:48 allowed
2:15:48 Iran
2:15:49 to
2:15:49 retain
2:15:49 this
2:15:49 key
2:15:50 enrichment
2:15:50 capability
2:15:51 the
2:15:51 Iranians
2:15:52 turned
2:15:52 it
2:15:52 down
2:15:53 and
2:15:53 I
2:15:53 think
2:15:54 Khamenei
2:15:54 to
2:15:55 his
2:15:55 everlasting
2:15:56 regret
2:16:02 they
2:16:03 deserve
2:16:03 and
2:16:04 yet
2:16:04 I
2:16:04 rejected
2:16:05 it
2:16:05 why
2:16:05 did
2:16:05 I
2:16:06 reject
2:16:06 it
2:16:06 because
2:16:07 now
2:16:07 look
2:16:07 what’s
2:16:07 happened
2:16:07 in
2:16:07 the
2:16:08 past
2:16:08 12
2:16:08 days
2:16:09 you
2:16:09 know
2:16:09 I’ve
2:16:09 lost
2:16:10 Fordow
2:16:11 mostly
2:16:11 we’ll
2:16:11 see
2:16:11 what
2:16:11 happens
2:16:11 on
2:16:12 the
2:16:12 BDA
2:16:12 the
2:16:13 battle
2:16:13 damage
2:16:13 assessment
2:16:14 I’ve
2:16:14 certainly
2:16:14 lost
2:16:15 Natanz
2:16:16 I’ve
2:16:17 lost
2:16:17 my
2:16:17 conversion
2:16:18 facility
2:16:18 at
2:16:19 Isfahan
2:16:19 which
2:16:20 converts
2:16:24 yellow
2:16:25 cake
2:16:25 into
2:16:25 uranium
2:16:26 hexafluoride
2:16:27 to pump
2:16:27 into
2:16:27 centrifuge
2:16:28 and
2:16:28 the
2:16:28 most
2:16:28 important
2:16:28 thing
2:16:29 I
2:16:29 lost
2:16:29 at
2:16:32 enriched
2:16:33 uranium
2:16:34 and
2:16:34 turns
2:16:34 it
2:16:34 into
2:16:35 uranium
2:16:35 metal
2:16:36 without
2:16:36 uranium
2:16:36 metal
2:16:36 they
2:16:36 don’t
2:16:37 have
2:16:37 any
2:16:38 90%
2:16:38 enriched
2:16:38 uranium
2:16:39 he
2:16:39 just
2:16:39 means
2:16:40 hypothetically
2:16:41 if they
2:16:41 did
2:16:41 have
2:16:41 some
2:16:42 you
2:16:42 know
2:16:43 the
2:16:44 60%
2:16:44 that’s
2:16:45 99%
2:16:45 of the
2:16:45 way
2:16:45 to
2:16:46 90%
2:16:46 enriched
2:16:46 uranium
2:16:47 by the
2:16:47 way
2:16:47 you
2:16:47 can
2:16:48 make
2:16:48 a
2:16:48 crude
2:16:49 nuclear
2:16:49 device
2:16:49 with
2:16:50 60%
2:16:50 enriched
2:16:50 uranium
2:16:50 I
2:16:51 just
2:16:51 want
2:16:51 to
2:16:51 put
2:16:52 that
2:16:52 on
2:16:52 the
2:16:52 record
2:16:53 but
2:16:53 he
2:16:53 lost
2:16:54 that
2:16:54 key
2:16:54 conversion
2:16:55 facility
2:16:55 that
2:16:55 turns
2:16:56 90%
2:16:56 enriched
2:16:57 uranium
2:16:57 or
2:16:57 even
2:16:58 60%
2:16:58 enriched
2:16:59 uranium
2:16:59 into
2:17:00 uranium
2:17:00 metal
2:17:01 you
2:17:01 need
2:17:01 uranium
2:17:02 metal
2:17:02 to
2:17:03 fashion
2:17:03 a
2:17:03 crude
2:17:04 nuclear
2:17:04 device
2:17:04 or
2:17:04 a
2:17:05 warhead
2:17:05 that’s
2:17:05 been
2:17:06 destroyed
2:17:07 and
2:17:07 I
2:17:07 just
2:17:08 when I was
2:17:08 coming in
2:17:08 this
2:17:08 morning
2:17:09 I
2:17:09 just
2:17:09 checked
2:17:09 I
2:17:09 thought
2:17:10 it was
2:17:10 interesting
2:17:11 been a
2:17:11 whole lot
2:17:11 of
2:17:12 discussion
2:17:12 about
2:17:12 the
2:17:12 fact
2:17:13 that
2:17:13 about
2:17:14 12
2:17:14 or
2:17:15 16
2:17:15 trucks
2:17:15 showed
2:17:15 up
2:17:16 at
2:17:16 Fordow
2:17:17 in
2:17:17 the
2:17:17 days
2:17:17 before
2:17:18 the
2:17:19 US
2:17:19 strikes
2:17:20 and
2:17:20 moved
2:17:21 something
2:17:21 out
2:17:21 for
2:17:22 Fordow
2:17:22 well
2:17:23 according
2:17:23 to
2:17:23 reports
2:17:24 just
2:17:24 this
2:17:24 morning
2:17:24 we’ll
2:17:25 see
2:17:25 if
2:17:25 they’re
2:17:25 verified
2:17:26 I
2:17:26 don’t
2:17:26 trust
2:17:27 single
2:17:27 sourcing
2:17:28 I
2:17:28 don’t
2:17:28 trust
2:17:28 what
2:17:28 some
2:17:29 reporter
2:17:29 just
2:17:29 says
2:17:30 in
2:17:30 their
2:17:30 stories
2:17:31 because
2:17:31 reporters
2:17:31 got it
2:17:32 wrong
2:17:32 over
2:17:32 and
2:17:32 over
2:17:32 again
2:17:33 especially
2:17:33 all
2:17:33 the
2:17:33 ones
2:17:33 who
2:17:34 accused
2:17:34 President
2:17:34 Trump
2:17:35 have
2:17:35 been
2:17:35 a
2:17:35 Russian
2:17:36 agent
2:17:36 but
2:17:36 we’ll
2:17:36 see
2:17:37 what
2:17:37 happens
2:17:37 we’ll
2:17:37 see
2:17:37 if
2:17:37 it’s
2:17:38 verified
2:17:38 but
2:17:39 according
2:17:39 to
2:17:39 the
2:17:39 reports
2:17:40 most
2:17:41 of
2:17:41 the
2:17:41 material
2:17:51 was
2:17:52 listening
2:17:52 to
2:17:52 lots
2:17:53 of
2:17:53 voices
2:17:54 and
2:17:54 we
2:17:54 can
2:17:54 name
2:17:54 the
2:17:55 voices
2:17:55 or
2:17:55 we
2:17:55 can
2:17:55 just
2:17:56 talk
2:17:56 to
2:17:56 them
2:17:57 about
2:17:57 a
2:17:57 collective
2:17:58 who
2:17:59 they
2:17:59 thought
2:17:59 were
2:18:00 telling
2:18:00 Trump
2:18:01 don’t
2:18:01 do
2:18:01 it
2:18:02 and
2:18:02 we’re
2:18:03 telling
2:18:03 Trump
2:18:03 don’t
2:18:03 do
2:18:04 it
2:18:04 and
2:18:04 Trump
2:18:04 decided
2:18:05 on
2:18:05 his
2:18:05 own
2:18:06 to
2:18:06 do
2:18:06 it
2:18:06 so
2:18:06 they
2:18:06 kept
2:18:07 the
2:18:07 enriched
2:18:07 material
2:18:08 at
2:18:08 Fordow
2:18:08 and
2:18:09 if
2:18:09 that’s
2:18:09 the
2:18:09 case
2:18:10 it
2:18:10 may
2:18:10 be
2:18:10 that
2:18:10 much
2:18:11 of
2:18:11 it
2:18:11 was
2:18:11 destroyed
2:18:12 again
2:18:12 caveat
2:18:13 it’s
2:18:13 just
2:18:14 one
2:18:14 or
2:18:14 two
2:18:15 stories
2:18:15 right
2:18:15 now
2:18:16 one
2:18:16 in
2:18:17 NBC
2:18:17 news
2:18:18 and
2:18:19 let’s
2:18:19 see
2:18:19 what
2:18:19 happens
2:18:19 over
2:18:20 the
2:18:20 coming
2:18:20 days
2:18:20 but
2:18:20 if
2:18:21 that’s
2:18:21 the
2:18:21 case
2:18:22 that
2:18:23 material
2:18:23 may
2:18:24 have
2:18:24 been
2:18:24 destroyed
2:18:25 one
2:18:25 other
2:18:26 element
2:18:26 that
2:18:26 we
2:18:26 haven’t
2:18:26 even
2:18:27 talked
2:18:27 about
2:18:27 at
2:18:27 all
2:18:27 today
2:18:28 which
2:18:28 I
2:18:28 think
2:18:28 your
2:18:29 listeners
2:18:29 should
2:18:29 be
2:18:29 aware
2:18:30 of
2:18:30 we
2:18:31 talked
2:18:31 a lot
2:18:31 about
2:18:32 nuclear
2:18:33 weapons
2:18:33 development
2:18:34 warhead
2:18:34 development
2:18:35 what
2:18:35 the
2:18:35 Israelis
2:18:35 did
2:18:36 was
2:18:36 they
2:18:36 took
2:18:36 out
2:18:37 the
2:18:37 top
2:18:37 15
2:18:38 nuclear
2:18:39 weapons
2:18:39 scientists
2:18:40 who
2:18:40 have
2:18:41 been
2:18:41 part
2:18:41 of
2:18:41 remember
2:18:41 I
2:18:42 talked
2:18:42 about
2:18:42 that
2:18:42 original
2:18:43 Ahmaud
2:18:43 program
2:18:44 and the
2:18:45 development
2:18:45 of those
2:18:45 five
2:18:46 atomic
2:18:46 weapons
2:18:47 well
2:18:47 some
2:18:47 of
2:18:48 them
2:18:48 who
2:18:48 are
2:18:48 old
2:18:49 enough
2:18:49 come
2:18:49 from
2:18:49 the
2:18:50 Ahmaud
2:18:50 program
2:18:51 which
2:18:51 is
2:18:51 the
2:18:51 early
2:18:52 2000s
2:18:53 some
2:18:53 of
2:18:53 them
2:18:53 are
2:18:53 new
2:18:53 but
2:18:54 they’ve
2:18:54 been
2:18:54 or
2:18:54 not
2:18:54 new
2:18:54 but
2:18:55 younger
2:18:55 and
2:18:55 they’ve
2:18:55 been
2:18:56 trained
2:18:56 by
2:18:57 the
2:18:57 veterans
2:18:58 the
2:18:58 15
2:18:58 top
2:18:59 guys
2:18:59 taken
2:19:00 out
2:19:00 that
2:19:00 is
2:19:01 akin
2:19:01 to
2:19:02 it’s
2:19:03 January
2:19:03 or
2:19:03 February
2:19:04 45
2:19:05 and
2:19:05 the
2:19:05 entire
2:19:07 central
2:19:07 team
2:19:07 of
2:19:08 Oppenheimer
2:19:08 gets
2:19:09 eliminated
2:19:10 three
2:19:10 to
2:19:10 four
2:19:10 months
2:19:11 between
2:19:11 the
2:19:11 Trinity
2:19:12 test
2:19:12 before
2:19:12 the
2:19:12 Trinity
2:19:13 test
2:19:13 where
2:19:13 we
2:19:14 explode
2:19:14 our
2:19:14 first
2:19:15 nuclear
2:19:15 weapon
2:19:15 so
2:19:16 I
2:19:16 would
2:19:16 say
2:19:17 significant
2:19:17 damage
2:19:18 to
2:19:18 Iran’s
2:19:18 nuclear
2:19:19 weapons
2:19:19 program
2:19:20 suggests
2:19:20 that
2:19:20 we
2:19:21 potentially
2:19:21 have
2:19:22 rolled
2:19:22 them
2:19:22 back
2:19:23 for
2:19:23 years
2:19:24 I
2:19:24 don’t
2:19:24 know
2:19:24 how
2:19:24 many
2:19:25 years
2:19:25 and
2:19:25 all
2:19:25 those
2:19:26 technical
2:19:26 assessments
2:19:26 are
2:19:27 still
2:19:27 to
2:19:27 come
2:19:28 but
2:19:28 significant
2:19:29 damage
2:19:29 so
2:19:29 the
2:19:30 question
2:19:30 as I
2:19:30 said
2:19:31 is
2:19:32 have
2:19:32 they
2:19:32 retained
2:19:32 enough
2:19:33 capabilities
2:19:34 that
2:19:34 they’ve
2:19:34 squirreled
2:19:35 away
2:19:35 stored
2:19:35 in
2:19:36 covert
2:19:36 sites
2:19:37 put
2:19:37 under
2:19:37 deeply
2:19:38 buried
2:19:38 tunnels
2:19:39 to
2:19:39 break
2:19:39 out
2:19:39 to
2:19:40 nuclear
2:19:40 weapons
2:19:41 that’s
2:19:41 Scott’s
2:19:41 concern
2:19:42 it’s
2:19:42 my
2:19:42 concern
2:19:43 Lex
2:19:43 I’m
2:19:43 sure
2:19:43 it’s
2:19:43 your
2:19:44 concern
2:19:44 that
2:19:44 they
2:19:44 could
2:19:45 do
2:19:45 that
2:19:45 or
2:19:46 have
2:19:46 they
2:19:47 set
2:19:47 back
2:19:47 the
2:19:47 program
2:19:48 so
2:19:48 significantly
2:19:49 that
2:19:49 Khamenei
2:19:50 then has
2:19:50 to
2:19:51 decide
2:19:51 will
2:19:52 I
2:19:52 be
2:19:52 inviting
2:19:53 another
2:19:53 Israeli
2:19:53 and or
2:19:54 US
2:19:54 attack
2:19:55 if
2:19:55 I
2:19:55 try
2:19:55 to
2:19:56 break
2:19:56 out
2:19:56 and
2:19:56 if
2:19:56 I
2:19:57 do
2:19:57 do
2:19:58 I
2:19:58 risk
2:19:58 my
2:19:58 regime
2:19:59 who
2:19:59 thinks
2:19:59 that
2:19:59 if
2:20:00 they
2:20:00 break
2:20:00 out
2:20:00 and
2:20:00 try
2:20:00 to
2:20:01 start
2:20:01 making
2:20:01 nukes
2:20:02 now
2:20:02 that
2:20:03 any
2:20:03 hawk
2:20:04 supporting
2:20:04 this
2:20:04 war
2:20:04 will
2:20:04 take
2:20:05 responsibility
2:20:05 for
2:20:06 driving
2:20:06 them
2:20:06 to
2:20:06 it
2:20:07 so
2:20:07 the
2:20:08 suggestion
2:20:08 you’re
2:20:08 making
2:20:08 is
2:20:10 we’re
2:20:10 actually
2:20:10 driving
2:20:12 of course
2:20:12 to doing
2:20:12 the
2:20:12 opposite
2:20:13 we’re
2:20:13 actually
2:20:13 driving
2:20:14 them
2:20:14 to
2:20:14 develop
2:20:14 nuclear
2:20:15 weapons
2:20:15 that’s
2:20:23 program
2:20:23 well
2:20:24 let’s
2:20:24 not
2:20:24 take
2:20:24 him
2:20:25 at
2:20:25 his
2:20:25 word
2:20:25 again
2:20:26 I
2:20:26 never
2:20:27 said
2:20:28 in
2:20:28 this
2:20:28 conversation
2:20:29 trust
2:20:29 the
2:20:30 ayatollah
2:20:31 he did
2:20:31 yeah but
2:20:32 you said
2:20:32 that the
2:20:32 ayatollah
2:20:33 doesn’t want
2:20:33 a nuclear
2:20:33 weapons
2:20:34 program
2:20:34 Scott
2:20:34 you were
2:20:35 very
2:20:35 clear
2:20:35 about
2:20:35 that
2:20:36 what
2:20:36 I
2:20:36 said
2:20:36 what
2:20:37 I
2:20:37 never
2:20:37 wanted
2:20:38 a nuclear
2:20:38 weapons
2:20:38 program
2:20:39 are you
2:20:39 going
2:20:39 back
2:20:40 on
2:20:40 that
2:20:40 now
2:20:40 Jesus
2:20:40 Christ
2:20:41 what I
2:20:41 was
2:20:41 very
2:20:42 clear
2:20:42 about
2:20:42 from
2:20:42 my
2:20:43 very
2:20:43 first
2:20:43 statement
2:20:44 when
2:20:44 we
2:20:44 sat
2:20:45 down
2:20:45 was
2:20:45 that
2:20:45 the
2:20:46 ayatollah
2:20:46 was
2:20:46 building
2:20:47 himself
2:20:47 a
2:20:47 latent
2:20:48 nuclear
2:20:48 deterrent
2:20:49 putting
2:20:50 Iran
2:20:50 as
2:20:50 what
2:20:50 they
2:20:50 call
2:20:50 a
2:20:51 threshold
2:20:52 nuclear
2:20:52 weapons
2:20:52 state
2:20:53 just like
2:20:54 Brazil
2:20:54 and Germany
2:20:55 and Japan
2:20:56 so everyone
2:20:56 knows
2:20:57 they have
2:20:57 mastered
2:20:57 the fuel
2:20:58 cycle
2:20:58 they could
2:20:59 enrich
2:20:59 uranium
2:21:00 up to
2:21:00 90%
2:21:01 don’t
2:21:01 make
2:21:01 me
2:21:02 do
2:21:02 it
2:21:02 that
2:21:02 was
2:21:02 his
2:21:03 position
2:21:05 did
2:21:05 you ever
2:21:05 hear
2:21:06 me
2:21:06 say
2:21:08 anything
2:21:08 about
2:21:08 believing
2:21:09 the
2:21:09 ayatollah
2:21:10 saying
2:21:10 he only
2:21:10 wanted
2:21:11 an
2:21:11 electricity
2:21:12 program
2:21:12 this
2:21:12 is
2:21:13 why
2:21:14 enrichment
2:21:14 is
2:21:15 a
2:21:15 red
2:21:15 line
2:21:16 it’s
2:21:16 because
2:21:16 if
2:21:17 all
2:21:17 the
2:21:17 enrichment
2:21:17 is
2:21:18 done
2:21:18 overseas
2:21:19 somewhere
2:21:20 then it’s
2:21:20 not a
2:21:20 latent
2:21:21 nuclear
2:21:21 deterrent
2:21:22 at all
2:21:22 so it’s
2:21:22 a red
2:21:22 line
2:21:23 for you
2:21:23 as well
2:21:24 as for me
2:21:24 we agree
2:21:24 Scott
2:21:25 I’m saying
2:21:25 it’s a
2:21:25 red
2:21:26 line
2:21:26 for the
2:21:27 ayatollah
2:21:27 that he’s
2:21:27 clearly
2:21:28 not going
2:21:28 to give
2:21:29 in on
2:21:30 and it’s
2:21:30 a poison
2:21:31 pill
2:21:31 by the
2:21:32 Israelis
2:21:32 in the
2:21:33 west
2:21:33 they know
2:21:33 he’s
2:21:33 never
2:21:34 going
2:21:34 to
2:21:34 give
2:21:34 up
2:21:35 enrichment
2:21:36 100%
2:21:37 because
2:21:37 that’s
2:21:38 the whole
2:21:38 point
2:21:38 of it
2:21:39 so it’s
2:21:45 that’s
2:21:45 his
2:21:45 official
2:21:46 position
2:21:46 or if
2:21:46 it is
2:21:46 it’s
2:21:47 with a
2:21:47 strong
2:21:48 implication
2:21:48 as
2:21:49 everyone
2:21:49 understands
2:21:50 that
2:21:51 it’s
2:21:51 a
2:21:52 latent
2:21:52 nuclear
2:21:53 weapons
2:21:53 capability
2:21:54 and
2:21:54 a
2:21:55 potential
2:21:56 actual
2:21:57 nuclear
2:21:57 weapons
2:21:57 capability
2:21:58 will
2:21:59 have
2:21:59 to
2:21:59 include
2:21:59 enrichment
2:22:00 yes
2:22:01 that is
2:22:01 a
2:22:01 red
2:22:01 line
2:22:01 he
2:22:01 will
2:22:01 move
2:22:02 up
2:22:02 yes
2:22:02 and
2:22:02 then
2:22:03 the
2:22:03 thing
2:22:03 is
2:22:03 too
2:22:03 just like
2:22:04 I was
2:22:04 saying
2:22:04 before
2:22:05 if
2:22:05 Trump
2:22:06 had
2:22:06 come
2:22:06 in
2:22:06 in
2:22:07 2017
2:22:08 and
2:22:08 said
2:22:08 screw
2:22:09 this
2:22:09 I
2:22:09 hate
2:22:09 this
2:22:10 deal
2:22:10 and
2:22:10 then
2:22:10 got
2:22:10 on
2:22:11 a
2:22:11 plane
2:22:11 and
2:22:11 flown
2:22:12 straight
2:22:12 to
2:22:12 Tehran
2:22:13 and
2:22:13 said
2:22:14 or
2:22:14 you
2:22:14 know
2:22:14 sent
2:22:14 his
2:22:15 guys
2:22:15 and
2:22:16 said
2:22:16 now
2:22:16 listen
2:22:16 here
2:22:17 Ayatollah
2:22:17 I want
2:22:18 to fix
2:22:18 this
2:22:18 deal
2:22:19 up
2:22:28 again
2:22:28 I
2:22:28 criticized
2:22:29 the
2:22:29 CIA
2:22:29 and
2:22:29 FBI
2:22:29 for
2:22:30 framing
2:22:30 Trump
2:22:30 for
2:22:30 treason
2:22:31 for
2:22:31 preventing
2:22:31 him
2:22:32 for
2:22:32 being
2:22:32 able
2:22:32 to
2:22:33 work
2:22:33 with
2:22:33 the
2:22:33 Russians
2:22:33 to
2:22:34 see
2:22:34 if
2:22:34 maybe
2:22:34 they
2:22:34 could
2:22:34 put
2:22:35 pressure
2:22:35 on
2:22:35 the
2:22:35 Ayatollah
2:22:36 to
2:22:36 deal
