Bill Kristol: A Madman's Way of War

Now it is time to eat. The best way to eat is to eat a gratis. The people who have been in cheese, cheese, cheese. Now to the gratis. Time to eat.

The coffee and the coffee and the coffee is ready. Only the last time. The time to eat with the food and cheese menu. Hello and welcome to the Polish podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller.

It is Monday so we are back with Editor at Large Bill Crystal. The morning shot is newsletter. A lot has happened since Friday is podcast with Amanda Carpenter, which should be a reminder to you know, checking out the board takes feed on the weekends as news happens

because we are at world with Iran now. And Bill, I just want to kind of start with a state of play for people. Okay, with you. You can edit or amend any of my assessment. I will be happy to. And also we, you and JBL and Sarah and Mark Kertling did an excellent

early Saturday with Saturday morning at nine kind of first snapshot

of where things were and then you and I and Mark Kertling did something at noon yesterday Sunday. And I have got to say both of them were I thought informative and luckily general hurtlings there. So the rest of us can talk and he can actually.

He actually explain and analyze.

“And but no, I think both of you and our analysis of what was happening”

on the ground and to your home for that matter domestically, which you particularly focused on yesterday was good. Look, it's a very impressive military operation. You know, we took out a huge number for Arty and assets that they working with Israel.

Very close collaboration with Israel. I mean, I made a little surprise by that. Usually that's some attempt to maintain distance. It seems like it was a genuinely, you know, coordinated effort. wiped out a large percentage of the Iranian leadership.

And really a nationwide campaign against military assets. Way beyond degrading, you know, key nodes of the nuclear program. We're taking out some missile sites. You know, that was what happened last summer in June. This was a real attempt to go after the regime and many aspects, I'd say.

And, and if you look at this, the map of the places we've hit. Some of them were not nuclear, many most of them are not nuclear. Some of them were, you know, ballistic missile sites. They were other forms of regime. Places of the regime had assets and weapons and coordinating structures.

And so the military campaign is consistent with regime change, as a goal. As clearly as the initial goal, it's the goal of Trump articulated. Blade Friday night early Saturday morning. It is a little late middle of the dress. He's waived back and forth on that goal since obviously.

And in terms of the military effort, finally, it's gone well.

You know, wars or wars, right, so we've lost four soldiers, sadly. And some planes and others, you know, Iran is not disabled. Let me just give a quick rundown on that. So, before we get to what exactly the goal is here. As you mentioned, I could total annihilation to capitalization of Iranian leadership.

I told a community, dead, Ahmadinejad, was not involved in this government.

“But I think kind of plotting a more radical coup type government.”

He's also dead among familiar names to listeners total domination of Iranian airspace. Obviously, Israel has a ton of assets inside Iranian military leadership. So impressive in that sense. But, you know, as wars go, you know, it's not just us bombing them. Therefore, American soldiers dead at the time of this taping.

We don't know the details on that yet. There was initially, they announced, three had died of another one at it this morning. Three US F-15 strike Eagles went down in Kuwait in a friendly fire incident. The pilot survived there. They had quarters to the US Navy's fifth lead in Bahrain's been hit.

US embassy has been attacked in Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait. There was a mass shooting in Austin that maybe in response to this. They got the shooter. It was, you know, wearing sweatshirts at all on. I think it's shirt underneath that had the Iranian flag on it.

Among the factions that we took, in addition to all things, you laid up, but although it was a tragic bombing of a girl's school in southern Iran. Many dead there. Just really cook a couple of the things. She up politically.

Hasbul has entered the war, bombing Israel from inside Lebanon. Israel responded. Lebanese leadership's not trying to expel.

Hasbul Oster's kind of a second engagement there.

Trump to tap her this morning. Jake Tapper. He said, we haven't even started hitting them hard. The big one is coming soon. And then Pete Higgsoth and Dan came at a press conference.

We are coming to about get into it. So that seems to be the state of affairs. And as you kind of let us there.

“I think the most important question remaining here is what exactly is the goal of what we're doing.”

Like, what is the objective? Was it safety? Safety for us?

Long-term safety? Short-term safety? Is it regime change? Human rights in Iran? Trump's legacy?

Payback for them trying to assassinate Trump? Nuclear weapons only. It's not really clear. And interestingly this morning, the daily caller was originally Tucker Carlson's outlet. A very pro-Trump outlet.

They got the second question to Pete Higgsoth and Dan Kane.

Because the Pentagon press corps has been totally a viscerate. We don't have any real journalists. But I guess Kudos to Reagan-Rethydale call reporter who asked the question, "What are our objectives?" I want to play you.

Pete Higgsoth's answer for that. President said yesterday in his video message that we will leave Iran when we complete all of our objectives. What are our objectives?

“And can you share more information on how the soldiers superkilled or killed?”