2:22:36 with
2:22:36 him
2:22:37 but
2:22:37 I
2:22:58 if
2:22:59 necessary
2:23:00 to
2:23:00 weapons
2:23:01 great
2:23:01 if
2:23:01 a
2:23:02 crisis
2:23:02 breaks
2:23:02 out
2:23:02 and
2:23:03 he
2:23:03 feels
2:23:03 like
2:23:03 he
2:23:03 has
2:23:03 to
2:23:04 make
2:23:04 nukes
2:23:04 but
2:23:05 he
2:23:05 had
2:23:06 no
2:23:07 stockpile
2:23:07 to
2:23:08 enrich
2:23:08 this
2:23:08 whole
2:23:08 thing
2:23:08 about
2:23:09 99%
2:23:09 of
2:23:09 the
2:23:09 way
2:23:10 there
2:23:10 he
2:23:10 had
2:23:10 no
2:23:11 stockpile
2:23:12 so
2:23:12 even
2:23:12 if
2:23:12 you
2:23:13 count
2:23:14 gassing
2:23:14 up
2:23:14 your
2:23:15 truck
2:23:15 on
2:23:15 the
2:23:15 way
2:23:15 to
2:23:15 the
2:23:15 mine
2:23:16 as
2:23:16 part
2:23:16 of
2:23:16 this
2:23:17 long
2:23:17 time
2:23:17 scale
2:23:17 of
2:23:18 percentages
2:23:18 here
2:23:19 they
2:23:19 were
2:23:19 much
2:23:20 further
2:23:21 from
2:23:21 a
2:23:21 under
2:23:21 the
2:23:21 deal
2:23:22 which
2:23:22 he
2:23:22 agrees
2:23:22 we
2:23:23 shouldn’t
2:23:23 have
2:23:23 even
2:23:23 gotten
2:23:24 out
2:23:24 of
2:23:24 can
2:23:24 I
2:23:24 say
2:23:25 technically
2:23:25 just
2:23:25 I
2:23:25 think
2:23:25 again
2:23:26 important
2:23:26 for
2:23:26 your
2:23:27 listeners
2:23:27 to
2:23:27 understand
2:23:28 under
2:23:28 the
2:23:29 JCPOA
2:23:31 Iran
2:23:31 is
2:23:31 allowed
2:23:32 to
2:23:32 keep
2:23:32 a
2:23:33 stockpile
2:23:33 of
2:23:34 maximum
2:23:35 300
2:23:35 kilograms
2:23:35 as I
2:23:36 remember
2:23:37 3.67%
2:23:38 enriched
2:23:38 material
2:23:39 they’re
2:23:39 allowed
2:23:39 to
2:23:39 continue
2:23:40 to
2:23:40 enrich
2:23:41 as
2:23:41 long
2:23:41 as
2:23:42 if
2:23:42 they
2:23:42 go
2:23:42 over
2:23:43 the
2:23:43 300
2:23:43 kilogram
2:23:44 they
2:23:44 have
2:23:44 to
2:23:45 send
2:23:45 that
2:23:45 out
2:23:45 to
2:23:47 Russia
2:23:48 to
2:23:48 blend
2:23:48 down
2:23:49 and
2:23:49 so
2:23:49 they
2:23:50 kept
2:23:50 the
2:23:50 enrichment
2:23:51 capability
2:23:51 the
2:23:52 ability
2:23:52 to
2:23:52 enrich
2:23:53 they
2:23:53 did
2:23:54 keep
2:23:54 a
2:23:54 stockpile
2:23:55 Scott’s
2:23:56 right
2:23:56 they
2:23:56 weren’t
2:23:56 able
2:23:57 to
2:23:57 they’re
2:23:57 not
2:23:57 allowed
2:23:58 in
2:23:58 those
2:23:58 early
2:23:59 years
2:23:59 to
2:23:59 go
2:23:59 under
2:24:00 3.67%
2:24:01 they
2:24:01 would
2:24:01 be
2:24:03 allowed
2:24:03 to
2:24:03 go
2:24:03 to
2:24:04 20%
2:24:04 and
2:24:04 60%
2:24:04 and
2:24:05 90%
2:24:05 as
2:24:05 the
2:24:06 restrictions
2:24:07 sunsetted
2:24:07 but
2:24:07 they
2:24:08 were
2:24:08 able
2:24:08 to
2:24:08 keep
2:24:08 all
2:24:09 of
2:24:09 those
2:24:09 keep
2:24:10 capabilities
2:24:10 so
2:24:10 I
2:24:10 just
2:24:10 want
2:24:10 to
2:24:16 comment
2:24:16 on
2:24:16 the
2:24:17 so
2:24:17 called
2:24:18 Operation
2:24:18 Midnight
2:24:18 Hammer
2:24:20 now
2:24:20 that
2:24:20 we
2:24:20 can
2:24:21 look
2:24:21 back
2:24:21 at
2:24:21 it
2:24:22 what
2:24:22 parts
2:24:23 were
2:24:23 successful
2:24:24 or
2:24:25 what
2:24:25 parts
2:24:25 were
2:24:25 a
2:24:25 mistake
2:24:26 was
2:24:26 the
2:24:26 whole
2:24:27 operation
2:24:27 a
2:24:28 mistake
2:24:29 that
2:24:29 accelerates
2:24:30 the Iran
2:24:31 nuclear
2:24:31 program
2:24:31 or the
2:24:32 incentives
2:24:32 for it
2:24:33 or is
2:24:33 there
2:24:33 some
2:24:33 components
2:24:33 that
2:24:34 actually
2:24:34 is
2:24:34 a
2:24:35 disincentive
2:24:36 for Iran
2:24:37 to develop
2:24:37 the
2:24:37 program
2:24:37 and
2:24:38 then
2:24:38 maybe
2:24:38 you
2:24:38 can
2:24:38 comment
2:24:38 on
2:24:39 the
2:24:39 same
2:24:39 it
2:24:39 be
2:24:39 nice
2:24:40 to
2:24:40 get
2:24:40 comments
2:24:40 I
2:24:40 think
2:24:41 we
2:24:41 really
2:24:41 don’t
2:24:41 know
2:24:42 right
2:24:42 there’s
2:24:43 some
2:24:43 initial
2:24:43 battle
2:24:44 assessments
2:24:44 and
2:24:45 arguments
2:24:45 and
2:24:45 all
2:24:45 that
2:24:46 about
2:24:46 just
2:24:46 how
2:24:46 much
2:24:46 was
2:24:47 destroyed
2:24:47 and
2:24:47 what
2:24:48 and
2:24:48 we
2:24:48 don’t
2:24:48 know
2:24:48 exactly
2:24:49 what
2:24:49 their
2:24:49 reaction
2:24:49 is
2:24:50 going
2:24:50 to
2:24:50 be
2:24:52 the
2:24:53 you
2:24:53 know
2:24:53 there
2:24:53 were
2:24:54 reports
2:24:54 of
2:24:54 them
2:24:54 saying
2:24:54 hey
2:24:55 we’re
2:24:55 already
2:24:55 starting
2:24:56 up
2:24:56 a
2:24:56 new
2:24:57 facility
2:24:57 somewhere
2:24:58 else
2:24:58 there
2:24:59 were
2:24:59 reports
2:24:59 where
2:24:59 they
2:24:59 said
2:25:00 hey
2:25:00 a lot
2:25:00 of
2:25:00 our
2:25:01 centrifuge
2:25:01 just
2:25:01 survived
2:25:02 and
2:25:02 we’re
2:25:02 going
2:25:11 the
2:25:11 apocalyptic
2:25:11 threat
2:25:12 of
2:25:12 the
2:25:12 I told
2:25:12 which
2:25:12 mark
2:25:13 has
2:25:13 not
2:25:13 made
2:25:13 but
2:25:14 which
2:25:14 israel
2:25:15 hawks
2:25:15 often
2:25:15 do
2:25:16 that
2:25:16 these
2:25:16 guys
2:25:16 just
2:25:17 can’t
2:25:17 wait
2:25:17 to
2:25:17 get
2:25:17 into
2:25:17 a
2:25:18 war
2:25:18 in
2:25:18 all
2:25:18 this
2:25:19 in
2:25:19 fact
2:25:19 if you
2:25:20 look
2:25:20 at
2:25:20 well
2:25:20 they’re
2:25:20 in
2:25:21 a war
2:25:21 but
2:25:21 if
2:25:21 you
2:25:24 interrupt
2:25:24 me
2:25:24 every
2:25:25 time
2:25:25 I try
2:25:26 to say
2:25:26 you’re
2:25:27 mischaracterizing
2:25:27 what I’m
2:25:28 saying
2:25:28 I need
2:25:28 to
2:25:28 clarify
2:25:30 he’s
2:25:30 not
2:25:30 interrupting
2:25:30 every
2:25:30 time
2:25:31 but
2:25:31 sometimes
2:25:32 interrupting
2:25:32 yes
2:25:33 so
2:25:33 try
2:25:34 not
2:25:34 to
2:25:34 interrupt
2:25:34 as
2:25:34 much
2:25:35 go
2:25:36 ahead
2:25:36 Scott
2:25:36 don’t
2:25:37 take
2:25:37 it
2:25:37 personally
2:25:37 come
2:25:38 on
2:25:38 let’s
2:25:38 go
2:25:39 it
2:25:39 seems
2:25:39 like
2:25:39 a
2:25:40 deliberate
2:25:40 attempt
2:25:40 to
2:25:41 obfuscate
2:25:42 and
2:25:42 and prevent
2:25:43 me
2:25:43 from just
2:25:43 being able
2:25:44 to complete
2:25:45 a point
2:25:45 you know
2:25:45 he does
2:25:45 it
2:25:46 virtually
2:25:46 every
2:25:47 time
2:25:47 no
2:25:47 it’s
2:25:47 not
2:25:48 as a
2:25:48 listener
2:25:48 I’m
2:25:49 enjoying
2:25:49 this
2:25:50 well
2:25:50 look
2:25:50 on
2:25:51 the
2:25:51 face
2:25:51 of
2:25:51 it
2:25:52 they
2:25:52 blew
2:25:52 up
2:25:52 a lot
2:25:52 of
2:25:53 stuff
2:25:53 and
2:25:53 they
2:25:54 made
2:25:54 them
2:25:54 very
2:25:54 angry
2:25:55 so
2:25:55 are
2:25:55 they
2:25:55 going
2:25:55 to
2:25:56 now
2:25:56 give
2:25:56 in
2:25:57 or
2:25:57 they’re
2:25:57 now
2:25:57 going
2:25:57 to
2:25:57 double
2:25:58 down
2:25:58 or
2:25:58 they’re
2:25:59 now
2:25:59 going
2:25:59 to
2:25:59 hold
2:25:59 still
2:25:59 we
2:26:00 don’t
2:26:00 really
2:26:00 know
2:26:01 as I
2:26:01 was
2:26:01 trying
2:26:01 to
2:26:02 explain
2:26:04 from
2:26:04 the
2:26:05 Ayatollah’s
2:26:05 position
2:26:05 that
2:26:06 he’s
2:26:06 in
2:26:07 what
2:26:07 are
2:26:07 you
2:26:08 going
2:26:08 to
2:26:08 do
2:26:08 with
2:26:08 a
2:26:09 problem
2:26:09 like
2:26:09 the
2:26:09 United
2:26:10 States
2:26:10 of
2:26:10 America
2:26:11 right
2:26:11 they
2:26:11 can
2:26:12 chant
2:26:12 great
2:26:12 Satan
2:26:13 this
2:26:22 to
2:26:23 in
2:26:23 fact
2:26:23 even
2:26:24 without
2:26:24 nuclear
2:26:25 weapons
2:26:25 essentially
2:26:26 wipe
2:26:26 their
2:26:27 civilization
2:26:27 off
2:26:27 the
2:26:27 face
2:26:27 of
2:26:27 the
2:26:28 earth
2:26:28 just
2:26:28 with
2:26:29 B-52s
2:26:29 if we
2:26:29 wanted
2:26:29 to
2:26:30 carpet
2:26:30 bomb
2:26:30 their
2:26:30 major
2:26:31 cities
2:26:31 and
2:26:31 they
2:26:32 so
2:26:32 they
2:26:32 know
2:26:33 that
2:26:33 the
2:26:33 Ayatollah
2:26:34 knows
2:26:34 he’s
2:26:34 in a
2:26:35 very
2:26:35 difficult
2:26:35 position
2:26:36 and
2:26:36 look
2:26:36 at
2:26:36 what
2:26:36 he
2:26:37 did
2:26:37 when
2:26:37 they
2:26:38 assassinated
2:26:38 Soleimani
2:26:39 he
2:26:39 sent
2:26:40 essentially
2:26:40 a
2:26:40 symbolic
2:26:41 strike
2:26:41 at
2:26:41 an
2:26:41 empty
2:26:42 corner
2:26:42 of
2:26:42 an
2:26:42 American
2:26:43 base
2:26:43 in
2:26:43 Iraq
2:26:43 it
2:26:43 did
2:26:44 cause
2:26:44 some
2:26:44 concussions
2:26:45 and
2:26:45 head
2:26:45 trauma
2:26:45 but
2:26:46 he
2:26:47 deliberately
2:26:47 did
2:26:47 that
2:26:47 to
2:26:48 not
2:26:48 cause
2:26:48 casualties
2:26:49 and
2:26:49 then
2:26:49 Trump
2:26:49 let
2:26:49 him
2:26:50 have
2:26:50 the
2:26:50 last
2:26:50 word
2:26:51 and
2:26:51 then
2:26:52 also
2:26:52 when
2:26:52 they
2:26:52 shot
2:26:52 down
2:26:52 the
2:26:53 drone
2:26:53 which
2:26:53 I
2:26:53 think
2:26:54 Trump
2:26:54 was
2:26:54 suspicious
2:26:55 that
2:26:55 the
2:26:55 Pentagon
2:26:55 had
2:26:55 flown
2:26:56 that
2:26:56 into
2:26:56 Iranian
2:26:57 airspace
2:26:57 and
2:26:57 they
2:26:58 demanded
2:26:58 strikes
2:26:58 and
2:26:59 Trump
2:26:59 said
2:26:59 no
2:26:59 it’s
2:26:59 just
2:27:00 a
2:27:00 drone
2:27:00 how
2:27:00 many
2:27:01 Iranians
2:27:01 will
2:27:01 die
2:27:02 at
2:27:02 the
2:27:02 base
2:27:02 you
2:27:02 want
2:27:02 to
2:27:13 our
2:27:14 central
2:27:14 command
2:27:15 headquarters
2:27:15 the
2:27:16 al-udid
2:27:17 airbase
2:27:17 in
2:27:18 Qatar
2:27:18 and
2:27:19 also
2:27:19 an
2:27:19 American
2:27:20 base
2:27:21 I think
2:27:21 in
2:27:21 Baghdad
2:27:21 and
2:27:22 I’m
2:27:22 not
2:27:22 sure
2:27:22 about
2:27:23 in
2:27:23 Iraqi
2:27:24 Kurdistan
2:27:24 zero
2:27:25 casualties
2:27:25 so far
2:27:26 so
2:27:27 what
2:27:27 is
2:27:27 going
2:27:27 on
2:27:28 there
2:27:28 essentially
2:27:29 is
2:27:29 he’s
2:27:29 gotta
2:27:30 do
2:27:30 something
2:27:31 he’s
2:27:31 doing
2:27:31 like
2:27:31 these
2:27:32 symbolic
2:27:32 strikes
2:27:33 essentially
2:27:33 to
2:27:33 say
2:27:33 like
2:27:34 hey
2:27:34 you
2:27:34 can’t
2:27:34 do
2:27:35 that
2:27:35 to
2:27:35 me
2:27:35 but
2:27:35 then
2:27:36 he’s
2:27:36 also
2:27:37 telegraphing
2:27:37 that
2:27:38 hey
2:27:38 like
2:27:39 I can’t
2:27:39 do
2:27:39 anything
2:27:39 about
2:27:40 you
2:27:40 and
2:27:40 I
2:27:40 don’t
2:27:41 really
2:27:41 want
2:27:41 to
2:27:41 fight
2:27:42 and
2:27:42 so
2:27:43 in
2:27:43 a
2:27:43 way
2:27:43 he’s
2:27:43 like
2:27:43 kind
2:27:43 of
2:27:44 backing
2:27:44 down
2:27:44 he’s
2:27:44 doing
2:27:45 and
2:27:45 then
2:27:45 what
2:27:45 did
2:27:46 Donald
2:27:46 Trump
2:27:46 say
2:27:47 Donald
2:27:47 Trump
2:27:48 again
2:27:48 let
2:27:48 him
2:27:48 have
2:27:48 the
2:27:48 last
2:27:49 word
2:27:49 and
2:27:49 in
2:27:50 fact
2:27:50 like
2:27:51 bragged
2:27:51 and
2:27:51 mocked
2:27:51 and
2:27:51 said
2:27:52 hey
2:27:52 thanks
2:27:52 Ayatollah
2:27:53 for giving
2:27:53 us
2:27:53 a
2:27:54 warning
2:27:54 that
2:27:54 you
2:27:54 were
2:27:54 about
2:27:55 to
2:27:55 shoot
2:27:55 missiles
2:27:55 at
2:27:56 our
2:27:56 base
2:27:56 so
2:27:56 we
2:27:56 could
2:27:56 be
2:27:56 ready
2:27:57 to
2:27:57 shoot
2:27:57 them
2:27:57 all
2:27:57 down
2:27:58 and
2:27:58 this
2:27:58 kind
2:27:58 of
2:27:58 thing
2:27:58 and
2:27:59 he
2:27:59 said
2:27:59 now
2:27:59 is
2:27:59 the
2:28:00 time
2:28:00 for
2:28:00 peace
2:28:00 in
2:28:00 other
2:28:00 words
2:28:01 Trump
2:28:01 again
2:28:01 letting
2:28:02 the
2:28:02 Ayatollah
2:28:02 get
2:28:02 the
2:28:03 last
2:28:03 word
2:28:03 why
2:28:04 because
2:28:04 the
2:28:05 Ayatollah
2:28:06 he
2:28:06 might
2:28:06 be
2:28:07 a
2:28:07 horrible
2:28:07 leader
2:28:08 if
2:28:08 you
2:28:08 live
2:28:08 in
2:28:09 Iran
2:28:09 but
2:28:09 he
2:28:10 is
2:28:10 not
2:28:11 perfectly
2:28:11 but
2:28:12 essentially
2:28:13 cautious
2:28:13 in
2:28:13 foreign
2:28:14 policy
2:28:15 because
2:28:15 what’s
2:28:15 he
2:28:15 going
2:28:15 to
2:28:15 do
2:28:16 he’s
2:28:16 going
2:28:16 to
2:28:16 decimate
2:28:17 our
2:28:17 naval
2:28:17 base
2:28:17 at
2:28:18 Bahrain
2:28:18 he’s
2:28:18 going
2:28:18 to
2:28:19 slaughter
2:28:19 all
2:28:19 our
2:28:19 troops
2:28:20 in
2:28:20 Kuwait
2:28:21 and
2:28:21 then
2:28:21 what’s
2:28:21 Trump
2:28:21 going
2:28:21 to
2:28:22 do
2:28:22 and
2:28:23 so
2:28:23 the
2:28:23 Ayatollah
2:28:24 knows
2:28:24 so
2:28:25 it’s
2:28:25 the
2:28:25 same
2:28:26 people
2:28:26 who
2:28:27 I
2:28:28 don’t
2:28:28 include
2:28:28 him
2:28:28 in
2:28:28 this
2:28:28 but
2:28:29 you
2:28:29 hear
2:28:29 a lot
2:28:29 of
2:28:30 hawkish
2:28:30 talk
2:28:30 about
2:28:30 just
2:28:31 how
2:28:31 easy
2:28:31 this
2:28:31 has
2:28:32 been
2:28:32 these
2:28:33 same
2:28:33 people
2:28:33 talking
2:28:33 about
2:28:34 what
2:28:34 an
2:28:34 absolutely
2:28:36 irrational
2:28:38 religiously
2:28:39 motivatedly
2:28:40 and
2:28:40 motivated
2:28:40 and
2:28:41 therefore
2:28:42 crazy
2:28:42 and
2:28:43 irrational
2:28:44 group
2:28:44 of
2:28:44 people
2:28:44 the
2:28:44 mullahs
2:28:45 are
2:28:45 and
2:28:45 why
2:28:45 they
2:28:45 can
2:28:45 only
2:28:46 be
2:28:46 dealt
2:28:46 with
2:28:47 with
2:28:47 force
2:28:48 when
2:28:48 in
2:28:48 fact
2:28:49 what
2:28:49 they’re
2:28:49 showing
2:28:50 is
2:28:51 essential
2:28:52 conservatism
2:28:53 trying to
2:28:54 hold on to
2:28:54 what they
2:28:54 got
2:28:55 making a
2:28:55 latent
2:28:55 deterrent
2:28:56 because
2:28:56 they
2:28:56 know
2:28:56 if
2:28:56 they
2:28:56 break
2:28:57 out
2:28:57 toward
2:28:57 a
2:28:57 bomb
2:28:57 that’ll
2:28:58 get
2:28:58 them
2:28:58 bombed
2:28:58 so
2:28:59 they
2:28:59 were
2:28:59 hoping
2:28:59 having
2:28:59 a
2:29:00 latent
2:29:00 deterrent
2:29:00 would
2:29:00 be
2:29:01 enough
2:29:01 to
2:29:02 just
2:29:02 keep
2:29:02 them
2:29:02 at
2:29:02 the
2:29:03 status
2:29:03 quo
2:29:04 that’s
2:29:04 why
2:29:04 it’s
2:29:04 so
2:29:15 close
2:29:15 enough
2:29:15 for
2:29:16 us
2:29:16 so
2:29:16 it
2:29:17 doesn’t
2:29:17 matter
2:29:17 if
2:29:18 the
2:29:18 ayatollahs
2:29:18 decided
2:29:19 to
2:29:19 make
2:29:19 or
2:29:19 nuke
2:29:19 or
2:29:20 not
2:29:20 they’re
2:29:20 just
2:29:20 too
2:29:21 close
2:29:21 to
2:29:21 one
2:29:22 as
2:29:22 it
2:29:22 is
2:29:23 which
2:29:23 is
2:29:23 really
2:29:23 silly
2:29:24 because
2:29:24 they’re
2:29:24 not
2:29:24 much
2:29:25 closer
2:29:25 than
2:29:25 they’ve
2:29:26 been
2:29:26 for
2:29:26 20
2:29:27 years
2:29:27 since
2:29:27 the
2:29:27 W.
2:29:27 Bush
2:29:28 administration
2:29:29 they’ve
2:29:29 mastered
2:29:29 the
2:29:29 fuel
2:29:30 cycle
2:29:30 that
2:29:30 is
2:29:30 one
2:29:30 of
2:29:31 the
2:29:32 disagreements
2:29:32 in
2:29:32 the
2:29:32 room
2:29:33 that
2:29:33 you’re
2:29:33 saying
2:29:34 they
2:29:34 don’t
2:29:34 have
2:29:35 they
2:29:35 really
2:29:35 don’t
2:29:35 have
2:29:36 interest
2:29:36 to
2:29:37 develop
2:29:37 a
2:29:37 nuclear
2:29:38 weapon
2:29:39 and
2:29:39 they’re
2:29:39 not
2:29:40 quite
2:29:40 not
2:29:40 exactly
2:29:41 I mean
2:29:41 I
2:29:41 more
2:29:42 towards
2:29:42 that
2:29:43 direction
2:29:43 than
2:29:44 Mark
2:29:44 is
2:29:44 saying
2:29:45 they’re
2:29:46 saying
2:29:46 look at
2:29:46 us
2:29:46 we’re
2:29:46 a
2:29:47 threshold
2:29:47 state
2:29:48 don’t
2:29:48 push
2:29:48 your
2:29:49 luck
2:29:49 and
2:29:50 force
2:29:51 us
2:29:51 to
2:29:51 make
2:29:51 the
2:29:51 bad
2:29:52 decision
2:29:52 they
2:29:52 now
2:29:53 that’s
2:29:53 an
2:29:53 implication
2:29:53 they
2:29:53 have
2:29:54 not
2:29:54 said
2:29:54 that
2:29:54 outright
2:29:55 but
2:29:55 clearly
2:29:55 the
2:29:56 implication
2:29:56 is
2:29:57 that
2:29:57 if
2:29:57 we
2:29:57 force
2:29:58 them
2:29:58 then
2:29:58 they
2:29:58 will
2:29:59 go
2:29:59 ahead
2:29:59 and
2:30:00 make
2:30:00 a
2:30:00 nuclear
2:30:00 weapon
2:30:01 what
2:30:01 I
2:30:01 mean
2:30:01 is
2:30:01 if
2:30:02 left
2:30:02 on
2:30:02 their
2:30:02 own
2:30:03 devices
2:30:04 they
2:30:04 would
2:30:04 not
2:30:05 develop
2:30:05 that’s
2:30:05 the
2:30:06 case
2:30:06 you’re
2:30:06 making
2:30:06 not
2:30:07 just
2:30:07 on
2:30:07 their
2:30:07 own
2:30:08 devices
2:30:08 but
2:30:08 if
2:30:08 we
2:30:08 were
2:30:08 to
2:30:09 try
2:30:09 to
2:30:09 negotiate
2:30:09 with
2:30:10 them
2:30:10 in
2:30:10 good
2:30:10 faith
2:30:10 and
2:30:11 try
2:30:11 to
2:30:11 have
2:30:11 normal
2:30:12 relations
2:30:12 with
2:30:12 them
2:30:13 that
2:30:13 would
2:30:15 disincentivize
2:30:15 a
2:30:15 nuclear
2:30:15 weapon
2:30:16 even
2:30:16 further
2:30:17 can
2:30:17 you
2:30:17 comment
2:30:18 on
2:30:18 the
2:30:18 mission
2:30:19 operation
2:30:19 sure
2:30:20 couple
2:30:21 things
2:30:21 I
2:30:21 things
2:30:21 were
2:30:21 interesting
2:30:21 what
2:30:22 Scott
2:30:22 said
2:30:22 and
2:30:23 I
2:30:23 agree
2:30:23 with
2:30:23 certainly
2:30:24 with
2:30:24 some
2:30:24 of
2:30:24 it
2:30:25 I
2:30:25 mean
2:30:25 the
2:30:26 first
2:30:26 thing
2:30:26 is
2:30:26 I
2:30:26 do
2:30:27 believe
2:30:27 President
2:30:27 Trump
2:30:27 has
2:30:28 negotiated
2:30:28 in
2:30:28 good
2:30:28 faith
2:30:28 I
2:30:29 mean
2:30:29 he
2:30:29 sent
2:30:29 Steve
2:30:30 Whitcoff
2:30:30 he’s
2:30:30 chief
2:30:31 negotiator
2:30:31 for
2:30:31 five
2:30:32 rounds
2:30:32 of
2:30:32 negotiations
2:30:33 since
2:30:33 he
2:30:33 came
2:30:33 in
2:30:33 office
2:30:34 the
2:30:35 second
2:30:35 is
2:30:35 I
2:30:35 mean
2:30:35 we
2:30:35 can
2:30:35 keep
2:30:36 going
2:30:36 around
2:30:36 in
2:30:36 circles
2:30:37 but
2:30:37 the
2:30:38 fact
2:30:38 of
2:30:38 the
2:30:38 matter
2:30:38 is
2:30:38 I
2:30:38 believe
2:30:39 that
2:30:51 on
2:30:51 the
2:30:51 record
2:30:52 but
2:30:52 where
2:30:52 I
2:30:52 agree
2:30:53 with
2:30:53 Scott
2:30:53 is
2:30:54 and
2:30:54 it’s
2:30:55 interesting
2:30:55 and
2:30:55 I
2:30:55 don’t
2:30:55 know
2:30:55 if
2:30:56 Khamenei
2:30:56 has
2:30:57 changed
2:30:57 in
2:30:58 his
2:30:58 you
2:30:58 know
2:30:58 he’s
2:30:58 86
2:30:58 years
2:30:59 old
2:30:59 he’s
2:30:59 been
2:30:59 in
2:30:59 power
2:31:00 since
2:31:00 1989
2:31:01 and
2:31:01 there’s
2:31:01 a
2:31:01 little
2:31:01 bit
2:31:01 of
2:31:02 history
2:31:02 that
2:31:02 I
2:31:02 think
2:31:02 is
2:31:03 really
2:31:03 interesting
2:31:03 Lex
2:31:04 it
2:31:05 was
2:31:05 the
2:31:05 it
2:31:05 was
2:31:06 1988
2:31:07 and
2:31:08 Iran
2:31:09 and
2:31:09 fought
2:31:09 this
2:31:10 brutal
2:31:10 eight
2:31:10 year
2:31:10 war
2:31:10 a
2:31:11 million
2:31:11 people
2:31:11 dead
2:31:12 and
2:31:14 the
2:31:14 United
2:31:15 States
2:31:16 accidentally
2:31:16 shot
2:31:16 down
2:31:17 a
2:31:17 Iranian
2:31:18 passenger
2:31:18 airline
2:31:19 United
2:31:19 States
2:31:19 offered
2:31:20 to pay
2:31:21 compensation
2:31:21 and
2:31:22 apologized
2:31:23 and
2:31:23 the
2:31:23 Iranians
2:31:23 didn’t
2:31:23 believe
2:31:23 it
2:31:24 they
2:31:24 didn’t
2:31:24 believe
2:31:24 we
2:31:24 could
2:31:25 accidentally
2:31:25 do
2:31:25 that
2:31:26 they
2:31:26 thought
2:31:26 we
2:31:26 were
2:31:26 going
2:31:26 to
2:31:26 be
2:31:27 intervening
2:31:28 militarily
2:31:28 on
2:31:28 behalf
2:31:29 of
2:31:29 Saddam
2:31:30 so
2:31:30 Khamenei
2:31:31 who’s
2:31:31 not
2:31:31 the
2:31:31 supreme
2:31:32 leader
2:31:32 at
2:31:32 the
2:31:32 time
2:31:33 he
2:31:33 was
2:31:33 the
2:31:33 Iranian
2:31:34 president
2:31:35 he
2:31:35 and
2:31:35 Raf
2:31:35 Sanjani
2:31:36 they
2:31:36 go
2:31:36 to
2:31:37 Khomeini
2:31:37 and
2:31:38 they
2:31:38 say
2:31:38 Mr.
2:31:39 Ayatollah
2:31:40 we
2:31:40 gotta
2:31:40 sue
2:31:40 for
2:31:40 peace
2:31:41 with
2:31:41 the
2:31:41 Iraqis
2:31:42 because
2:31:42 the
2:31:42 Americans
2:31:42 are
2:31:43 intervening
2:31:43 and
2:31:43 we
2:31:44 cannot
2:31:45 fight
2:31:45 the
2:31:45 Americans
2:31:46 we
2:31:46 fought
2:31:46 this
2:31:46 brutal
2:31:47 war
2:31:47 we’ll
2:31:48 continue
2:31:48 with
2:31:48 Saddam
2:31:49 we
2:31:49 cannot
2:31:49 fight
2:31:49 the
2:31:49 United
2:31:50 States
2:31:50 of
2:31:50 America
2:31:50 I
2:31:51 think
2:31:51 Scott’s
2:31:51 right
2:31:52 like
2:31:52 that
2:31:53 perception
2:31:53 that
2:31:54 there’s
2:31:54 no way
2:31:54 they
2:31:54 can
2:31:54 fight
2:31:54 the
2:31:55 United
2:31:55 States
2:31:55 of
2:31:55 America
2:31:55 because
2:31:56 that’s
2:31:56 regime
2:31:56 ending
2:31:57 potentially
2:31:57 even
2:31:57 if
2:31:57 we
2:31:58 don’t
2:31:58 intend
2:31:58 to
2:31:59 that
2:32:08 chalice
2:32:09 and
2:32:09 I
2:32:09 will
2:32:09 agree
2:32:09 to
2:32:09 a
2:32:10 ceasefire
2:32:10 on
2:32:11 pretty
2:32:11 tough
2:32:12 terms
2:32:12 for
2:32:12 Iran
2:32:13 it’s
2:32:13 interesting
2:32:14 now
2:32:15 36
2:32:16 years
2:32:16 later
2:32:16 or
2:32:17 37
2:32:17 years
2:32:17 later
2:32:19 Khamenei
2:32:19 is now
2:32:19 going to
2:32:20 decide
2:32:20 to
2:32:20 drink
2:32:21 the
2:32:21 poison
2:32:21 chalice
2:32:22 does
2:32:22 he
2:32:23 agree
2:32:23 to
2:32:23 a
2:32:24 negotiated
2:32:25 deal
2:32:25 with
2:32:25 the
2:32:25 United
2:32:26 States
2:32:26 does
2:32:26 he
2:32:26 agree
2:32:26 to
2:32:27 deal
2:32:27 that
2:32:28 President
2:32:28 Trump
2:32:28 and
2:32:28 I
2:32:28 mean
2:32:29 Scott
2:32:29 criticizes
2:32:29 me
2:32:29 for
2:32:30 it
2:32:30 but
2:32:31 that’s
2:32:31 President
2:32:31 Trump’s
2:32:31 position
2:32:32 is
2:32:32 no
2:32:32 enrichment
2:32:33 full
2:32:33 dismantlement
2:32:34 by
2:32:34 the
2:32:34 way
2:32:34 that’s
2:32:34 backed
2:32:35 up
2:32:35 by
2:32:35 52
2:32:36 of
2:32:36 53
2:32:36 Republican
2:32:37 senators
2:32:37 and
2:32:38 177
2:32:39 House
2:32:39 GOP
2:32:39 members
2:32:40 and
2:32:40 backed
2:32:40 by
2:32:41 everybody
2:32:41 in
2:32:41 his
2:32:42 administration
2:32:43 including
2:32:43 JD
2:32:44 Vance
2:32:44 who’s
2:32:44 been
2:32:44 emphatic
2:32:45 about
2:32:45 that
2:32:46 does
2:32:46 he
2:32:46 agree
2:32:46 to
2:32:47 that
2:32:47 deal
2:32:47 or
2:32:48 does
2:32:48 he
2:32:48 decide
2:32:49 I’m
2:32:49 not
2:32:49 going
2:32:49 to
2:32:49 drink
2:32:49 the
2:32:50 poison
2:32:50 chalice
2:32:50 and
2:32:51 I
2:32:51 am
2:32:51 going
2:32:51 to
2:32:52 take
2:32:53 other
2:32:54 options
2:32:54 now
2:32:54 I
2:32:54 agree
2:32:54 with
2:32:55 Scott
2:32:55 like
2:32:56 going
2:32:56 after
2:32:56 US
2:32:57 military
2:32:57 basis
2:32:57 except
2:32:58 in a
2:32:58 symbolic
2:32:58 way
2:32:59 suicidal
2:33:00 closing
2:33:00 the
2:33:00 straits
2:33:00 of
2:33:01 her
2:33:01 moves
2:33:02 40%
2:33:02 of
2:33:02 Chinese
2:33:03 oil
2:33:03 goes
2:33:03 through
2:33:03 there
2:33:04 the
2:33:04 Chinese
2:33:04 have
2:33:04 been
2:33:04 saying
2:33:05 Iran
2:33:05 don’t
2:33:05 you
2:33:06 dare
2:33:06 by
2:33:06 the
2:33:06 way
2:33:07 100%
2:33:07 of
2:33:07 Iranian
2:33:07 oil
2:33:08 goes
2:33:08 from
2:33:08 Iran
2:33:09 and
2:33:09 Karg
2:33:10 Island
2:33:10 through
2:33:10 the
2:33:11 straits
2:33:11 of
2:33:11 her
2:33:11 moves
2:33:11 so
2:33:12 economically
2:33:12 suicidal
2:33:13 for
2:33:13 the
2:33:13 Iranians
2:33:14 to
2:33:14 do
2:33:14 that
2:33:15 terror
2:33:16 attacks
2:33:17 absolutely
2:33:17 I mean
2:33:17 that
2:33:17 has
2:33:17 been
2:33:18 their
2:33:18 modus
2:33:18 operandi
2:33:19 for
2:33:19 years
2:33:19 so
2:33:20 I
2:33:20 would
2:33:20 be
2:33:20 concerned
2:33:21 about
2:33:22 terrorist
2:33:23 attacks
2:33:24 against
2:33:24 US
2:33:24 targets
2:33:25 against
2:33:26 civilians
2:33:28 potentially
2:33:28 sleeper
2:33:29 cells
2:33:29 in the
2:33:29 United
2:33:29 States
2:33:30 so
2:33:30 he’s
2:33:31 used
2:33:31 terror
2:33:32 cells
2:33:32 around
2:33:32 the
2:33:32 world
2:33:33 he’s
2:33:33 engaged
2:33:34 in a
2:33:34 decades
2:33:35 long
2:33:35 assassination
2:33:36 campaign
2:33:36 including
2:33:37 on
2:33:37 American
2:33:37 soil
2:33:37 by the
2:33:38 way
2:33:38 sometimes
2:33:39 successfully
2:33:39 sometimes
2:33:40 not
2:33:41 including
2:33:41 most
2:33:41 recently
2:33:41 where
2:33:42 he
2:33:42 went
2:33:42 after
2:33:43 an
2:33:43 Iranian
2:33:43 American
2:33:44 three
2:33:45 times
2:33:45 to
2:33:45 try
2:33:45 to
2:33:46 assassinate
2:33:46 her
2:33:47 in
2:33:47 New
2:33:47 York
2:33:48 a
2:33:48 woman
2:33:48 named
2:33:48 Masi
2:33:49 Alinejad
2:33:49 and
2:33:50 so
2:33:51 he’s
2:33:51 got to
2:33:51 be
2:33:52 calculating
2:33:52 like
2:33:53 what
2:33:53 is
2:33:53 my
2:33:53 play
2:33:54 so
2:33:54 if
2:33:54 I
2:33:54 don’t
2:33:54 do
2:33:55 a
2:33:55 deal
2:33:56 how
2:33:56 can
2:33:56 I
2:33:57 actually
2:33:58 squeeze
2:33:58 the
2:33:58 Americans
2:33:59 and
2:33:59 Scott’s
2:34:00 right
2:34:00 like
2:34:00 he
2:34:00 must
2:34:01 be
2:34:01 thinking
2:34:01 to
2:34:01 himself
2:34:02 you
2:34:03 know
2:34:03 what
2:34:04 I
2:34:04 was
2:34:04 literally
2:34:04 on
2:34:04 the
2:34:05 99
2:34:05 yard
2:34:05 line
2:34:06 with
2:34:07 entire
2:34:07 nuclear
2:34:07 weapons
2:34:08 capability
2:34:09 I
2:34:09 should
2:34:09 have
2:34:09 crossed
2:34:09 goal
2:34:10 line
2:34:10 if
2:34:10 I
2:34:10 had
2:34:10 a
2:34:11 warhead
2:34:11 a
2:34:11 nuclear
2:34:12 warhead
2:34:12 or
2:34:13 multiple
2:34:13 nuclear
2:34:13 warheads
2:34:14 as
2:34:14 they
2:34:14 had
2:34:14 been
2:34:15 trying
2:34:15 to
2:34:15 build
2:34:16 since
2:34:17 the
2:34:17 Ahmad
2:34:17 plan
2:34:18 in
2:34:18 early
2:34:19 2000s
2:34:20 there’s
2:34:20 no way
2:34:21 Israel
2:34:21 and the
2:34:21 United
2:34:22 States
2:34:22 would
2:34:22 have
2:34:22 hit me
2:34:23 militarily
2:34:23 if I
2:34:23 had
2:34:23 nuclear
2:34:24 weapons
2:34:24 and I
2:34:24 would
2:34:24 have
2:34:24 had
2:34:25 the
2:34:25 ultimate
2:34:25 deterrence
2:34:26 to
2:34:26 prevent
2:34:27 that
2:34:27 and
2:34:27 then
2:34:27 I
2:34:27 would
2:34:28 be
2:34:28 like
2:34:28 Kim
2:34:28 Jong
2:34:29 with
2:34:29 nuclear
2:34:30 weapons
2:34:30 I
2:34:31 would
2:34:31 then
2:34:31 build
2:34:32 ICBMs
2:34:32 have
2:34:33 the
2:34:33 ultimate
2:34:34 deterrent
2:34:34 to
2:34:34 stop
2:34:35 that
2:34:35 so
2:34:35 he’s
2:34:35 got
2:34:35 to
2:34:35 be
2:34:36 thinking
2:34:36 maybe
2:34:37 now
2:34:37 and
2:34:37 I
2:34:38 can
2:34:38 guarantee
2:34:38 you
2:34:39 the
2:34:39 revolutionary
2:34:40 guards
2:34:40 do you
2:34:40 think
2:34:40 that
2:34:41 might
2:34:41 have
2:34:41 anything
2:34:42 to do
2:34:42 with
2:34:42 the
2:34:42 fact
2:34:43 that
2:34:43 America
2:34:44 attacked
2:34:44 Iraq
2:34:44 and
2:34:45 Libya
2:34:45 when
2:34:46 they
2:34:46 did
2:34:46 not
2:34:46 have
2:34:47 weapons
2:34:47 of
2:34:47 mass
2:34:48 destruction
2:34:48 programs
2:34:49 can I
2:34:49 tell you
2:34:49 the
2:34:49 Libya
2:34:49 example
2:34:50 I
2:34:50 think
2:34:50 Scott
2:34:50 is
2:34:50 the
2:34:51 most
2:34:51 interesting
2:34:51 one
2:34:51 for
2:34:52 me
2:34:52 right
2:34:53 because
2:34:53 the
2:34:53 Libya
2:34:54 example
2:34:54 it was
2:34:54 big
2:34:54 mistake
2:34:55 by
2:34:55 the
2:34:55 way
2:34:55 Ukraine
2:34:55 is
2:34:56 another
2:34:56 good
2:34:56 example
2:34:56 of
2:34:56 this
2:34:57 we
2:34:57 went
2:34:57 to
2:34:57 the
2:34:57 Libyans
2:34:58 and
2:34:58 we
2:34:58 said
2:34:59 you
2:34:59 must
2:34:59 fully
2:35:00 dismantle
2:35:00 your
2:35:00 program
2:35:01 and
2:35:01 Gaddafi
2:35:02 said
2:35:03 reluctantly
2:35:03 under
2:35:03 huge
2:35:04 American
2:35:04 pressure
2:35:05 okay
2:35:05 I’ll
2:35:05 do
2:35:05 it
2:35:06 and
2:35:06 the
2:35:08 Americans
2:35:08 went
2:35:08 in
2:35:08 there
2:35:09 and
2:35:09 literally
2:35:10 hauled
2:35:10 out
2:35:10 his
2:35:10 entire
2:35:11 nuclear
2:35:11 it
2:35:11 wasn’t
2:35:11 really
2:35:12 a
2:35:12 program
2:35:12 it
2:35:12 was
2:35:12 just
2:35:12 a
2:35:13 bunch
2:35:13 of
2:35:13 AQ
2:35:14 cons
2:35:14 junk
2:35:14 sitting
2:35:14 in
2:35:15 crates
2:35:15 in
2:35:16 warehouse
2:35:16 they
2:35:16 did
2:35:16 not
2:35:17 have
2:35:17 the
2:35:17 capability
2:35:18 to
2:35:18 make
2:35:18 a
2:35:19 nuclear
2:35:19 program
2:35:19 at
2:35:19 all
2:35:20 in
2:35:20 Libya
2:35:20 they
2:35:20 didn’t
2:35:20 have
2:35:20 the
2:35:22 engineers
2:35:22 the
2:35:22 scientists
2:35:23 or
2:35:23 anyone
2:35:24 so
2:35:24 Gaddafi
2:35:24 had
2:35:25 bought
2:35:25 that
2:35:25 junk
2:35:25 just
2:35:26 to
2:35:26 trade
2:35:26 it
2:35:26 away
2:35:26 just
2:35:26 to
2:35:27 be
2:35:27 clear
2:35:27 there
2:35:27 never
2:35:28 was
2:35:28 a
2:35:29 nuclear
2:35:29 weapons
2:35:30 program
2:35:31 of
2:35:31 any
2:35:31 kind
2:35:32 in
2:35:32 Libya
2:35:32 but
2:35:33 that
2:35:33 wasn’t
2:35:33 my
2:35:34 point
2:35:34 okay
2:35:34 my
2:35:34 point
2:35:35 is
2:35:35 he
2:35:35 had
2:35:35 a
2:35:35 nuclear
2:35:36 program
2:35:36 and
2:35:37 we
2:35:37 can
2:35:37 debate
2:35:38 again
2:35:39 how
2:35:46 but
2:35:46 that’s
2:35:46 not
2:35:46 the
2:35:46 point
2:35:47 the
2:35:47 point
2:35:47 is
2:35:47 we
2:35:47 did
2:35:48 a
2:35:48 deal
2:35:48 with
2:35:48 Gaddafi
2:35:49 we
2:35:49 pulled
2:35:50 out
2:35:50 his
2:35:50 nuclear
2:35:51 program
2:35:52 and
2:35:52 then
2:35:53 I
2:35:53 don’t
2:35:53 know
2:35:53 how
2:35:53 many
2:35:53 years
2:35:54 later
2:35:54 but
2:35:54 it
2:35:54 wasn’t
2:35:54 too
2:35:54 many
2:35:55 years
2:35:55 later
2:35:55 seven
2:35:56 years
2:35:56 later
2:35:56 thank
2:35:56 you
2:35:57 Scott
2:35:57 we
2:35:57 actually
2:35:58 took
2:35:59 took
2:35:59 Gaddafi
2:36:00 out
2:36:01 and
2:36:01 he
2:36:01 didn’t
2:36:01 have
2:36:01 a
2:36:02 nuclear
2:36:02 program
2:36:03 so
2:36:03 we
2:36:03 took
2:36:03 him
2:36:03 out
2:36:04 in
2:36:04 the
2:36:04 Libya
2:36:05 operation
2:36:05 now
2:36:06 Ukraine
2:36:06 is
2:36:07 another
2:36:07 great
2:36:07 example
2:36:08 Ukrainians
2:36:08 after
2:36:08 the
2:36:08 fall
2:36:08 of
2:36:09 Soviet
2:36:09 Union
2:36:09 you
2:36:09 know
2:36:10 this
2:36:10 they
2:36:10 had
2:36:11 the
2:36:11 Soviet
2:36:11 nuclear
2:36:12 arsenal
2:36:12 or
2:36:12 good
2:36:13 parts
2:36:13 of
2:36:13 it
2:36:13 on
2:36:13 their
2:36:14 soil
2:36:14 so
2:36:14 we
2:36:15 went
2:36:15 to
2:36:15 them
2:36:15 and
2:36:15 we
2:36:15 said
2:36:16 here’s
2:36:16 a deal
2:36:16 for you
2:36:17 give up
2:36:17 the
2:36:18 nuclear
2:36:18 arsenal
2:36:19 off
2:36:19 your
2:36:20 territory
2:36:21 and
2:36:21 we
2:36:22 and
2:36:22 the
2:36:22 Russians
2:36:23 and the
2:36:23 French
2:36:24 guarantee
2:36:24 your
2:36:25 territorial
2:36:25 integrity
2:36:26 and
2:36:26 your
2:36:27 sovereignty
2:36:27 as
2:36:27 a
2:36:27 country
2:36:28 so
2:36:28 the
2:36:28 Ukrainians
2:36:28 said
2:36:29 fair
2:36:29 deal
2:36:29 to
2:36:30 me
2:36:30 gave
2:36:30 all
2:36:30 the
2:36:31 nuclear
2:36:38 promised
2:36:38 to
2:36:38 respect
2:36:38 it
2:36:38 and
2:36:39 the
2:36:39 Russians
2:36:39 promised
2:36:40 to
2:36:40 and
2:36:40 both
2:36:41 sides
2:36:41 broke
2:36:41 that
2:36:42 promise
2:36:42 but
2:36:42 there’s
2:36:43 nothing
2:36:43 like
2:36:43 a
2:36:44 guarantee
2:36:44 that
2:36:45 America
2:36:45 would
2:36:45 protect
2:36:46 Ukraine’s
2:36:47 sovereignty
2:36:47 and
2:36:48 they
2:36:49 had no
2:36:49 ability
2:36:50 to
2:36:50 use
2:36:50 those
2:36:50 nukes
2:36:51 anyway
2:36:51 because
2:36:52 they
2:36:52 were
2:36:52 Soviet
2:36:53 nukes
2:36:53 with
2:36:53 Soviet
2:36:54 codes
2:36:54 they
2:36:54 belonged
2:36:55 to
2:36:55 the
2:36:55 Soviet
2:36:55 military
2:36:56 and
2:36:56 the
2:36:56 Ukrainians
2:36:57 had
2:36:57 no
2:36:57 ability
2:36:57 to
2:36:58 use
2:36:58 them
2:36:58 or
2:36:58 deliver
2:36:58 them
2:36:59 they
2:36:59 were
2:36:59 married
2:36:59 to
2:37:00 missiles
2:37:00 that
2:37:00 were
2:37:00 made
2:37:03 my
2:37:03 point
2:37:04 is
2:37:06 if
2:37:06 you’re
2:37:07 Khamenei
2:37:07 and
2:37:07 you’ve
2:37:07 seen
2:37:08 those
2:37:08 two
2:37:08 examples
2:37:09 of
2:37:09 Libya
2:37:10 you
2:37:10 gave
2:37:10 up
2:37:11 your
2:37:11 nuclear
2:37:12 program
2:37:12 Gaddafi
2:37:12 gets
2:37:13 taken
2:37:13 down
2:37:14 you’re
2:37:14 Ukraine
2:37:15 you gave
2:37:15 up
2:37:15 your
2:37:15 nuclear
2:37:16 weapons
2:37:17 and
2:37:17 the
2:37:17 Russians
2:37:17 invaded
2:37:18 twice
2:37:18 if
2:37:18 you’re
2:37:19 Khamenei
2:37:19 thinking
2:37:19 to
2:37:20 yourself
2:37:20 the
2:37:20 only
2:37:21 thing
2:37:21 that
2:37:21 matters
2:37:21 more
2:37:21 to
2:37:21 me
2:37:22 than
2:37:22 my
2:37:22 nuclear
2:37:22 weapons
2:37:23 program
2:37:23 is
2:37:23 my
2:37:24 regime
2:37:24 survival
2:37:25 and
2:37:25 in
2:37:25 12
2:37:25 days
2:37:26 of
2:37:26 war
2:37:27 the
2:37:27 Israelis
2:37:28 specifically
2:37:28 because
2:37:32 we
2:37:32 the
2:37:32 United
2:37:33 States
2:37:34 hit
2:37:34 those
2:37:34 sites
2:37:35 we
2:37:35 the
2:37:36 United
2:37:36 States
2:37:37 hit
2:37:37 those
2:37:37 sites
2:37:37 the
2:37:38 gleeful
2:37:38 nature
2:37:39 Scott
2:37:39 like
2:37:40 stop
2:37:40 take
2:37:40 that
2:37:40 out
2:37:41 there’s
2:37:41 no
2:37:41 place
2:37:42 here
2:37:42 in
2:37:43 this
2:37:43 room
2:37:43 with
2:37:44 me
2:37:44 the
2:37:45 un-American
2:37:45 bullshit
2:37:47 don’t
2:37:47 do
2:37:47 that
2:37:48 the
2:37:48 implication
2:37:49 here
2:37:49 man
2:37:50 is
2:37:50 that
2:37:51 I
2:37:51 me
2:37:53 am
2:37:53 un-American
2:37:54 I’ve
2:37:54 been
2:37:54 attacked
2:37:54 just
2:37:54 like
2:37:54 the
2:37:55 Russian
2:37:55 hoax
2:37:56 for
2:37:56 being
2:37:56 a
2:37:56 Putin
2:37:57 shill
2:37:57 I’m
2:37:57 an
2:37:58 American
2:37:59 when you
2:37:59 talk
2:38:00 about
2:38:00 Ukraine’s
2:38:01 war
2:38:01 with
2:38:01 Russia
2:38:01 do
2:38:01 you
2:38:01 say
2:38:02 we
2:38:03 or
2:38:03 do
2:38:03 you
2:38:03 say
2:38:03 they
2:38:04 I
2:38:04 said
2:38:04 we
2:38:04 the
2:38:04 United
2:38:05 States
2:38:05 we
2:38:05 actually
2:38:06 added
2:38:06 the
2:38:06 United
2:38:06 States
2:38:07 but
2:38:07 you
2:38:07 would
2:38:07 just
2:38:07 describe
2:38:08 Israel
2:38:08 strikes
2:38:09 Israel
2:38:09 didn’t
2:38:09 strike
2:38:09 for
2:38:10 dough
2:38:10 Scott
2:38:10 you
2:38:10 talked
2:38:11 about
2:38:11 the
2:38:11 U.S.
2:38:12 attack
2:38:12 you
2:38:13 you’re
2:38:13 speaking
2:38:13 you’re speaking
2:38:14 to
2:38:14 other
2:38:15 people
2:38:15 that
2:38:15 you’ve
2:38:16 heard
2:38:16 that
2:38:17 somehow
2:38:18 they
2:38:18 do
2:38:18 say
2:38:19 we
2:38:20 and
2:38:20 they
2:38:20 talk
2:38:21 about
2:38:22 I
2:38:22 would
2:38:22 say
2:38:24 ridiculously
2:38:25 as if
2:38:26 I’ve
2:38:26 even heard
2:38:27 some people
2:38:27 basically put
2:38:28 Israel above
2:38:29 U.S.
2:38:30 and they’re
2:38:31 American citizens
2:38:32 yeah that’s
2:38:32 fucking
2:38:33 ridiculous
2:38:34 but none
2:38:34 of those
2:38:35 people are
2:38:35 in this
2:38:35 room
2:38:37 there are
2:38:37 demons
2:38:38 under the
2:38:38 bed
2:38:38 I’m
2:38:39 sure those
2:38:39 people exist
2:38:40 there’s
2:38:40 ridiculous
2:38:40 people
2:38:41 on the
2:38:41 internet
2:38:41 there’s
2:38:42 ridiculous
2:38:42 people
2:38:43 in
2:38:43 Congress
2:38:44 we can
2:38:44 criticize
2:38:45 them
2:38:45 make fun
2:38:45 of
2:38:46 them
2:38:46 say
2:38:46 they’re
2:38:47 fucking
2:38:47 foundation
2:38:47 for
2:38:48 defense
2:38:48 of
2:38:48 democracy
2:38:48 has been
2:38:49 the
2:38:49 vanguard
2:38:49 of the
2:38:50 war
2:38:50 party
2:38:50 in this
2:38:50 country
2:38:51 for 25
2:38:51 years
2:38:52 well that’s
2:38:52 a different
2:38:53 criticism
2:38:53 but I was
2:38:54 it’s an
2:38:54 important
2:38:55 one
2:38:55 yeah but
2:38:56 no you
2:38:56 just
2:38:56 switched
2:38:57 you just
2:38:57 switched
2:38:58 well
2:38:59 you
2:39:00 no no
2:39:01 no no
2:39:01 no no
2:39:02 there’s
2:39:02 no
2:39:03 you just
2:39:03 switched
2:39:04 from the
2:39:04 un-American
2:39:05 discussion
2:39:05 to
2:39:06 criticizing
2:39:06 policies
2:39:06 that
2:39:11 un-American
2:39:11 bullshit
2:39:12 Lex
2:39:12 the
2:39:13 neoconservative
2:39:14 movement is the
2:39:15 vanguard of the
2:39:16 Israel lobby
2:39:17 that’s who they are
2:39:17 that’s what
2:39:19 neoconservatism is about
2:39:20 that’s who the
2:39:20 war party is
2:39:21 I’m not a neoconservative
2:39:22 so I don’t know who he’s
2:39:22 talking about
2:39:23 but I’m not a neoconservative
2:39:24 let’s not mix stuff up
2:39:26 there is a massive
2:39:27 Israel lobby
2:39:27 in America
2:39:28 in Washington
2:39:29 that is
2:39:30 inseparable
2:39:31 from the
2:39:32 American war party
2:39:32 I’ve talked to
2:39:33 John Mearsham
2:39:34 I respect him
2:39:34 deeply
2:39:35 he’s one of the
2:39:35 most brilliant
2:39:37 people speaking
2:39:37 on that topic
2:39:38 great
2:39:39 great
2:39:39 let’s just talk
2:39:40 about today
2:39:41 and the
2:39:42 nuclear proliferation
2:39:43 you guys have been
2:39:44 brilliant on this
2:39:45 I’m learning a lot
2:39:45 let’s continue
2:39:47 let’s go back
2:39:47 to where
2:39:48 Khamenei may be
2:39:49 I mean
2:39:50 in a bunker
2:39:51 86 years old
2:39:52 thinking he’s going
2:39:52 to drink the
2:39:53 poison chalice
2:39:54 and agree to a
2:39:54 deal with
2:39:55 Donald Trump
2:39:55 in Oman
2:39:56 or is he going
2:39:56 to do all
2:39:57 of the things
2:39:58 that Scott
2:39:58 and I
2:39:58 are concerned
2:39:59 about
2:40:00 and one
2:40:00 of those
2:40:01 and Scott
2:40:01 has pointed
2:40:02 this out
2:40:02 rightly so
2:40:04 is he may
2:40:05 decide now
2:40:06 to break out
2:40:07 for the nuke
2:40:08 or creep out
2:40:09 for the nuke
2:40:09 he may decide
2:40:10 not to do it
2:40:10 now
2:40:11 he may decide
2:40:11 to do it
2:40:12 in three and a half
2:40:13 years when
2:40:13 President Trump
2:40:14 is gone
2:40:15 right
2:40:15 and I think
2:40:16 that the
2:40:17 important thing
2:40:18 is he’s seen
2:40:19 we
2:40:19 the United
2:40:20 States
2:40:21 we
2:40:22 took out
2:40:22 Fordow
2:40:23 and Natanz
2:40:24 and Isfahan
2:40:26 in one operation
2:40:27 with B-2 bombers
2:40:28 and
2:40:29 12
2:40:30 30,000 pound
2:40:31 massive orange
2:40:31 penetrators
2:40:33 and Tomahawk
2:40:33 missiles
2:40:34 so if he
2:40:34 doesn’t think
2:40:35 if he didn’t
2:40:36 think that
2:40:36 the United
2:40:37 States had
2:40:38 serious military
2:40:38 power before
2:40:39 he now
2:40:40 knows we
2:40:40 do
2:40:41 so to you
2:40:42 that operation
2:40:44 was geopolitically
2:40:44 a success
2:40:45 it sends a message
2:40:46 of strength
2:40:47 that if you try
2:40:47 to build
2:40:48 you’re going
2:40:48 to be punished
2:40:49 for it
2:40:49 so I’ve
2:40:50 I’ve said
2:40:50 I’ve said
2:40:50 online
2:40:51 in the past
2:40:52 12 days
2:40:52 and even
2:40:53 before that
2:40:54 curb your
2:40:54 enthusiasm
2:40:55 curb your
2:40:56 enthusiasm
2:40:56 to all the
2:40:56 people
2:40:57 related to
2:40:57 which topic
2:40:57 yeah
2:40:58 just just
2:40:59 this sort
2:40:59 of idea
2:40:59 that this
2:41:00 has been
2:41:00 like this
2:41:01 unbelievable
2:41:01 success
2:41:02 and everything’s
2:41:03 great and
2:41:03 everything’s going
2:41:04 to be amazing
2:41:04 and we’ve
2:41:05 stopped the
2:41:05 nuclear weapons
2:41:06 program
2:41:07 and this
2:41:07 has been
2:41:08 a resounding
2:41:08 success
2:41:09 I’ve just
2:41:09 said kind
2:41:09 of curb
2:41:09 your
2:41:10 enthusiasm
2:41:11 Khamenei
2:41:12 remains very
2:41:13 dangerous
2:41:13 the regime
2:41:14 remains very
2:41:15 dangerous
2:41:15 a wounded
2:41:16 animal
2:41:16 is the most
2:41:17 dangerous
2:41:18 animal
2:41:18 in the animal
2:41:19 kingdom
2:41:20 he retains
2:41:20 key capabilities
2:41:21 to build
2:41:21 weapons
2:41:22 you demanded
2:41:23 unconditional
2:41:23 surrender
2:41:24 on twitter
2:41:24 again last
2:41:25 night right
2:41:26 after trump
2:41:26 said there’s
2:41:27 a ceasefire
2:41:27 what does
2:41:28 unconditional
2:41:28 surrender
2:41:28 mean
2:41:29 no enrichment
2:41:30 full dismantlement
2:41:31 yes exactly
2:41:31 right it’s
2:41:32 exactly what
2:41:33 president trump
2:41:33 well
2:41:34 not regime
2:41:34 change
2:41:34 unconditional
2:41:35 surrender
2:41:35 in world
2:41:36 war ii
2:41:36 meant the
2:41:36 end of the
2:41:37 nazi regime
2:41:37 and the
2:41:38 imperialist
2:41:38 japanese
2:41:39 regime
2:41:39 entirely
2:41:40 right
2:41:40 but president
2:41:40 trump
2:41:42 made it very
2:41:42 clear
2:41:43 he made it
2:41:44 clear
2:41:45 i don’t
2:41:45 support
2:41:45 regime
2:41:46 change
2:41:46 well except
2:41:47 for that
2:41:47 one
2:41:49 a few
2:41:49 hours
2:41:49 earlier
2:41:50 right
2:41:50 i’ll
2:41:50 i’ll
2:41:51 i actually
2:41:51 i’ll
2:41:52 i mean
2:41:52 i’ll explain
2:41:53 that one
2:41:53 because i
2:41:53 thought it
2:41:54 was really
2:41:54 analyzing
2:41:55 like it’s
2:41:55 shakespeare
2:41:55 what is
2:41:55 that
2:41:56 yeah yeah
2:41:56 and what
2:41:57 what did
2:41:57 he also
2:41:57 mean
2:41:58 we have
2:41:58 two
2:41:58 countries
2:41:59 that have
2:41:59 been
2:41:59 fighting
2:42:00 so long
2:42:00 it’s
2:42:00 so hard
2:42:01 that they
2:42:01 don’t know
2:42:01 what the
2:42:02 fuck
2:42:02 they’re
2:42:02 doing
2:42:02 what’s
2:42:02 that
2:42:03 about
2:42:03 he was
2:42:03 angry
2:42:04 that israel
2:42:04 was still
2:42:05 attacking
2:42:05 after he
2:42:05 promised
2:42:06 they weren’t
2:42:07 he demanded
2:42:07 they turn
2:42:08 their planes
2:42:08 around
2:42:09 he felt
2:42:09 that they
2:42:09 were doing
2:42:10 it in
2:42:10 defiance
2:42:11 of their
2:42:11 agreement
2:42:12 but he
2:42:12 didn’t
2:42:12 but he didn’t
2:42:12 say israel
2:42:13 he’s just
2:42:13 the both
2:42:14 countries
2:42:14 different quote
2:42:15 different quote
2:42:16 he did say
2:42:16 i demand
2:42:17 i believe it
2:42:17 was a tweet
2:42:18 from true
2:42:18 social
2:42:19 i demand
2:42:19 that israel
2:42:20 turn those
2:42:21 planes around
2:42:21 right now
2:42:22 was how upset
2:42:23 he was about
2:42:23 i guess
2:42:24 donald trump
2:42:25 doesn’t listen
2:42:25 to bb
2:42:25 all the time
2:42:26 does he
2:42:26 yeah i guess
2:42:27 he’s fine
2:42:27 now they
2:42:28 respect him
2:42:28 about as much
2:42:28 as they
2:42:29 respect the
2:42:29 palestinian
2:42:30 well that’s
2:42:30 how he’s
2:42:31 just the
2:42:31 help
2:42:33 world leaders
2:42:33 are interested
2:42:33 in their
2:42:34 own nation
2:42:35 that’s right
2:42:35 fuck you
2:42:35 over
2:42:36 good
2:42:37 important lesson
2:42:37 there everyone
2:42:38 but i think
2:42:38 what does
2:42:39 israel care
2:42:39 about
2:42:40 israel
2:42:41 every country
2:42:41 every country
2:42:42 that defends
2:42:43 its national
2:42:43 interests
2:42:44 i mean that’s
2:42:44 not unusual
2:42:45 for israel
2:42:45 or any other
2:42:45 country
2:42:46 but i think
2:42:47 to understand
2:42:47 we’re supposed
2:42:48 to pretend
2:42:48 that hey
2:42:49 whatever israel
2:42:49 needs
2:42:50 we’re here
2:42:50 to serve
2:42:51 their interests
2:42:51 if those
2:42:52 people exist
2:42:53 they’re un-american
2:42:54 if people put
2:42:54 israel’s interest
2:42:55 we fight
2:42:55 terrorism
2:42:56 together
2:42:56 well we do
2:42:57 well we
2:42:59 generate terrorism
2:42:59 together
2:42:59 what are you
2:43:00 talking about
2:43:01 but that doesn’t
2:43:01 mean you put
2:43:02 israel’s interest
2:43:03 above america’s
2:43:04 if you do
2:43:05 you’re un-american
2:43:05 you know how many
2:43:06 american lives
2:43:07 israel intelligence
2:43:08 community
2:43:08 is saved
2:43:11 and ask
2:43:11 people in the
2:43:12 fbi and cia
2:43:12 who work
2:43:13 counterterrorism
2:43:13 how many
2:43:14 american lives
2:43:15 the israelis
2:43:15 have saved
2:43:16 because of
2:43:17 their intelligence
2:43:18 capabilities
2:43:19 how about
2:43:20 when naftali
2:43:20 bennett
2:43:21 well again
2:43:22 bombed that
2:43:22 shelter full
2:43:23 of women
2:43:23 and children
2:43:24 and caused
2:43:24 the september
2:43:25 11th attack
2:43:26 that’s what
2:43:27 happened
2:43:27 in fact
2:43:27 i don’t know
2:43:28 if you know
2:43:28 the story
2:43:28 but you could
2:43:29 google this
2:43:29 you like
2:43:29 google and
2:43:29 things
2:43:30 it’s on
2:43:30 google books
2:43:31 you can read
2:43:32 perfect soldiers
2:43:33 by terry
2:43:33 mcdermott
2:43:34 or you could
2:43:34 read the
2:43:35 looming tower
2:43:36 by lawrence
2:43:36 right
2:43:36 where both
2:43:37 of them
2:43:37 explain
2:43:38 how when
2:43:39 shimon perez
2:43:39 launched
2:43:40 operation
2:43:40 grapes
2:43:41 of wrath
2:43:41 that
2:43:41 ramzi
2:43:42 bin
2:43:42 al-shib
2:43:42 and
2:43:43 mohammed
2:43:43 atta
2:43:43 filled out
2:43:44 their last
2:43:44 will and
2:43:44 testament
2:43:45 which was
2:43:46 like symbolically
2:43:46 joining the
2:43:46 army
2:43:47 to fight
2:43:48 against the
2:43:48 infidels
2:43:49 etc etc
2:43:49 and when
2:43:49 and when
2:43:50 bin laden
2:43:50 put out
2:43:51 his first
2:43:51 declaration
2:43:52 of war
2:43:52 a couple
2:43:52 of months
2:43:53 later
2:43:53 it began
2:43:54 with a
2:43:54 whole rant
2:43:55 about the
2:43:56 106
2:43:56 women and
2:43:56 children
2:43:57 that
2:43:57 naftali
2:43:58 bennett
2:43:58 had killed
2:43:59 with an
2:43:59 artillery
2:44:00 strike
2:44:00 in a
2:44:01 un shelter
2:44:01 in
2:44:04 canna
2:44:05 in 1996
2:44:06 and he
2:44:06 said
2:44:07 we’ll never
2:44:07 forget the
2:44:08 severed arms
2:44:09 and heads
2:44:09 and legs
2:44:09 of the
2:44:10 little
2:44:10 babies
2:44:10 etc
2:44:11 and it
2:44:11 was then
2:44:12 that
2:44:12 mohammed
2:44:13 atta
2:44:13 and ramzi
2:44:14 bin al-shib
2:44:15 decided that
2:44:15 they would
2:44:16 join al-qaeda
2:44:17 and that
2:44:17 they these
2:44:18 egyptian
2:44:18 engineering
2:44:19 students
2:44:19 studying in
2:44:20 hamburg
2:44:20 germany
2:44:21 would volunteer
2:44:21 for the
2:44:22 saudi
2:44:22 sheik
2:44:23 to kill
2:44:23 3 000
2:44:24 americans
2:44:25 to get
2:44:25 revenge
2:44:26 for what
2:44:26 israel
2:44:27 was doing
2:44:27 to helpless
2:44:28 women and
2:44:28 children
2:44:30 in lebanon
2:44:30 as well
2:44:31 as of course
2:44:32 that ignores
2:44:32 the history
2:44:32 of al-qaeda
2:44:33 which for years
2:44:34 before that
2:44:35 was not on
2:44:35 the united
2:44:35 states
2:44:36 and britain
2:44:36 and saudi
2:44:37 arabia
2:44:38 against the
2:44:38 united states
2:44:39 but executing
2:44:39 them
2:44:40 you guys
2:44:41 love pulling
2:44:41 each other
2:44:42 into history
2:44:44 america’s
2:44:45 problem
2:44:45 with al-qaeda
2:44:46 is because
2:44:48 of israel
2:44:49 america and
2:44:49 israel are
2:44:50 terrorist
2:44:51 states
2:44:51 they were
2:44:52 america’s
2:44:52 mercenaries
2:44:53 that we used
2:44:54 in afghanistan
2:44:54 in bosnia
2:44:55 in kosovo
2:44:56 and chechnya
2:44:57 but they turned
2:44:58 against us
2:44:59 they turned
2:45:00 against us
2:45:00 anyone can
2:45:01 read michael
2:45:02 schweir’s book
2:45:02 the former
2:45:03 chief of the
2:45:03 cia
2:45:03 bin laden
2:45:04 wrote his
2:45:05 great book
2:45:06 imperial hubris
2:45:07 and it’s about
2:45:08 how the number
2:45:09 one reason
2:45:10 they attacked
2:45:10 us was
2:45:11 american bases
2:45:11 on saudi
2:45:12 soiled
2:45:12 to bomb
2:45:12 iraq
2:45:13 as part
2:45:14 of israel’s
2:45:15 dual
2:45:15 containment
2:45:16 policy
2:45:16 and the
2:45:17 second reason
2:45:18 was american
2:45:18 support for
2:45:19 israel
2:45:19 in their
2:45:20 merciless
2:45:20 persecution
2:45:21 of the
2:45:21 palestinians
2:45:22 and the
2:45:22 lebanese
2:45:22 that’s the
2:45:23 most articulate
2:45:24 justification
2:45:24 i’ve ever
2:45:24 heard for
2:45:25 al-qaeda
2:45:25 in my
2:45:26 life
2:45:26 but let’s
2:45:27 let’s not
2:45:28 a justification
2:45:29 i’m not saying
2:45:30 that makes
2:45:31 what they did
2:45:31 right
2:45:32 i’m saying
2:45:33 that was how
2:45:33 bin laden
2:45:34 recruited his
2:45:35 foot soldiers
2:45:35 to attack
2:45:36 this country
2:45:37 was by citing
2:45:38 american
2:45:38 foreign policies
2:45:40 that were
2:45:41 directly to
2:45:41 the detriment
2:45:42 of the people
2:45:42 of the middle
2:45:43 east and
2:45:44 specifically our
2:45:45 support for
2:45:45 israel and
2:45:46 i’ve never
2:45:47 heard a pro
2:45:48 in fact i take
2:45:48 that back there’s
2:45:50 one guy a liberal
2:45:50 from the nation
2:45:51 magazine named
2:45:52 eric alterman is
2:45:53 the only pro
2:45:54 israel guy i’ve
2:45:55 ever heard say
2:45:56 well that may be
2:45:58 true but i still
2:45:58 say we gotta
2:45:59 support israel
2:46:00 anyway the
2:46:01 others they’ll
2:46:01 just pretend that
2:46:02 terry mcdermott
2:46:03 never wrote that
2:46:03 book that lawrence
2:46:04 right never wrote
2:46:05 that book that
2:46:06 muhammad atta had
2:46:07 no motive to turn
2:46:08 on the united
2:46:09 states except for
2:46:10 muhammad made him
2:46:11 do it when in fact
2:46:12 what it was is it
2:46:12 was the ultra
2:46:13 violence of
2:46:14 shimon perez and
2:46:16 artillery officer
2:46:17 naftali bennett
2:46:18 slaughtering women
2:46:19 and children that
2:46:20 turned america’s
2:46:20 mercenaries america
2:46:21 backed the arab
2:46:22 afghan army in
2:46:23 afghanistan in
2:46:24 bosnia in
2:46:25 kosovo and in
2:46:26 chechnya as i
2:46:26 demonstrate in my
2:46:28 book and yet as
2:46:28 he correctly says
2:46:29 they turned on us
2:46:30 all through the
2:46:32 1990s bill clinton
2:46:32 was still backing
2:46:33 them anyway after
2:46:34 they were attacking
2:46:35 us and including
2:46:36 at kobar towers
2:46:36 and they were
2:46:38 doing that is this
2:46:39 was a bin ladenite
2:46:40 plot not hezbollah
2:46:41 not the shiites
2:46:42 this was the bin
2:46:43 ladenites getting
2:46:44 revenge against us
2:46:45 for support for
2:46:46 israel and being
2:46:47 too close to their
2:46:48 local dictators that
2:46:49 they wanted to
2:46:50 overthrow namely the
2:46:51 king of saudi and
2:46:52 the el presidente of
2:46:54 egypt yes that is
2:46:55 the cause of the
2:46:56 september 11th attack
2:46:56 against the united
2:46:57 states not the
2:46:58 taliban hate
2:46:59 freedom but the
2:47:01 bin ladenites hate
2:47:02 american support for
2:47:03 israel and america
2:47:05 adopting yeah
2:47:06 policies israeli
2:47:07 centric policies like
2:47:09 martin index uh dual
2:47:10 containment policy in
2:47:12 19 america i think
2:47:12 al-qaeda hates
2:47:13 america scott i think
2:47:14 why you know what
2:47:15 yeah i’ll tell you
2:47:16 what ali sufan you
2:47:17 know ali sufan the
2:47:18 former fbi agent
2:47:19 counterterrorism agent
2:47:20 he wrote in his book
2:47:21 the black banners that
2:47:23 the bin ladenites said
2:47:24 to bin laden we
2:47:25 don’t understand why
2:47:26 you’re so angry at
2:47:27 america they’ve been
2:47:28 so good to us in
2:47:31 afghanistan in bosnia in
2:47:32 kosovo and now here
2:47:34 in chechnya why do
2:47:34 you want to attack
2:47:35 them and not
2:47:37 i have a larger
2:47:38 agenda that you
2:47:38 don’t understand
2:47:39 the disagreement
2:47:40 between you is clear
2:47:41 i’ve talked to noam
2:47:42 chomsky twice
2:47:43 this guy you focus on
2:47:44 the criticism
2:47:44 you should interview
2:47:45 michael shoyer
2:47:46 although he’s gone
2:47:47 pretty crazy lately i
2:47:48 don’t know maybe not
2:47:50 anyway we’re going
2:47:51 into history we’re
2:47:52 learning a lot the
2:47:53 perspectives differ
2:47:54 strongly uh can we
2:47:56 look into the maybe a
2:47:57 ridiculous question but
2:47:58 a nuclear proliferation
2:47:58 question you already
2:47:59 started to speak to
2:48:01 both of you uh if
2:48:02 you look like 10 20
2:48:04 years out now does
2:48:07 does the u.s attacking
2:48:08 iran does that send a
2:48:12 message even to mbs to
2:48:13 other middle eastern
2:48:14 nations that they need
2:48:15 to start thinking about
2:48:17 um a nuclear weapon
2:48:19 program it’s specifically
2:48:21 like do you think just
2:48:22 in a numbers way does
2:48:23 the number of nukes in
2:48:24 the world go up in 10
2:48:26 20 30 years so look i
2:48:27 i think uh it’s a
2:48:28 great question will
2:48:29 there be more nuclear
2:48:30 weapons powers in the
2:48:31 future uh or less as
2:48:32 a result of this decision
2:48:35 by president trump so i
2:48:35 actually think there’ll
2:48:37 be less um and i’ll
2:48:39 tell you uh it’s succinctly
2:48:40 as i can and that is
2:48:41 that it’s been very clear
2:48:43 from the saudis from the
2:48:46 turks um certainly from
2:48:48 the um even the
2:48:49 algerians and others that
2:48:51 if iran gets a nuclear
2:48:52 weapon they too want a
2:48:53 nuclear weapon in fact
2:48:55 the saudis have gone even
2:48:56 further and said if if
2:48:57 iran is allowed to
2:48:58 retain the key
2:48:59 enrichment capability
2:49:01 that they have under
2:49:03 jcpoa that we want
2:49:04 that too there’s an
2:49:05 iran standard we want
2:49:06 the iran standard we
2:49:07 don’t want the gold
2:49:08 standard in fact that’s
2:49:09 been the subject of
2:49:11 intensive negotiations
2:49:11 between the united
2:49:12 states and saudi
2:49:13 arabia for the past
2:49:14 couple years both under
2:49:16 biden and trump as part
2:49:17 of the u.s saudi
2:49:19 uh agreement defense
2:49:20 agreement and economic
2:49:21 agreement that that has
2:49:23 been underway it is it’s
2:49:24 very clear that there’s
2:49:25 going to be a
2:49:26 proliferation cascade in
2:49:27 the middle east if the
2:49:28 iranians get a nuclear
2:49:29 weapon and certainly if
2:49:30 they’re allowed to retain
2:49:32 this enrichment capability
2:49:33 i also worry about we
2:49:34 haven’t even talked about
2:49:35 it at all this
2:49:36 conversation i mean the
2:49:38 most important area in
2:49:39 the world the united
2:49:40 states is not the middle
2:49:41 east it’s china and the
2:49:43 indo-pacific and i worry
2:49:44 that the south koreans
2:49:46 the taiwanese and the
2:49:47 japanese will say you
2:49:48 know we don’t trust in
2:49:50 any u.s commitments to
2:49:52 stop nuclear weapons
2:49:53 you’ve failed on iran
2:49:55 we don’t trust you we
2:49:56 don’t trust your nuclear
2:49:58 umbrella we too want
2:50:00 nuclear weapons in order
2:50:01 to guard our security
2:50:03 against china and so what
2:50:05 you would see i i hope
2:50:06 it doesn’t happen but i
2:50:07 worry about is this kind
2:50:08 of proliferation cascade
2:50:10 in the middle east and in
2:50:11 the indo-pacific two of
2:50:12 the most important areas
2:50:13 for american national
2:50:14 security which is why i
2:50:15 think it’s very important
2:50:18 that that be that iran’s
2:50:19 be stopped now whether
2:50:21 this attack is succeeds
2:50:22 in stopping iran’s
2:50:23 nuclear weapon or
2:50:25 accelerates it we we
2:50:26 disagree but i think
2:50:28 neither us know yet hard
2:50:30 to predict but what i
2:50:31 think is absolutely
2:50:32 certain is that if iran
2:50:34 develops that nuclear
2:50:35 weapon and is allowed to
2:50:36 retain the key
2:50:37 capabilities to do so
2:50:38 you’re going to see
2:50:40 five six countries in
2:50:40 the middle east at
2:50:41 least three four
2:50:41 countries in the
2:50:43 indo-pacific asking for
2:50:44 the same capability and
2:50:45 then you’re going to
2:50:46 have a club of nuclear
2:50:48 weapons powers that
2:50:49 will have an additional
2:50:50 five six seven over the
2:50:52 next 10 to 20 years
2:50:53 what if they don’t what
2:50:54 if they’re prevented
2:50:55 doesn’t that still send
2:50:56 the same message to
2:50:58 everybody that they
2:51:00 should build oh i
2:51:00 think it sends the
2:51:01 opposite message lex i
2:51:03 think if they see what
2:51:04 has happened and that
2:51:05 it’s and that it’s
2:51:06 successful and it
2:51:07 stopped iran from
2:51:08 developing nuclear
2:51:09 weapons and in
2:51:11 addition trump was
2:51:12 able to negotiate an
2:51:13 agreement for zero
2:51:15 enrichment and full
2:51:16 dismantlement then the
2:51:17 message to all these
2:51:18 other countries is number
2:51:20 one you don’t need it and
2:51:21 number two if you try to
2:51:22 get it then the united
2:51:24 states is going to use
2:51:25 american power now i’m not
2:51:26 suggesting the united
2:51:27 states is going to start
2:51:28 bombing the saudis or the
2:51:29 turks or the emiratis
2:51:31 clearly not the japanese i
2:51:31 mean these are many of
2:51:33 them are allies but i think
2:51:34 the united states retains
2:51:36 many tools counter
2:51:37 proliferation tools to
2:51:38 prevent these countries
2:51:39 from developing nuclear
2:51:41 weapons including you
2:51:42 know sanctions and
2:51:43 export controls and many
2:51:45 of the things and plus i
2:51:45 think those countries
2:51:47 you know i understand
2:51:48 that in the middle east
2:51:51 despite scott’s focus on
2:51:53 israel you know when you
2:51:55 talk to arab leaders
2:51:57 their biggest concern is
2:51:58 the threat from iran it’s
2:51:59 not the threat from israel
2:52:00 they’re not concerned with
2:52:01 the threat from israel
2:52:02 that’s why you had the
2:52:03 abraham accords you know
2:52:05 this is why the uae and
2:52:07 bahrain and morocco entered
2:52:08 into this peace agreement
2:52:09 with israel the saudis will
2:52:10 one day and they’ll bring
2:52:12 many other arab and muslim
2:52:13 countries in it they don’t
2:52:14 say israel is a threat they
2:52:16 see iran as a threat and so
2:52:17 if you counter that threat
2:52:19 you eliminate iran’s
2:52:20 nuclear weapons
2:52:22 proliferation and
2:52:23 expansion those countries
2:52:25 now no longer have to
2:52:27 build nuclear weapons
2:52:28 capabilities to counter the
2:52:30 iranians now we’ve also
2:52:31 restored our credibility
2:52:34 we don’t bluff we said
2:52:35 iran doesn’t develop nuclear
2:52:36 weapons they won’t
2:52:38 and now it’s the japanese
2:52:40 who have as scott rightly
2:52:41 pointed out they do have
2:52:43 reprocessing and plutonium
2:52:46 capabilities the taiwanese who
2:52:47 used to have a military
2:52:48 nuclear weapons program and
2:52:49 gave it up and the south
2:52:51 koreans who agree to our
2:52:52 gold standard of zero
2:52:54 enrichment zero reprocessing
2:52:56 those three countries can now
2:52:57 say okay we rely on the
2:53:00 united states on your word
2:53:02 on your power and on your
2:53:04 ability to to actually turn
2:53:06 words into action we don’t
2:53:07 need nuclear weapons so i i’d
2:53:10 say if successful big f big
2:53:12 f if successful then it’s
2:53:15 going to be a significant
2:53:18 um guard against the
2:53:19 potential of greater nuclear
2:53:21 proliferation and we will
2:53:23 have less nuclear powers
2:53:25 nuclear weapons powers than uh
2:53:26 than we otherwise would have
2:53:27 my favorite thing is when you
2:53:29 guys point out when you agree
2:53:30 with the other person
2:53:32 anyway uh sky what do you
2:53:33 think what do you think
2:53:34 everything that’s just
2:53:35 happened over the past two
2:53:37 weeks does to nuclear nuclear
2:53:39 proliferation over the next
2:53:40 five ten twenty years
2:53:42 oh i mean i really don’t know
2:53:43 for sure but i would think
2:53:45 that um the uh there’s a very
2:53:48 great danger that it’s going
2:53:49 to reinforce the lessons of
2:53:51 north korea iraq and libya
2:53:53 which is you better get a nuke
2:53:55 to keep america out and you
2:53:56 better hurry before it’s too
2:53:58 late now for the saudis they’re
2:53:59 not going to do that because
2:54:00 they’re obviously a very
2:54:02 close american client state so
2:54:03 it’s a different dynamic there
2:54:05 but you know for any country
2:54:06 that has trouble with the
2:54:07 united states or is worried
2:54:09 about the future of their
2:54:10 ability to maintain their
2:54:11 national sovereignty
2:54:13 obviously getting their hands
2:54:14 on an a-bomb as quickly as
2:54:17 possible is uh has been you
2:54:18 know re-incentivized to a
2:54:20 great degree also i’m really
2:54:20 worried about the future of
2:54:22 the non-proliferation treaty
2:54:23 where the nuclear weapons
2:54:24 states promise to respect the
2:54:26 right of non-nuclear weapons
2:54:27 states to civilian nuclear
2:54:30 energy and where here you
2:54:34 have a non-npt signatory
2:54:36 nuclear weapons state israel
2:54:38 launch an aggressive war against
2:54:42 an npt signatory that is was
2:54:44 not attacking them and was not
2:54:45 making nuclear weapons and with
2:54:47 the assistance of the world
2:54:49 empire the united states another
2:54:51 nuclear weapons state signatory
2:54:53 to the npt and i don’t really
2:54:55 take this that seriously but it’s
2:54:57 worth at least listening to is
2:55:01 uh midvedev the uh once and
2:55:02 probably future president of
2:55:04 russia he said oh yeah well
2:55:05 maybe we’ll just give them a
2:55:07 nuke or kind of implied maybe
2:55:09 get pakistan to now for people
2:55:11 familiar with like key and peel
2:55:13 midvedev is sort of angry obama
2:55:15 right for putin you know that
2:55:17 skit where it’s like obama talks
2:55:19 all calm anger translator he’ll
2:55:20 goes off like an angry black guy
2:55:22 kind of character right going nuts
2:55:25 on twitter midvedev he he goes
2:55:27 way out you know above and beyond
2:55:28 but i think he’s probably acting on
2:55:30 instructions to talk that way and it
2:55:33 is a real risk that the mpt could
2:55:36 just fall apart when it becomes when
2:55:38 it’s treated uh so callously by the
2:55:40 united states who invented it and
2:55:42 insisted that the rest of the world
2:55:43 adopt the thing to such a great
2:55:45 degree trump did say don’t use the
2:55:47 n-word he he talked down to midvedev
2:55:48 that’s right yeah he did around the end
2:55:51 the nuclear word yeah well and and i
2:55:53 appreciate that good and i he’s
2:55:55 right he’s right in that it’s not
2:55:57 and look the pakistanis could give a
2:55:59 nuke to iran who are their friends i
2:56:01 think not the tightest of allies i’m
2:56:03 not saying i predict that but there’s a
2:56:06 danger of that um now when it comes to
2:56:09 you know eastern asia obviously there’s
2:56:11 a concern about a chinese threat to
2:56:13 taiwan but nobody thinks china’s coming
2:56:17 for south korea or japan the the
2:56:19 question of taiwan is one that’s very
2:56:21 different because as the american
2:56:23 president agreed with mao seetong 50
2:56:26 years ago taiwan is part of china and
2:56:28 eventually will be reunited although we
2:56:31 hope that’s not by force since then they
2:56:33 have essentially abandoned marxism although
2:56:34 it’s still a one-party authoritarian
2:56:37 state but they’ve essentially abandoned
2:56:39 marked marxism adopted markets at least
2:56:40 to the degree that they’ve been able to
2:56:44 afford to now build up a giant naval force
2:56:47 that is capable of retaking taiwan and so
2:56:49 i think the way to prevent that is not
2:56:51 for making a bunch of threats and
2:56:53 setting examples in other places about
2:56:56 how tough we are but to negotiate with
2:56:58 the chinese and the taiwanese and figure
2:57:00 out a way to reunite the two in a
2:57:03 peaceful way in order to prevent that
2:57:05 war from breaking out because in fact we
2:57:07 don’t really have the naval and air
2:57:09 capability to defend taiwan we could
2:57:12 lose a lot of guys trying and probably
2:57:14 kill a lot of chinese trying but in the
2:57:16 end they’d probably take taiwan anyway
2:57:18 we’d have lost a bunch of ships and and
2:57:21 planes for nothing so we can negotiate an
2:57:23 end to that and then even if america just
2:57:26 withdrew from the region we could still
2:57:28 negotiate long-term agreements between
2:57:31 china japan south korea and whoever
2:57:33 there’s no reason to think that everyone
2:57:36 would make a mad scramble to a bomb to
2:57:39 protect them uh if the moment they are out
2:57:42 from under america’s nuclear umbrella and
2:57:44 so forth and the fact of the matter is
2:57:48 that um you know the greatest threat to
2:57:50 the status quo as far as the nuclear
2:57:52 powers go probably is what just happened
2:57:55 america in israel launching this war
2:57:58 against a non-nuclear weapon state as a
2:57:59 member in good standing of this treaty
2:58:02 throws the the whole as they call it the
2:58:05 liberal rules based world order into
2:58:08 question i mean if these rules repeatedly
2:58:11 always apply to everyone else but very
2:58:14 often not to us then are they really the
2:58:16 law or this is just the will of men in
2:58:19 washington dc and how long do we expect the
2:58:21 rest of the world to go ahead and abide by
2:58:23 that if you know a deal is a deal until we
2:58:26 decide as bill clinton said to wake up one
2:58:27 morning and decide that we don’t like it
2:58:30 anymore and and change it that was a phrase
2:58:34 from the founding act of 97 maybe we’ll
2:58:35 wake up one morning and decide that we
2:58:37 don’t want to do something else entirely
2:58:39 now is that your bill clinton impression
2:58:41 no i’ll spare you okay that was pretty
2:58:43 good after the show when we’re not
2:58:45 recording yeah can i respond to a couple
2:58:47 things here just really quickly i’ll try
2:58:49 to do it quickly um first of all you know
2:58:51 the notion that iran is in full compliance
2:58:54 with the npt um is is just not the case
2:58:56 the international atomic energy agency has
2:58:58 made it clear in report after report after
2:59:01 report that iran is in violation of its
2:59:04 obligations under the um protocols of the
2:59:07 iaea under the request that the iaea have
2:59:10 made and under the npt so they are a serial
2:59:12 violator of the npt unlike all these other
2:59:14 countries we’ve been talking about that are
2:59:18 allies second is this this quote um iran
2:59:21 is not attacking israel that’s quite an
2:59:24 amazing quote um which kind of ignores i
2:59:28 think uh 50 60 years of iranian attacks
2:59:33 against israel including um suicide bombings
2:59:40 and missiles and drones and october 7th and
2:59:42 it’s indisputable that iran has been
2:59:44 attacking israel and they’ve been they’ve
2:59:46 been doing it for many years through their
2:59:49 terror proxies that they fund and finance and
2:59:53 and weaponize and since uh october 7th they
2:59:56 directly struck israel with hundreds of
2:59:58 ballistic missiles in april and october of
3:00:00 last year so this notion that before 12 days
3:00:03 ago iranians were just playing nice with
3:00:05 israelis and the israelis just came out of
3:00:07 the blue well you said quote unquote iran is
3:00:09 not as not attacking israel so i mean it’s
3:00:11 just not true yeah they were not in a state
3:00:13 of war until israel launched a state of war
3:00:15 that’s the fact yeah they were at war you go
3:00:17 oh well they backed a group that did a
3:00:19 thing yeah okay kill thousands of israelis
3:00:21 maimed thousands of israelis but that
3:00:23 suicide was not ordered in tehran the wall
3:00:25 street journal says that u.s intelligence
3:00:27 does not believe that tehran ordered that
3:00:28 attack like they found out about what
3:00:30 the wall street journal says and what the
3:00:32 u.s intelligence says and we can dispute
3:00:35 whether they directed it on october 7th
3:00:38 everybody knows indisputably that iran
3:00:41 financed hamas provided fun
3:00:44 hamas with weapons just well just a second
3:00:48 provided hamas with weapons that the irgc and
3:00:50 the quds force were training hamas hezbollah
3:00:52 backed by iran was training hamas there were
3:00:55 three meetings before october 7th one in
3:00:57 beirut one in damascus and one in tehran
3:01:00 where the irgc hezbollah hamas and
3:01:02 palestinian islamic jihad were together
3:01:04 there was a meeting in tehran that was
3:01:06 attended by khamenei the supreme leader
3:01:08 now at those three meetings right before
3:01:10 october 7th you know maybe they’re
3:01:12 discussing the weather maybe they were
3:01:14 discussing persian poetry i don’t know
3:01:16 but it is hard to believe they weren’t
3:01:18 discussing something and the fact that
3:01:21 they had armed hamas financed hamas and
3:01:23 weaponized hamas suggests to me that
3:01:25 there is pretty overwhelming evidence that
3:01:27 iran has been at war with israel for
3:01:29 decades critics of israel will say that
3:01:31 benjamin netanyahu has also been
3:01:34 indirectly financing hamas by allowing the
3:01:36 fund the funds going to say that america
3:01:39 backs israel so anything israel does is
3:01:41 america’s responsibility to under that
3:01:42 same logic right
3:01:45 i think you started to make a point
3:01:47 disagreeing with scott about that they’re
3:01:49 not a good member of the npt that’s all
3:01:51 tiny technical violations none of that
3:01:53 has anything to do with weaponization
3:01:55 it’s always oh yeah how do you explain
3:01:56 this isotope and they go well it must
3:01:58 have came with the pakistani junk that we
3:01:59 bought from akikon and then later that’s
3:02:01 verified and they go yeah well we want to
3:02:03 inspect this let us and they go no and
3:02:05 then they do a year later and then they
3:02:07 find nothing yeah that’s just not the
3:02:09 case that’s just the entire history of
3:02:12 iran of the iaea’s objections to iran so
3:02:13 your listeners i know they’re not going to
3:02:15 do it because it’s a lot of technical
3:02:17 reading with weaponization but just go out
3:02:19 go out and diversion of nuclear reports
3:02:23 dating back at least 20 years and you’ll
3:02:26 see the ia meticulously methodically
3:02:30 dispassionately outlining all of the
3:02:34 violations that iran has embarked on of
3:02:36 the npt virtually all those are resolved
3:02:38 later they won’t answer this and then
3:02:40 later they do they won’t answer that and
3:02:42 then later they do and many open files are
3:02:44 still of it still there i mean just again
3:02:46 like i just i just want your viewers to
3:02:48 walk away from this conversation thing okay
3:02:50 that’s interesting i i didn’t know that and
3:02:52 that i’m gonna go fact check mark and fact
3:02:54 check scott and just kind of see what this
3:02:56 is all about right because otherwise it’s
3:02:59 just he says she says or he says he says
3:03:03 the fact of the matter is is that iran has
3:03:06 been in violations of its obligations under
3:03:09 the npt under the additional protocol it
3:03:12 never been never uh it never ratified under
3:03:16 its safeguards obligations under the npt it
3:03:19 suggests a pattern of nuclear mendacity they
3:03:21 abided by the additional protocol without
3:03:23 having ratified it they abided by it for
3:03:25 three years and did not proceed with any
3:03:27 enrichment at all as long as they were
3:03:29 dealing in good faith with the eu until
3:03:32 w bush ruin those negotiations and close
3:03:33 them down only then did they begin to
3:03:35 install the centrifuges at natance it’s
3:03:37 always the americans screw things you
3:03:39 complain they didn’t ratify the thing but
3:03:41 they abided by it for years so that’s an
3:03:44 interesting violation of it but i think a
3:03:46 more pragmatic and important disagreement
3:03:50 that we already spoke to is how do we
3:03:52 decrease the incentive for iran to build
3:03:54 nuclear programs not just the next couple
3:03:57 years but it’s 10 20 years what that’s you’re
3:03:59 mocking that there’s a lot of people that
3:04:01 will there’s neocons that say basically
3:04:03 invade everything let’s make money off of
3:04:05 war but there’s people that will say that
3:04:08 you know operation midnight hammer is
3:04:12 actually a focused hard demonstration of
3:04:13 strength a piece of strength that is an
3:04:16 effective way to do geopolitics i mean
3:04:17 there’s cases to be made for all of it if
3:04:20 we’re really lucky yeah so it’s a big risk
3:04:22 is your case so here’s some practical
3:04:24 recommendations that i think the united states
3:04:27 should follow i think the first is you know
3:04:29 get the iranians back to oman negotiate
3:04:31 with them and do a deal again the deal has to
3:04:33 be no enrichment full dismantlement i i think
3:04:35 for the reasons we talked about today scott and
3:04:37 i passionately disagreed but that’s fine we
3:04:40 this is this is a reasonable debate
3:04:42 neither of us is crazy neither of us is
3:04:45 irrational it is what would it take to get a
3:04:48 deal with iran i say i say this is the deal
3:04:50 this has to be our red line scott disagrees
3:04:51 that’s fine but we got to get a deal
3:04:54 in that deal we got to provide them financial
3:04:55 incentives right we’re going to have to lift
3:04:59 a certain number of sanctions because they’re
3:05:00 going to have to get something in return
3:05:04 okay we can argue about exactly how much but
3:05:05 i think our opening negotiating position is
3:05:07 no sanctions relief and then we’ll get
3:05:10 negotiated down from that right i mean like
3:05:12 i think a lot of this is about how do you
3:05:14 position yourself for negotiation how do you
3:05:16 how do you come in with leverage and then
3:05:19 how do you find areas of compromise where
3:05:22 you you satisfy your objectives one is oman
3:05:25 two is the credible threat of military force
3:05:28 needs to remain right khamenei needs to
3:05:29 understand that the united states of america
3:05:33 and israel will use military force to stop
3:05:34 him from developing nuclear weapons if he
3:05:37 didn’t believe that before 12 days ago he
3:05:39 now believes that and i think that’s the
3:05:42 credibility of that military force has to
3:05:44 be maintained in order to ensure that he
3:05:46 does not break out or sneak out to a nuclear
3:05:48 weapon i think that’s absolutely critical
3:05:50 third is i think we have to reach agreements
3:05:52 with all the other countries in the middle
3:05:54 east to say hey listen we’re demanding
3:05:56 zero enrichment and full dismantlement from
3:05:58 the iranians you don’t get enrichment and
3:06:01 you don’t get a nuclear program that is capable of
3:06:04 developing nuclear weapons our gold standard is
3:06:07 the american standard civilian nuclear energy
3:06:10 like 23 countries no enrichment and reprocess we
3:06:12 should be consistent we should be consistent not
3:06:14 just with american allies but also very clear with
3:06:16 american enemies i think that’s the third
3:06:19 important thing we do fourth is i think it’s
3:06:23 really important that we find some kind of
3:06:26 accommodation between the israelis and the
3:06:29 palestinians we can go down many rabbit holes on
3:06:32 that but i think that lays the predicate for a
3:06:35 saudi israeli normalization deal that then brings in
3:06:39 multiple arab countries and muslim countries and
3:06:42 finally is we talked about the abraham
3:06:44 accords i i think we need to start thinking about
3:06:47 what are the cyrus accords look like right cyrus was
3:06:50 the great persian king right who by the way brought the you
3:06:55 know the jews back from um from the diaspora to jerusalem and
3:07:00 cyrus accords would be let’s find an agreement between the united states and
3:07:05 israel and iran that would be a remarkable transformation in the region if we
3:07:08 could actually do that so imagine a middle east and again i know this sounds
3:07:12 fanciful but i think this is what trump has in mind when he starts to talk
3:07:15 about the things you’re seeing in these truth posts is actually a middle east that
3:07:19 can be fundamentally transformed where we actually do bring peace
3:07:25 between israel iran saudi arabia and the rest of these countries i by the way
3:07:31 completely agree with you on syria the idea that we are trusting a former
3:07:36 al-qaeda isis jihadist uh to rule syria i think is a big bet
3:07:40 president trump has made he’s made it on the advice of mbs
3:07:46 we’ll see how that transforms uh or transpires and see if syria is transformed
3:07:50 but the notion that somehow we should just be rolling the dice lifting all the
3:07:57 sanctions and taking this former al-qaeda jihadist at his word is uh a big bet
3:08:00 if we get the bet right that is actually a remarkable
3:08:04 occurrence because now all of a sudden syria and lebanon are brought into
3:08:09 this abraham accord cyrus accords structure and then we actually have what
3:08:13 i think that all three of us want is peace in the middle east stability in the
3:08:17 middle east i don’t think we need democracy in the middle east i think if the
3:08:20 middle east looked like the uae that’d be a pretty good middle east i think we’d
3:08:24 all be pretty comfortable with that if that kind of stability and prosperity
3:08:28 and ultimately you could put these countries on a pathway to greater democracy
3:08:33 the way that we did during the cold war where countries like taiwan and south
3:08:37 korea that were military dictatorships end up becoming pro-western democracy so
3:08:42 that’s kind of stepping back maybe a little bit pollyannish but i think we
3:08:45 should also always keep in mind what a potential vision for peace could look
3:08:52 right so scott as many people know here in austin texas you’re the director of
3:08:56 the libertarian institute um let’s zoom out a bit what are the key
3:09:01 pillars of libertarianism and how that informs how you see the world
3:09:09 well the very basis of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle but uh which
3:09:12 essentially is the same thing as our our social rules for dealing with each other
3:09:18 in private life no force no theft no fraud and keep your hands to yourself and we
3:09:23 apply that same moral law to government and so you know some libertarians are
3:09:28 anarcho-capitalists some are uh so-called minarchists meaning we want the absolute
3:09:33 minimum amount of government a night watchman type state uh and in other words
3:09:38 just enough to enforce contracts and protect property rights and allow freedom and a
3:09:44 free market to work there’s also of course natural rights theory austrian school economics and a lot
3:09:53 of revisionist history um and uh and it something very uh key to uh libertarian theory was is
3:09:58 expressed by murray and rothbard was that war is the key to the whole libertarian business
3:10:02 because especially in the united states of america as long as we maintain a world empire
3:10:07 makes it impossible for us to have a limited and decentralized government here at home as our
3:10:12 constitution describes and so i was going to crack a joke but neither of you have called me an
3:10:17 isolationist yet but i was going to joke that yes as as thomas jefferson wrote in the declaration of
3:10:23 isolation um the same guy a principal author of the declaration of isolation he said in his first
3:10:28 inaugural address we seek peace commerce and honest friendship with all nations and entangling
3:10:33 alliances with none and that’s the true libertarian philosophy think dr ron paul the great congressman
3:10:39 uh for many years up there he was opposed to all sanctions all economic war on the rest of the world
3:10:47 and the entire state of the united states as world empire and what’s strange now is that anyone who
3:10:55 wants just peace as the standard is considered an isolationist and people who are for world empire
3:11:00 and a permanent state of conflict with the rest of the world economic war coups and regime changes and
3:11:06 even invasions those are considered normal people it’s almost like people who want peace should be
3:11:12 called cis foreign policy because now we gotta we have to come up with a funny word to describe a
3:11:19 normal state of being when no one calls mexico an isolationist state just because they mind their own
3:11:26 business and is there any faction anywhere in america that calls themselves isolationist even the paleo
3:11:32 conservatives who favor much more like trade protectionism and that kind of thing than libertarians
3:11:37 they don’t call themselves isolationists they still want to have an open relationship with the world
3:11:43 to some degree when isolation means like the hermit kingdom of north korea or some crazy thing like
3:11:49 that no one wants that for the united states of america what we want is independence non-interventionism
3:11:55 and peace so to you isolationism is a kind of dirty word that’s right it’s a smear term invented by
3:12:00 interventionists and internationalists to attack anyone who didn’t want to go along with their agenda
3:12:06 the term itself is used essentially as a smear against anyone who doesn’t want to go to war
3:12:13 so can you actually just deeper describe what non-interventionism means so how much sort of
3:12:18 display of military strength should be there do you think dr paul said we could defend this country
3:12:24 with a couple of good submarines which by the way for people who don’t know one american trident sub
3:12:31 could essentially kill every city and military base in russia just one so he’s absolutely right about
3:12:36 that couple of good submarines are enough to defend our coast and deter anyone from messing with the
3:12:42 united states of america and then i admit i’m a little bit idealistic about this that i think of
3:12:49 that old william jennings bryan speech behold a republic where unlike the empires of europe burdened
3:12:56 under the weight of militarism here we have a free country and where you know what we could do
3:13:02 we could be the host of peace conferences everywhere there are frozen conflicts in the
3:13:10 conflicts in the donbass in kaliningrad in transnistria in taiwan in korea um virtually all the borders of africa
3:13:17 and eurasia were drawn by european powers to either divide and conquer their enemies or artificially group
3:13:22 their enemies together in order to keep them internally divided and conquered in those ways so
3:13:28 there are a great many borders in the world that are in contention and that people might even want
3:13:34 to fight about and i think that america could play a wonderful role in helping to negotiate and resolve
3:13:40 those types of conflicts without resorting to force or or even making any promises on the part of the u.s
3:13:44 government like we’ll pay egypt to pretend to be nice to israel or anything like that but just
3:13:50 find ways to host conferences and and find resolutions to these problems and i think quite
3:13:56 sincerely that donald trump right now could get on a plane to tehran he could then go to moscow
3:14:03 to beijing and pyongyang and he could come home and be trump the great we in fact don’t have to have
3:14:10 the especially the american hyper power as the french called it the world empire we have everything to give
3:14:15 nothing to lose to go ahead and donald trump even talked like this you might remember when he first
3:14:20 was sworn in this time he said you know what instead of pivoting from terrorism to great power competition
3:14:26 with russia and china i don’t want to do that i just want to get along with both of them let’s just move
3:14:31 on and have the rest of the century be peace and prosperity and not fighting at all why should we have
3:14:38 to pivot to china let’s just pivot to capitalism and trade and freedom and peace that’s america first
3:14:44 yeah i’ve uh i’ve criticized trump a lot but i think maybe he’s just rhetoric but i think he talks about
3:14:49 peace a lot even just recently the the number of times the word peace is mentioned and with seriousness
3:14:58 not you get like a genuine desire for peace from him and that’s just beautiful to see for the leader of
3:15:03 of this country and look man there used to be a time when a third of the planet was dominated by
3:15:08 the communists right so like i’m not gonna sit here and argue the first cold war with you my book’s
3:15:14 about the second one and i’m not as good on the first but since the end of the first cold war we have let
3:15:22 the neoconservative policy of the defense plan and guidance of 92 and rebuilding america’s defenses and
3:15:31 the rest of this american uh dominance centered policy uh control our entire direction in the world
3:15:35 it’s led to the war on terrorism in the middle east seven countries we’ve attacked it’s led to the
3:15:42 disaster in eastern europe and it’s leading toward disaster in eastern asia when there’s just no reason
3:15:48 in the world that it has to be this way with the commies dead and gone and again i to stipulate here
3:15:53 the chinese flag is still red it’s still a one-party dictatorship but they have abandoned
3:15:58 marxism i mean people were starving to death by the tens of millions there it’s a huge it’s probably
3:16:03 the greatest improvement in the condition of mankind anywhere ever in the shortest amount of time
3:16:07 when deng Xiaoping and the right wing of the communist party took over in that country
3:16:12 just one more thing you mentioned the two submarines what’s the role of nuclear weapons
3:16:19 well i would like for america to have an extremely minimal nuclear deterrent and work toward a world
3:16:25 free of nuclear weapons and i know that that sounds utopian however i would remind your audience that
3:16:31 ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev came within a hair of achieving a deal just like that at reikovic
3:16:40 iceland in 1986 and they were both of them dead serious about it complete and total nuclear disarmament
3:16:46 and then reagan was essentially bullied by richard pearl and others on his staff saying you promised
3:16:51 the american people that you would build them a defensive anti-missile system the star wars system
3:16:57 which was total pie in the sky technological fantasy of the 1980s and if you’re getting rid of
3:17:02 all the icbms then why the hell do you need a missile shield anyway it was the world’s probably
3:17:07 greatest tragedy that ever took place that ronald reagan walked away from those negotiations they
3:17:15 literally were within a hair and it wasn’t magic and there was no trust in evil bad guys this is by the
3:17:21 way two years before the wall came down this is when everybody still thought the ussr was gonna last
3:17:28 and reagan had the plan was that america and the soviet union would dismantle our nuclear weapons
3:17:32 until we were right around with parity with the other nuclear weapon states who all have right around
3:17:38 two or three hundred nukes france britain at that time israel and china indian pakistan came later south
3:17:43 africa only had a few then but gave up whatever they had and the idea was we would get down to two or
3:17:48 three hundred and then america and the soviet union both together would lean hard on britain france and
3:17:54 china let’s all get down to 100 let’s all see if we can get down to 50 etc like that in stages again
3:18:00 ronald reagan we’re talking about here trust but verify means do not trust at all it means be polite
3:18:07 while you verify and in fact america did help dismantle upwards of 60 something thousand soviet
3:18:14 nuclear missiles in the after the end of the cold war and so it is possible to live in a world where at the
3:18:19 very least we have a situation where the major powers have a few nukes
3:18:25 and potentially can even come to an arrangement to get rid of the rest
3:18:28 we should also just say one more thing not to be ageist
3:18:31 but most of the major leaders
3:18:32 with nukes
3:18:34 and those with power in the world
3:18:36 are in their 70s and 80s
3:18:40 i don’t know if that contributes to it but they kind of are grounded in a different time
3:18:48 that may i have a hope for the fresher younger leaders to have a more optimistic view towards peace
3:18:50 and to be able to reach towards peace
3:18:54 and underlying so much of what we’re talking about here is all this enmity right
3:18:59 but if america could just work remember when china cut that pseudo sort of peace deal between
3:19:02 saudi and iran a couple years ago or last year was it
3:19:04 we could try to double up on that
3:19:07 we should we could try to come up with ways for
3:19:09 saudi and iran to exchange as much as possible
3:19:11 you know um
3:19:14 i know you don’t like all the going back too far in history
3:19:15 but it’s important it’s in my book that
3:19:16 in 1993
3:19:20 zbignan brzezinski who the revolution had happened on his watch
3:19:24 operation eagle claw the disaster of the rescue mission in 79
3:19:28 after the hostage crisis and everything all that egg was on zb’s face
3:19:32 but in 93 he said we should normalize relations
3:19:35 we should build an oil pipeline across iran
3:19:36 so they can make money we can make money
3:19:38 and we can start to normalize
3:19:42 and ronald reagan’s secretary of state alexander haig
3:19:45 who had been kissinger’s right-hand man agreed
3:19:47 they both were trying to push that
3:19:50 but the clinton administration went ahead with martin indyk
3:19:55 who had been yitzhak shamir’s man and inaugurated the dual containment policy
3:19:57 instead because the israelis were concerned
3:20:00 that america had just beaten up on iraq so bad in iraq war one
3:20:03 that now iraq wasn’t powerful enough to balance against iran
3:20:07 so america had to stay in saudi to balance against them both
3:20:09 and that was the origin of the dual containment policy
3:20:11 it was martin indyk who had been yitzhak shamir’s man
3:20:13 who pushed it on clinton
3:20:15 and this was not the israelis
3:20:17 it was the kuwaitis who lied
3:20:22 that there was a truck bomb attempt assassination against h.w. bush
3:20:24 which was a total hoax
3:20:26 it was debunked by seymour hirsch by the end of the year
3:20:28 it was just a whiskey smuggling ring
3:20:31 and it was the same guy whose daughter had claimed to have seen
3:20:34 the iraqi soldiers throw the babies out of the incubators
3:20:36 he was the guy who two years later
3:20:41 made up this hoax about saddam hussein trying to murder bush senior
3:20:44 but when he did that was when bill clinton finally gave in
3:20:47 and adopted the dual containment policy because he had been interested in
3:20:51 potentially reaching out to saddam and the ayatollah both at that time
3:20:53 but instead of having normalization with both
3:20:57 we had to have permanent cold war through the end of the century with both
3:21:00 and my argument is simply it just didn’t have to be that way
3:21:01 it’s the same thing with russia
3:21:05 look at you know how determined the democrats especially
3:21:07 are to have this conflict with russia
3:21:08 where to donald trump
3:21:09 nah not at all
3:21:10 we could get along with them
3:21:13 and so it’s perfectly within reason
3:21:15 if the big nebrzezinski says we can talk with iran
3:21:17 and get along with iran
3:21:19 and donald trump says we can get along with russia
3:21:21 then the same thing for north korea
3:21:23 the same thing for china
3:21:26 and then and then who do we have left to fight
3:21:30 hezbollah hezbollah is nothing without iran
3:21:32 we’ll just have scott and i fighting
3:21:33 that’s that’ll be the last remaining
3:21:34 that’s a fun kind of fight
3:21:35 that’ll be fun
3:21:36 okay mark peaceful
3:21:41 you’re the ceo of fdd the foundation for defense of democracies
3:21:47 it’s a dc-based organization that focuses on national security and foreign policy
3:21:53 what has been your approach to solving some of these problems of the world
3:21:57 so look i love the vision that scott painted
3:22:01 um and i i agree with some of the libertarian instincts that he has
3:22:06 but my view is that america is the indispensable power
3:22:10 um scott mentioned earlier in the conversation about the rules-based order
3:22:15 that is so important and the npt and all these rules-based agreements that are important
3:22:22 to maintain well the rules-based order has been maintained by the united states since world war ii
3:22:24 right there is no american prosperity
3:22:29 to the degree that we have there’s no recovery of europe there’s no recovery of asia after the
3:22:35 devastation of world war ii without american power and the rules-based order that america has
3:22:39 led and backstopped and i think america first
3:22:45 is about american power and deterrence i think if you want to avoid war
3:22:51 i think you cannot just believe in some fantasy where all the world’s leaders are going to get
3:22:55 together in some place and are just going to agree to disarm all their nuclear weapons
3:23:01 and we’ll disarm our entire military and we’ll have one submarine off our coast
3:23:05 and some all of that is going to lead to peace i mean i think what has led to peace
3:23:13 in the past has been the american ford deterrence of our military and a belief that our enemies
3:23:18 think we will credibly use it i think if they believe we’ll credibly use it
3:23:22 then it’s less likely they will challenge us and if they’re less likely to challenge us
3:23:25 and challenge our allies there’s less likely to be war
3:23:32 so for me deterrence leads to peace and any kind of unilateral disarmament
3:23:40 any kind of i think sort of fanciful notion that somehow their our enemies are going to
3:23:47 respect the non-aggression principle that is the core fundamental underpinnings of libertarianism
3:23:52 which i think in in a personal relationship i think is very important but remember these are
3:23:57 aggressors they don’t respect the non-aggression principle i think we can spend a lot of time we did
3:24:04 over how many hours now has it been talking about the fact that in scott’s view of the world it’s
3:24:08 america that provokes it’s america that provokes and then it’s not america provoking it’s israel
3:24:15 provoking and oh by the way america provokes because we’re being seduced or paid or browbeaten by those
3:24:21 those israelis and you know those jews in america i mean i think that whole notion that somehow we
3:24:29 we are we are the provocative force in global politics i think is is wrong i think the fact of
3:24:36 the matter is we make mistakes we are an imperfect nation we have made some serious sometimes catastrophic
3:24:44 mistakes but there is a bad world out there there are evil men who want to do us harm and we have to
3:24:50 prevent away prevent them from doing us harm and to do that we need an american military that is serious
3:24:55 and well supported we don’t need a military industrial complex that ultimately is going to
3:25:00 pull us into wars we need thoughtful leaders like president trump who will resist that and will say
3:25:07 at the end of the day i will use force when it is selective narrow overwhelming and deadly and that was
3:25:15 trump’s operation just a few days ago he he went after three key facilities that were being used to develop
3:25:22 the capability for nuclear weapons nuclear weapons are the greatest danger to humanity i totally agree with
3:25:28 scott like i think a world without nuclear weapons the kind of world that that reagan envisioned and
3:25:33 others have envisioned since is really the only way we can eliminate the most devastating weapons that
3:25:40 could end humankind but we have to make sure that those weapons don’t end up in the hands of regimes
3:25:46 that seek to do us harm and that have have done us harm over over many many decades so yeah i mean
3:25:53 deterrence peace through strength rules-based order the foundation for defense of democracies is not the
3:25:58 foundation for promotion of democracy we don’t believe in this important concept that we have to promote
3:26:03 democracy around the world i’ll speak for myself because we have many people at my think tank we’re 105 people
3:26:08 we have different views i don’t personally believe that it is the role of the united states to bring
3:26:13 democracy to the middle east or democracy around the world i think to the extent we’ve tried we failed i’m
3:26:18 not sure the middle east is ready for democracy now iran is interesting because it’s not an arab country
3:26:25 right it is a it is a different country altogether culturally it’s a very sophisticated country it has a long
3:26:32 history it actually has a history where it has had democracy in the past it is a country that i think
3:26:37 can have incredible potential under the right leadership and under the right circumstances i don’t know if
3:26:43 the right circumstances are a constitutional monarchy with reza palavi as the as the as the as the crown
3:26:48 prince or the shah i don’t know whether it’s a secular democracy or not let let let iranians make that
3:26:53 decision i’ve been pronouncing it wrong this whole time reza palavi you know the guy i met him yeah
3:26:59 yeah yeah olivi palavi what were you saying i thought it was palavi oh wow yeah no it’s okay
3:27:08 it’s okay you know that’s the only thing you’ve ever gotten wrong pronouncing so many things
3:27:13 correctly i think people will give you a pass can i ask you though like i mean all this militarization
3:27:23 has led to a state of permanent war we’ve been bombing iraq for 34 years we uh launched we put uh a war
3:27:28 against the taliban who didn’t attack us instead of al-qaeda who did fought for 20 years and the
3:27:33 taliban won anyway we overthrew a launched an aggressive war against saddam hussein put the
3:27:38 ayatollah’s best friends in power we launched an aggressive war against libya on this ridiculous hoax
3:27:44 that qaddafi was about to murder every last man woman and child in benghazi imagine charlotte north
3:27:50 carolina being wiped off the map barack obama lied in order to start that war and completely destroyed
3:27:55 libya it’s now three pieces in a state of semi-permanent civil war including and this wasn’t
3:28:00 just back then this is to this day the re-legalization and re-institutionalization of chattel
3:28:07 slavery of sub-saharan black africans in libya to this day as a result the our intervention this was
3:28:14 not a direct overt war but america israel saudi qatar and turkey all back to bin ladenites in syria
3:28:18 completely destroyed syria to the point where the caliphate grew up and then we had to launch
3:28:24 iraq war three to destroy the caliphate again and so i’m i’m not seeing the peace through strength i’m
3:28:29 seeing permanent militarism and permanent war through strength point well made he’s speaking to the the
3:28:36 double-edged sword of a strong military that what you mentioned that trump did seems like a very
3:28:43 difficult thing to do which is keep it hit hard and keep it short we don’t know how this ended yet
3:28:52 but even the beginning part is not trivial to do like just hitting one mission and vocalizing
3:29:01 except for one post uh no regime change like really pushing peace make a deal cease fire like that’s
3:29:07 i that’s an uncommon way to operate so i guess you said that we should resist the military industrial
3:29:13 complex that’s not easy to do that that that’s the double-edged sword of a strong military let me say
3:29:17 real quick and i promise i can i i’m gonna say one thing and then i’ll stop you made a point then i just
3:29:23 i just want to add it’s a really important point okay is grassroots effort there is no houthi lobby in
3:29:30 america okay it was grassroots efforts by libertarians quakers and leftists to get war powers
3:29:35 resolutions introduced in trump’s first term to stop the war in yemen which was launched not for
3:29:42 israel for saudi arabia and uae by barack obama in 2015 that’s not a first afghan war wasn’t about
3:29:51 israel either okay but this yemen war was i thought 9-11 was about israel well it was in great part but
3:29:56 the af the decision to sack kabul and do a regime change and all that had nothing to do with the
3:30:01 lakut whatsoever other than well we got to keep the war going long enough to go to baghdad okay so
3:30:05 it was his real fault i was in the middle of saying about the war in yemen that we got the war powers
3:30:13 resolution through twice and trump vetoed it twice and his man pete navarro explained to the new york times
3:30:20 that this was just welfare for american industry a lot of industrialists were angry about the tariffs
3:30:26 disrupting trade with china and somehow they substituted raytheon for all american industry
3:30:32 somehow and said industry will be happy if we funnel a lot of money to raytheon that’s pete navarro
3:30:37 talking to the new york times about why they continued the war in yemen throughout trump’s entire first term
3:30:41 he had no interest in it at all the whole thing was this it was obama’s fault the whole thing was
3:30:45 essentially on autopilot and what was he doing he’s flying as al-qaeda’s air force
3:30:51 against the houthis who originally if you go back to january of 2015 america was passing intelligence
3:30:55 to the houthis to use to kill al-qaeda you know aqap the guys that tried to blow up the plane over
3:31:00 detroit with the underpants bomb on christmas day 2009 that did all those horrific massacres in europe
3:31:06 real ass bin ladnite terrorists the houthis were our allies against them before barack obama stabbed
3:31:10 them in the back and why did trump keep that going when he inherited that horrific war
3:31:16 from barack obama why did he do it according to his trade guy so that they could keep funneling
3:31:22 american taxed and inflated dollars into the pocketbooks of stockholders of raytheon incorporated
3:31:27 right military industrial complex the point was made yeah maybe i could respond to that because i mean
3:31:32 again it’s always america’s fault according to scott take a jab at you no no but it’s dowdy and uae
3:31:37 asked barack obama for permission to start that war and for american help in prosecuting it and he said
3:31:42 yes and help i’m going to segue into an answer because i i think it deserves an answer a military
3:31:47 industrial complex is a serious concern um because i think you’re right it there you know the bigger it
3:31:52 gets um and the more weapons you have you think the more the greater the temptation to use it right i
3:31:57 think that’s sort of the the argument and then there’s also self-enrichment and how much money can
3:32:03 be made and in all of that i think is of serious concern to people look i think trump is somebody who
3:32:11 it’s hard pressed to say that donald trump um is a great advocate of the military industrial complex
3:32:17 or that he is he is in their pocket the same way that he’s in the pocket of the israelis and in the
3:32:21 pocket of the saudis and in the pocket of everybody i mean i think the one thing with trump is that trump
3:32:28 has he has learned the lessons of american engagement over the past few decades and i think scott’s done a good
3:32:33 job of kind of laying out the mistakes that have been made even though you know we can discuss about
3:32:38 causal connections and who’s responsible and you know i i lean on and we i want to well scott can i
3:32:44 finish because you know your your causal connection is always it’s america aggressing israel aggressing
3:32:49 and all these poor people responding to us um but nonetheless i think trump has he’s learned the
3:32:55 lessons but he hasn’t over learned the lessons he he’s not paralyzed by iraq or afghanistan or the
3:33:00 mistakes made by his predecessors he understands that at the end of the day we need serious american
3:33:06 power we need lethal power we need four deterrents and he’s been very careful and very selective about
3:33:11 how he uses american power i mean we’ve talked about it throughout this whole conversation trump used
3:33:17 american power to kill qasem soleimani the one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists he killed
3:33:23 baghdadi the head of isis one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists he he refrained from going after
3:33:28 after the iranian takedown of our drone he refrained from when the iranians
3:33:34 fired on saudi aramco and took off 20 of our oil right he’s been very very selective about the use of
3:33:41 american power he did go after the houthis who are iran backed and we’re using iranian missiles to go
3:33:46 after our ship that’s not true those are north korean missiles completely debunked by jane’s defense
3:33:51 weekly nice try yeah nice try um anyway everybody knows that the iranians have been financing the houthis
3:33:56 hezbollah has been training the houthis and iran has given capabilities to the houthis to develop
3:34:03 their own indigenous missile capability the fact of the matter is he he did in a way go after the houthis
3:34:10 much more intensively than biden did in order to prevent them from continuing to shut down
3:34:17 red sea shipping on which both america and our allies depend as a trade route he actually did it quite
3:34:22 successfully because after a few days of pretty intensive bombing the houthis got the message
3:34:26 and they cut a deal with donald trump they’re not going to interfere with our shift anymore he got a
3:34:30 deal with them they kept bombing israel which is what got him involved in the first place he completely
3:34:34 backed out sounds to me like they won and he backed down well it sounds it sounds like he in terms of
3:34:38 promoting american international security interests it sounds like he did he did a pretty good job of
3:34:43 sending a message to the houthis and the iranians don’t mess with the united states and that gets us to the
3:34:54 reality he took a decision one day on one day to send our b2s and our subs in order to do severe
3:34:59 damage to three nuclear facilities it was a one-day campaign it was selective it was narrow it was
3:35:05 overwhelming and i think it sends a message to khamenei i think it sends a message to regimes around
3:35:10 the world anti-american regimes around the world that donald trump has not over learned the lessons of
3:35:18 the past 20 years right but that in fact he is not going to dismantle the u.s military and dismantle
3:35:24 our nuclear program and fly around to all these cities and call peace conferences and hope that these
3:35:29 dictators will just sit down with america and say you know what all is forgiven the united states of
3:35:36 america it’s all your fault you did this all we we admit our responsibility and then we have we have
3:35:45 peace and paradise and earth i think trump is much more um pragmatic and in some respects cynical when
3:35:50 he looks at the world and he realizes the world is a dangerous place i have to be very careful about
3:35:55 how i use american military forces i am not going to send hundreds of thousands of people around the
3:36:01 world by the way i mean it all talk about israel i mean the israelis are one of the best allies we could
3:36:07 possibly have they fight and they die in their own defense they fought multiple wars against american
3:36:11 enemies they haven’t asked for american troops on the ground there are no boots on the ground
3:36:17 in israel defending israel the best we’ve given them is we’ve given them a fad system to help them shoot
3:36:22 down ballistic missiles that have aimed at aimed at them and our american pilots have been in the air
3:36:29 recently with our israeli friends shooting down ballistic missiles but the israelis have had an a warrior
3:36:33 ethos we will fight and we will die in our own defense i would just say if you’re going to actually
3:36:39 build out a model where you’re going to minimize the risk to american troops let’s find more allies
3:36:46 like that right i worry about i’m like scott i really worry about china taiwan i really really worry about
3:36:51 that because the taiwanese are not capable of defending themselves without u.s assistance and the
3:36:56 and we may have to send american men and women to go defend taiwan and we can have a whole debate about
3:37:00 the wisdom of that but again it would be very very helpful to have more israels in the world
3:37:06 more countries that are capable of fighting against common enemies and against common threats without
3:37:12 having to always put american boots on the ground in order to do that so you made a case for if it’s okay
3:37:19 if you made a case for strength here just practically speaking why do you think trump has talked about
3:37:26 peace a lot why do you think he hasn’t been able to uh uh get to a ceasefire with ukraine and russia for
3:37:31 example if we just move away from iran yeah without getting into the history of the whole thing like
3:37:36 why he’s been talking peace peace peace peace peace he’s been pushing it and pushing it what can we learn
3:37:43 about that so far failure that’s also instructive for iran look i’m not a russia expert i’m not a ukraine
3:37:48 expert i’m sitting in front of two uh people who know a lot more about that conflict than i do i i you
3:37:56 are we should say banned by putin i am i have been sanctioned by russia and by iran um i sanctioned yes
3:38:01 yes banned sanctioned uh threat congratulations thank you thank you well it’s it causes some
3:38:10 difficulties but anyway um i think the answer to that is that for putin he needs to understand that
3:38:17 like khamenei he has two options here right option one which president trump has signaled over and over
3:38:23 and over again is come sit down and negotiate a ceasefire with the ukrainians i don’t want to get into
3:38:27 the details and the back and forth about who’s responsible for the fact there’s no ceasefire
3:38:31 putin or zelensky i mean that’s a whole other debate and i’m sure you guys have a lot of opinions on that
3:38:39 um but path one is sit down and let’s negotiate a ceasefire path two is the united states will use
3:38:46 american power in order to build our leverage so that vladimir putin understands that he has to
3:38:52 do a ceasefire now i’m not suggesting u.s troops absolutely not right what i am suggesting is
3:38:57 there’s a package right now of sanctions that have 88 co-sponsors in the senate across party lines
3:39:03 and i think trump is using that and will use that as a sort of sword of damocles hanging over
3:39:09 putin and the russian economy to say look vladimir we either do a ceasefire or i’m going to have no
3:39:14 choice but to have to start imposing much more punishing sanctions on you and on the russian economy
3:39:19 so i think there’s an economic option i think there’s a military option and i think the biggest
3:39:25 mistake biden made in this whole war and there’s many mistakes uh in terms of signaling not having u.s
3:39:31 credibility you know afghan debacle which signaled to putin that he could invade without any kind of
3:39:38 american response is he kind of went in and he tied ukraine’s uh hands behind their back i mean he
3:39:42 actually tied one hand behind their back while they were fighting with the other hand and he refused to
3:39:48 give him the kinds of systems that early on in the war would have allowed the ukrainian military
3:39:52 to be able to hit russian forces that were mobilizing on the russian ukrainian border
3:39:56 and i think if he had done that i think this war would have ended sooner there’d be far
3:40:04 less casualties and i think putin would then understand maybe i need to strike a deal i’m not
3:40:09 a russia expert or ukraine expert i don’t know what the deal looks like you keep the donbast you keep
3:40:15 crimea you keep you know larger chunks of eastern ukraine that’s for smarter people than me on this
3:40:20 issue to decide what the deal looks like but there’s no doubt today putin thinks that he can just
3:40:25 keep fighting keep killing ukrainians keep driving forward eventually he’s going to wear down the
3:40:29 ukrainians through a sheer war of attrition he’ll throw hundreds of thousands of russians at this he
3:40:33 doesn’t care how many russians are going to die that’s the way the russians and the soviets have
3:40:38 fought wars for many many years just endless number of russian bodies being thrown into the meat grinder
3:40:43 and he thinks he can continue without any consequences i worry that as a result of the
3:40:51 fact that we are not showing putin and we’ve got leverage it’s made warm more likely it’s made a war
3:40:56 more brutal and it’s going to make a war more protracted but increasing military aid to ukraine
3:41:01 in the case that you described also has to be coupled with extreme pressure to make peace
3:41:07 correct extreme pressure to make peace which trump hopefully is appears to be doing now in iran
3:41:12 i think trump is early i mean it’s interesting you said that because he’s early indicators
3:41:17 again who knows where the ceasefire goes but i think it was important he he slapped
3:41:25 khamenei but he also said to bb enough enough and it’s like okay now we’re going back to oman
3:41:30 there’s going to be a temporary ceasefire now let’s negotiate and i think that’s important and i think it
3:41:35 shows that donald trump is leading not following it shows that donald trump is his own man
3:41:43 not on the payroll of the russians or the iranians or the israelis or all these other crazy accusations
3:41:48 that have been made about this guy for many many years um and he’s going to give you know as they
3:41:52 say peace a chance and he’s going to give give a ceasefire a chance he’s going to give negotiations
3:41:56 a chance but i’ll think he’s sending the message to the iranians and he needs to send it to putin
3:42:02 is if you don’t take me up on my offer all right i’ve already demonstrated that i am serious
3:42:07 and i will use american power carefully and selectively in the way that i’ve done in the
3:42:14 past at the risk of doing the thing i shouldn’t do but just to test the ideas of libertarianism
3:42:21 and the things we’ve been talking about can we for a brief time unrelated to everything we’ve been
3:42:28 talking about talk about world war ii what was the right thing to do in 1938 1939 like what would you
3:42:37 do okay to be clear world war ii has nothing to do with current events in fact many of the horrible
3:42:43 policies of the united states in my opinion have to have to do with projecting world war ii onto every
3:42:49 single conflict in the world okay oh great but over learning over learning but it is an interesting
3:42:55 extreme case just to clarify i’m just like philosophically talking about yeah at which
3:43:03 point do you hit do you do military intervention and that’s a nice case maybe you have a better
3:43:07 case study but that’s such an extreme one yeah that it’s interesting we’re talking about germany or
3:43:14 japan germany said yeah so so japan attacked us and germany declared war on us tough for them and
3:43:18 that’s what happens when you declare war on the united states you get hit but that was an idiotic
3:43:22 on the part of hitler to declare war in the united states you know i never understood why he ever did
3:43:25 that they always said it was just because he was crazy but what it was is he was trying to get the
3:43:30 japanese to invade the soviet union from the east and in order to divide stalin’s forces which failed
3:43:35 and it didn’t work and it was a huge blunder from his point of view i guess philosophically
3:43:39 from an interventionism perspective you’re saying united states should have stayed out
3:43:46 from that war as long as possible until they’re attacked yes i mean and look at how powerful
3:43:50 they ended up being and the amount of damage that they were able to inflict on the soviets
3:43:56 better than than us what do you think look is this a useful discussion it’s interesting i mean i think
3:44:02 it’s interesting philosophically you know libertarianism um or or isolationism in practice i mean i think the
3:44:07 30s are more interesting to me than what happened between 39 and 45 i think the debate in america
3:44:14 was very interesting in the 30s um where there was really a strong uh isolationist movement um you
3:44:21 know with charles lindbergh and and henry ford and father coughlin and many joe kennedy yeah and joe
3:44:26 kennedy i mean they define themselves as sort of america firsters um but it was very much an isolationist
3:44:30 strain and i think you know we can talk about that history and coughlin was a new dealer not a right
3:44:36 winger anyway um very much an isolationist talking about america having to stay out these entangling
3:44:41 alliances this is not our war emotionally understandable right because you can you can also overlearn the
3:44:46 lessons of world war one right and i think they overlearned the lessons of world war one i mean which
3:44:51 was a brutal war and a devastating war mostly for europe but obviously for the united states we we lost
3:44:58 thousands of american men and women so the 30s was this big debate between the um those who saw the
3:45:04 gathering storm of what was happening uh with nazi germany and those who wanted to keep america out
3:45:11 and i think in some respects it’s like today with the contemporary reality with khamenei is that because
3:45:18 these isolationist voices were so prominent and so vocal um and in some cases quite persuasive
3:45:25 to american leaders hitler calculated that the united states would not enter the war and so he could
3:45:32 do what scott says he could focus on the eastern front um he could gather his forces and then he
3:45:36 could do a kill shot on the western democracies in western europe and the united states would not
3:45:41 intervene i mean you’re right that the big mistake he makes is declaring war in the united states after
3:45:48 pearl harbor but he believes all through the 30s and before pearl harbor that the isolationist voices
3:45:55 are keeping fdr from entering the war even while churchill and the brits and the french and others
3:46:01 are imploring the americans uh not only to just just to provide provide them with material support
3:46:07 with weapons so that they could hold hold on to the island and and defend themselves and i think hitler
3:46:12 hitler miscalculates in the same way i think khamenei miscalculates khamenei heard the debate
3:46:17 over the past number of years he believed that this sort of isolationist wing
3:46:23 of the republican party right represented i think in you know by tucker carlson and others who have been
3:46:29 very anti-intervention with respect to iran i think he believed that that was the dominant voice within
3:46:35 trump’s maga coalition and that as a result the united states would not use military force so in the same
3:46:43 way that hitler miscalculated the influence of the isolationists on fdr khamenei misjudged the
3:46:49 influence of the isolationists on trump and both ended up miscalculating to uh to their great regret
3:46:55 so to me that’s the sort of parallel between kind of world war ii in the 30s and the prelude to world
3:47:00 war ii and what we’re seeing in the in the current reality over the past few weeks to make clear you
3:47:05 mentioned there’s a parallel but mostly there’s no parallel it’s a fundamentally different absolutely
3:47:09 there will never be a war like that and i have a real problem too because they always say everybody’s
3:47:14 hitler all enemies are hitler and to compromise with them at all is to appease hitler and you can
3:47:20 never do that i agree and they do that to manuel noriega to david koresh to saddam hussein to whoever
3:47:26 they feel like demonizing and saying it was unique too crazy to negotiate with when let’s get real
3:47:33 and i think we’re agreed about this probably that right in 2002 w bush could have just sent colin
3:47:38 powell the four-star general former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff secretary state to read the
3:47:43 riot act to saddam hussein and tell him look man you help keep al-qaeda down and we’ll let you live
3:47:49 and everything would have been fine and and in fact just like saddam hussein and there’s a great article
3:47:56 i don’t agree hang on hang on there’s there’s an article by james rising in the new york times and
3:48:01 there’s another one by seymour hirsch as well about how saddam hussein offered to give in on everything
3:48:05 he said you want to search for weapons of mass destruction you can send your army and fbi everywhere
3:48:09 you want you want us to switch sides in the israel-palestine conflict we’ll stop backing
3:48:13 hamas you want us to hold elections we’ll hold this we’ll hold elections just give us a couple years
3:48:17 if this is about the oil we’ll sign over mineral rights this is james rise in new york times
3:48:22 they sent an emissary to meet with richard pearl in london that was who was the chair of the defense
3:48:27 policy board and was a major ringleader of getting us into iraq war ii and then they i don’t know why
3:48:31 this is a real mistake you want to talk about saddam’s mistakes why does he always send his guys to meet
3:48:37 with richard pearl because the there was a saudi businessman pardon me a lebanese businessman i think
3:48:43 that they tried to get to intervene as well who again offered virtually total capitulation and pearl
3:48:50 told him tell saddam we’ll see you in baghdad after he was attempting to essentially unconditionally
3:48:54 surrender the same thing happened with iran in 2003 right after america invaded they issue what was
3:49:00 called the golden offer which the bush administration buried and they castigated the swiss ambassador who
3:49:05 had delivered it but in the golden offer and you can find the pdf file of it online they talk about
3:49:10 we’re happy to negotiate with you our entire nuclear program which didn’t even really exist yet
3:49:17 but nuclearization we’re to willing to negotiate with you about afghanistan and iraq because again
3:49:21 they hated saddam hussein and wanted rid of him too so they’re perfectly happy to work with us on
3:49:26 afghanistan and iraq and they had captured a bunch of bin ladenites and they were willing to trade them
3:49:33 for the mek and that included one of bin laden’s sons and another guy named atef both of whom the
3:49:38 iranians held under house arrest for years and it was only in the i think late and they’re giving
3:49:45 refuge to al-qaeda and the cia said this is a key facilitation pipeline between iran and al-qaeda
3:49:51 they were willing to negotiate a trade between these dangerous bin ladenites and the mek and america
3:49:58 refused to negotiate that and it was years later when the bin ladenites abducted some iranian diplomats
3:50:04 in pakistan that they then traded them away to get their diplomats back and atef i think bin laden’s
3:50:10 son ended up being killed not long after that hamsa but and and atef too but both of those dangerous terrorists
3:50:17 were released and were involved in terrorism between then them then and the time that they were later killed
3:50:21 i think within a couple of years of that so the hawks always like to say oh yeah iran gives such
3:50:26 aid and comfort to al-qaeda and all that there’s a great document at the counterterrorism center at
3:50:31 west point where they debunk all of that yeah there’s a 9-11 report by the 9-11 commission
3:50:37 there’s a 9-11 commission report people can google it which talks about the cooperation between iran
3:50:44 and al-qaeda only in bosnia when they were doing a favor for bill clinton beyond that and cia released
3:50:51 thousands of pages of classified material that they declassified showing the relationship between iran and al-qaeda
3:50:58 the u.s treasury department under obama and under trump actually designated a number of iranian
3:51:04 individuals for facilitating al-qaeda so anyway i mean these these are important facts but i actually
3:51:09 mentioned baghdadian soleimani in the same breath a minute ago when they’re deadly enemies and it was
3:51:13 soleimani’s shiite forces in iraq war three that helped destroy the caliphate is my friend
3:51:18 with america flying air power for the greatest era that we’ve made in the middle east there’s this notion
3:51:23 not the greatest but one of the greatest is this sort of conceptual era that somehow sunnis and
3:51:29 shiais don’t work together and iran doesn’t work with al-qaeda i’m not saying you say that but but many
3:51:33 people think that and of course they do work they hate each other but of course they work together
3:51:36 because they hate us more but can i just say something lex because i actually think just stepping
3:51:41 back from like all of this detail the more we start to zoom out now the better yeah i’d like to zoom
3:51:47 out a little bit i look i think the lessons for me um over 22 years i’m working on these issues is
3:51:53 one must learn about the mistakes that we’ve made in iraq and in afghanistan and libya okay one must
3:51:58 learn about the mistakes that we made in vietnam mistakes that we made in world war ii so we can make
3:52:04 them all over again and run this time can i finish or go ahead are you good yeah i’m ready all right
3:52:12 so um i think that what what president trump is trying to do is learn but not overlearn right i think he
3:52:18 understands the mistakes that have been made i think he’s trying to rectify those mistakes and he also
3:52:25 understands that american power is important it is been a it is a force for good in the world even though
3:52:31 we have made major mistakes i think there’s a great danger amongst certain people to believe that
3:52:38 no power should ever be exercised that all american power is a bad thing and a destructive thing and
3:52:43 sometimes to confuse major tactical decisions right that have been made whether it’s been made by
3:52:51 the brits in world war ii or the americans or us or whoever it is in whatever war with the fact that
3:52:55 there is a strategic reality that we always have to be conscious about and that we have enemies
3:53:01 right this is not the garden of eden yet i hope the libertarians create one i want to go live there
3:53:06 when they do and scott and i will be neighbors believe it or not living living in that garden of eden
3:53:14 together but there are major threats in this world and we need to find the right balance between the
3:53:18 overuse of military power and the underuse of military power if we want to avoid wars we have to
3:53:24 serious deterrence because our enemies need to understand we will use selective and narrowly
3:53:31 focused overwhelming military power when we are facing threats like an iranian nuclear weapon that
3:53:36 is a serious threat it’s a serious threat to us it’s a serious threat to the region it’s a serious threat
3:53:41 with respect to proliferation around the world and i think with that respect i think president trump’s
3:53:51 decision to drop bombs on three key nuclear facilities was a selective targeted military action that i hope
3:53:57 will drive the iranians back to the negotiating table where they can negotiate finally the dismantlement of
3:54:02 their nuclear weapons program right i think there’s a danger weapons again again we’ve had a four-hour
3:54:05 debate on this so i’m sure if you want to rewind you can listen to all our arguments once again
3:54:13 um but the fact of the matter is is that the our unwillingness to use power if we’re never going to
3:54:19 use power all that’s going to do is send a signal to our enemies that they can do whatever they want
3:54:24 they can violate whatever agreements they want they can they can use aggression against anyone they
3:54:29 want and i think that makes that puts american lives in danger and we’ve seen the results of that
3:54:34 where we we delayed and delayed and delayed and we didn’t move and we didn’t move too early and we
3:54:40 didn’t preempt and and the threat grew and we ignored the gathering storm and so i think the lessons of
3:54:47 you know 100 years of american military involvement is if you have an opportunity early on as the storm is
3:54:54 gathering to use all instruments of american power with the military one being the last one you use
3:55:02 then deter when you can and strike when you must in order to prevent the kinds of escalation and wars
3:55:07 that everybody at this table and i’m sure everybody listening in your audience is seeking to avoid
3:55:14 on that topic question for both of you scott if human civilization destroys itself in the next 75 years
3:55:18 it probably most likely will be a world war three type of scenario maybe a nuclear war
3:55:24 how do we avoid that we’ve been talking about iran but there’ll be new conflicts there’s ukraine
3:55:34 china cashmere cashmere yeah um north korea no yeah don’t forget north korea yeah i mean there was a
3:55:39 time when north korea was the biggest threat to human civilization according to we could have had a deal
3:55:45 except john bolton ruined it so that’s the bigger question not so much in the specifics oh i mean the
3:55:51 second time he ruined the clinton deal of 94 then he ruined the trump deal of 2018 or maybe maybe the
3:55:55 korean dictator north korean dictator ruined it but again one doesn’t want to blame our enemies for
3:55:59 their mistakes well you know that at the second meeting trump sent john bolton to outer mongolia
3:56:05 so that he couldn’t sit at the table and ruin the deal but but what happened then the democrats had his
3:56:10 lawyer testify against him while he was at the meeting and they had this huge propaganda campaign
3:56:15 that kim jong-un is going to walk all over trump and take such advantage of him and they made it
3:56:19 virtually impossible for him to walk away claiming a victory god do you ever blame the enemy ever
3:56:26 do you ever blame the enemy north korea is not my enemy north korea is not your enemy no really they
3:56:31 they they they build nuclear weapons icbms that targeted america george bush and john bolton’s fault
3:56:38 whatever fault it is the fact of the matter is do you ever ever blame an american adversary or is it
3:56:44 always our fault in fact what happened is it always our fault see all you can do is characterize but you
3:56:50 want to talk about the details the details are that stephen began who worked for for donald trump
3:56:56 gave a speech and said you know what we can put normalization first and denuclearization later i know
3:57:02 and then they brought donald donald trump brought john bolton to the meeting and he prevented that
3:57:09 from being the uh from being the uh the message of the meeting so it’s always ruin the deal always
3:57:13 john bolton’s fault yes that’s right it’s all john bolton’s fault because how reasonable does it sound to
3:57:19 you lex give up all your nuclear weapons first then we’ll talk about every other issue does that sound
3:57:23 like a poison pill or that sounds like a reasonable negotiation give me a break sounds like a beginning of
3:57:28 negotiation but yeah well they got nowhere well because trump brought john bolton with him and
3:57:32 helped to ruin it and maybe they went nowhere because the north korean dictator at the end of the
3:57:40 day is a dictator who wants to threaten the united states with icbms and nuclear listen you’re you’re
3:57:45 criticizing the the sequential decisions made in negotiation i am asking you a serious question
3:57:52 hours of talking okay which i must say i’ve really enjoyed i’ve learned a lot i enjoyed it i think
3:57:56 there’s been areas of agreement obviously real disagreement but i here’s the question you’re
3:58:02 like really i mean do you ever ever hold our adversaries responsible or do you just don’t think
3:58:09 we have any adversaries this is ridiculous the the topic has been tell me from from your point of view
3:58:15 it’s all the adversaries and all america and israel trying to do is survive and fix the situation the
3:58:20 best they can i’ve acknowledged america mistakes by bringing up all the things that america and israel
3:58:24 have done to make matters worse i didn’t ever say that the ayatollah is some great guy or that kim
3:58:31 but do you think they’re a threat to america are they a threat to america no of course not as
3:58:38 zibigna brzezinski said in 1993 we could have perfectly normalized relations then you talk about
3:58:43 iranian support for al-qaeda iran supported al-qaeda in bosnia that’s the bottom line in 1995 as a favor to
3:58:49 bill clinton because they were trying to suck up to the united states is why they supported your position
3:58:55 yes my position is whatever you say it is not what i say no no i’m just trying to summarize you know
3:58:59 who’s the last person who told me i need to be aware about over learning the lessons of iraq it was
3:59:07 charlie savage from the new york times when on the subject was his absolute ridiculous hoax that russia
3:59:13 was paying the taliban to murder american soldiers in afghanistan in 2020 which ruined trump’s potential
3:59:17 which he was floating trow balloons about withdrawing in the summer of 2020 which would
3:59:23 have absolutely scott you said joe biden erica you said it and charlie savage who published these
3:59:29 ridiculous lies scott that were later refuted by the general in charge of the afghan war the head of
3:59:32 centcom the chairman of the joint chief staff and the director of central intelligence as much detail as
3:59:38 possible he told me you know what your problem is horton is you have over learned the lessons of iraq war
3:59:45 two but it turned out those lessons were perfectly apt for charlie savage’s hoax it wasn’t true what
3:59:49 charlie savage said you know what he resorted to he said well it’s true that there was a rumor i was
3:59:54 reporting on scott you made it very clear america has no adversaries that’s called learning the lessons
3:59:59 of iraq not over learning that all right so i guess the the answer to the question i asked uh about
4:00:05 avoiding world war three three is the two of you becoming friends that’s my my goal if we can try to find
4:00:10 the light at the end of the tunnel one one last question what gives you hope to the degree of hope
4:00:18 about the future what gives you hope about this great country of ours and humanity too yeah i mean look
4:00:25 there are a million wonderful things about this country the land the people our culture and our
4:00:32 resources and everything and the kind of society that we could build in a not with a control system
4:00:38 but with just a pure free market capitalist system in this country where people are allowed to own
4:00:43 their property improve its value and exchange it on the market and build this country up we would be
4:00:51 living in comparatively a paradise compared to what we have now and if you look at the opportunity costs
4:00:58 just since the end of the cold war on on all that has been wasted on militarism in the middle east
4:01:05 especially but also in eastern europe and in east asia all of that wealth put here could have gone
4:01:12 much more to something like perfecting our society it’s always an unfinished project so that then we
4:01:17 really have something to point to the rest of the world and say this is how you’re supposed to do it
4:01:27 not like that i think it’s crucial that for all of the problems that somalia syria libya iraq afghanistan
4:01:35 have the worst thing about those countries is america’s wars there it’s what we have done to them
4:01:41 as the worst thing about those places so we’re not much of a position to criticize you know whatever
4:01:46 horrible and political uh practices uh you know cultural and and things about their societies that
4:01:52 we would like to criticize when the worst chaos that’s happened to them has been inflicted by our
4:01:59 country against them virtually all in in wars of choice that were unnecessary from the get-go what gives you
4:02:05 hope what gives me hope i think first of all um i have a lot of um hope and confidence in the wisdom
4:02:11 of the american people um i think americans understand the end of the day that they need
4:02:17 leaders who are about making america great again i think they elected donald trump who is flawed in
4:02:22 many many ways but i think trump is wrestling with some of the questions that we have been wrestling with
4:02:28 for the past five hours um i think that um i think most americans know that we have adversaries
4:02:35 uh and you know it’s just overwhelming numbers of americans understand that they may disagree on
4:02:39 exactly who is an adversary and how you rank them but they know we have adversaries i think the third
4:02:45 thing is americans greatly admire the men and women in uniform i mean i think the institution with the
4:02:51 greatest popularity in america still remains the u.s military while many of other institutions are
4:02:56 are failing the american people and are reflected in the in the polling i think we’ve got to be very
4:03:03 judicious about how we use this incredibly powerful military um because most importantly it comes down to
4:03:06 it’s not about weapons and technology it’s about the people it’s about the men and women who it’s
4:03:12 sacrificed their lives um to serve our country at the end of the day if we understand we have
4:03:17 adversaries we’re careful about we how we use our military we understand the importance of forward
4:03:23 deterrence in order to actually confront threats before they become so severe that we ended up plunging
4:03:29 ourselves in a war i agree totally with scott in terms of how we use our money and how judiciously we
4:03:34 must we have to guard it i agree with how we’ve we’ve run up these massive debts and we have to be
4:03:39 actually if we’re serious and conservatives are really serious they need to stop they need to tackle
4:03:46 these massive budgets deficits um and and you know it would be really easy if it was just all about the
4:03:49 military and we could just kind of get rid of the pentagon and all of a sudden we’d be running balanced
4:03:55 budgets it’s not the case we have much deeper structural economics economic problems in this country
4:04:02 everybody knows that and so we got huge challenges as a country um but i really believe uh as i believe
4:04:08 since i was a little kid that america is the greatest force for good in the world and that we do we make
4:04:14 mistakes sometimes tragic mistakes we make huge miscalculations and i think we will be much more
4:04:21 clear in how to rectify those mistakes if we stop obsessing with these boogeymen that are out there
4:04:28 the israelis the jews the iranians well and we start focusing on our adversaries which are not
4:04:34 the iranians because the 80 80 of iranians despise this regime and and you know lex i feel really bad
4:04:37 that we in five hours we actually haven’t even talked about that in any detail many of my friends
4:04:42 are iranian they’re beautiful people and it’s one of the great cultures on earth yeah and you know the
4:04:46 only place they don’t succeed in the world is inside the islamic republic when they come to america
4:04:52 and canada and europe they’re incredibly successful people and 80 of iranians despise this regime and
4:04:59 they long for a free and prosperous iran and so it’s a big question that they’re ever going to get
4:05:04 there and who knows the right way to get them there but at the end of the day i am convinced that the
4:05:09 vast majority of iranians are our friends but there is a regime that has been trying to build nuclear
4:05:15 weapons has been engaged in terrorism for decades has killed and maimed thousands of americans and
4:05:21 and our allies and it’s a regime that has to be stopped and i think donald trump in the past couple
4:05:27 of weeks i would argue in the past number of months has tried to try to play a strategy try to figure
4:05:33 out a way to offer the iranians negotiations and a peaceful solution to this but use overwhelming
4:05:39 military power recently against iran’s nuclear sites in a very targeted way in order to send a
4:05:44 message to the islamic republic of iran that they cannot continue to build nuclear weapons and threaten
4:05:52 america and so i hope that things will work out well on this i i’ve always said curb your enthusiasm
4:06:00 because we have still a lot of of pieces that still need to fall into place and this is going to be
4:06:05 a windy road as we try to figure this out i’m hoping for the best preparing for the worst and
4:06:10 want to thank you very much for having me on the show scott it was a real pleasure to meet you i
4:06:15 enjoyed the debate very lively i admire your dedication to the issue and your and your intention to detail
4:06:21 and i think all of that speaks well of of you and your commitment and and your passion for this so i am
4:06:29 thank you deeply grateful that you guys will come here uh this is really mind-blowing uh also that you
4:06:35 have it’s silly maybe to say but the courage to sit down and talk through this through the tension
4:06:40 i’ve learned a lot i think a lot of people are going to learn a lot um a fan of both of your work
4:06:47 and um it means a lot that you come here today and talk to a silly kid like me so scott thank you so
4:06:51 much brother thank you thank you mark thanks lex appreciate it bam thanks scott
4:06:58 thanks for listening to this debate between scott horton and mark jubowitz to support this podcast
4:07:03 please check out our sponsors in the description and consider subscribing to this channel
4:07:10 and now let me leave you with some sobering words on the cost of war from dwight d eisenhower
4:07:18 for some context eisenhower was the 34th president of the united states but before that during world war ii
4:07:23 he was the supreme commander of the allied expeditionary force orchestrating some of the
4:07:30 most significant military operations of the war with leadership marked by strategic and tactical brilliance
4:07:39 it is in this context that the following words carry even more power and wisdom spoken in 1953
4:07:47 every gun that is made every warship launched every rocket fired signifies in the final sense
4:07:54 a theft from those who hunger and are not fed those who are cold and are not clothed
4:08:03 this world in arms is not spending money alone it is spending the sweat of its laborers the genius of
4:08:11 a scientist the hopes of its children the cost of one modern heavy bomber is this a modern brick school
4:08:18 in more than 30 cities it is two electric power plants each serving a town of 60 000 population
4:08:26 it is two fully equipped hospitals it is some 50 miles of concrete highway we pay for a single fighter
4:08:35 plane with a half million bushels of wheat we pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have
4:08:41 housed more than 8 000 people this is not a way of life at all in any true sense
4:08:47 under the cloud of threatening war that is humanity hanging from a cross of iron
4:08:55 and now allow me to add some additional brief excerpts in 1946 eisenhower said
4:09:04 i hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can only as one who has seen its brutality its futility
4:09:13 it’s stupidity in 1950 eisenhower said possibly my hatred of war blinds me so that i cannot comprehend
4:09:21 the arguments they adduce but in my opinion there’s no such thing as a preventative war although the
4:09:28 suggestion is repeatedly made none has yet explained how war prevents war worse than this no one has been
4:09:37 been able to explain away the fact that war creates the conditions that beget war and finally an excerpt
4:09:51 a vital element in the peace is our military establishment our arms must be mighty ready for
4:09:56 instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction american makers of
4:09:56 plowshares could with time and as required make swords as well but now we can no longer risk emergency
4:10:16 improvisation of national defense we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions this conjunction of an
4:10:23 an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in american experience
4:10:25 yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications
4:10:34 in the councils of government we must guard against an acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought
4:10:44 or unsought by the military industrial complex the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
4:10:59 and will persist thank you for listening and hope to see you next time