Well, I laid out the objectives. As did the chairman, they're completely nested. I mean, Iran has an ability to project power against us in our allies in a ways that we can't tolerate. So whether that's ballistic missiles and drones, so offensive capabilities. Effectively, they're navy, which would attempt to set other terms and impose different costs.

Drone capabilities, which we laid out there. And ultimately, though this tying it back to midnight hammer, the president has been willing to make a deal. You can't have a nuclear bomb. Radical Islamists can't have a nuclear bomb that they wield against the world. He gave them every single opportunity.

Then we precisely took it away. And even then, after that, they didn't have that. They didn't come to the table with a willingness to give it away.

So ultimately, those nuclear ambitions, which never ceased are something that had to be addressed as well.

So that's a discrete sense of what's being addressed, you're to ensure that they can't use that conventional umbrella to continue a pursuit of nuclear ambitions. Didn't seem to clear a lot up for me. Iran has an ability to project power in a way we can't tolerate. It's pretty amorphous. He mentioned their navy and drone capabilities. A lot of countries have that. They're nuclear ambitions.

And the end saying, this is a discrete sense of what's being addressed here.

“Did you feel like you got a sense of what's being addressed here?”

Before I address that, one foot on and you're excellent update on the state of the way. I would say the one thing that's been a little striking to some friends who might have followed this stuff. More expertise than I do is we have not decimated Iran's counter strike capability. It says that they're lobbying lots of missiles and drones at various allies at our own bases and at UAE and many of the Arab nations nearby. So I hope they're all decimated in another day or two, but it may not be.

And that does raise the specter of a wider war, obviously. I thought the HECS at first conference this morning. It was really telling. Reviews will be clear about it, even that's retained the questions really about the goals. But to the degree he entertained them, he was hard over on no regime change, no long-term strategy. Frankly, just we're there to beat it beat them up so badly.

They don't think about messing with us again, I guess. I don't think they were messing with us at HECS a lot. Honestly, in the last few years, you know, when they were pretty badly beat up a Jew. And so there was no imminent threat for Iran. There was even much of a medium threat for Iran at this point.

Do they let you hear that work again? Yeah, no. If you're Israel's differences, they're even there. And suddenly they had done it off a lot of damage. So there was a plausibly coherent regime change. Strategy still shouldn't have been done without congressional authorization.

A million problems with it, but it was plausible.

“I actually, the HECS I think really hit me because I think he's sort of a totally undercut that.”

And I don't really see what the coherent strategy is or the coherent rationale for the war, or the defensible rationale for the war. And I hate to say this, as someone who's, you know, supports it. It's a naturalist that even sometimes interventions are in policy. And the use of force were necessary.

What are our servicemen and women doing over there? I mean, I mean, really, I don't mean that in a silly way. I mean, I mean, I honestly feel this, like personally what would you tell someone who's sound a daughter or spouse was serving over there? What national interest or American values?

Are they serving? Yeah. Well, the family's the fourth of died so far. I want to talk to them for what? In the literal sense, again, that's kind of a, like, rhetorical, you know, political and pick-code

pink sense. Like, right? Like, what is the literal reason why they are there? The administration can't enunciate it, and it changes minute by minute. So I just want to go through a couple of the things you mentioned. On the point of this being freedom and Iran, freedom for the Iranian people

or regime change and Iran brings stability to the regime. Initially Saturday morning Trump told Blosshire Post that was the goal. I mean, he sounded like 299 Bill Crystal freedom, freedom in the Middle East was important. That's what Trump said. In Saturday morning, offers a totally different story to the Atlantic.

He talked to Michael Sherry. Trump said he's planning to start talks with the new Iranian regime, whoever that is. And he waffles on whether he provides support for a popular stop rising. He says he'd have to see how it turns out. Then on the regime change front, he told the New York Times over the weekend.

Have some bad news on that.

“Late last night, he told John Carl that the candidates that they had to take over Iran were killed”

in the initial attack. Trump, the attack was so successful. It knocked out most of the candidates. It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they're all dead.

Second or third place is dead.

Then he gets up this morning. A tear point says we're not doing nation building flagmires. No democracy building exercise. So, I don't know. I mean, Trump and other people have said that they want, you know, regime change

or that they want, you know, freedom for the people of Iran. But simultaneously, they don't seem to have any idea under what auspices that would come. And minute by minute, they're kind of going back and forth on whether they're even interested in that or being involved in that.

Yeah, one point on the media strategy, you would Sarah discuss this very well. Yesterday also on a video take. I mean, Trump's good at giving random interviews to Israeli and different reporters. And advancing his culture war, you know, agenda, whatever it is, a particular day. This is a real war.

And the president of the United States should not be randomly calling up reporters having three or five or six minute conversations with them, giving different and confusing rationales for the war. And then sort of signing off without it with no clarification, no apparent coordination within the administration about what they really want to be saying today, what they want to

“tell the American public, who do deserve some clarity about this?”

The whole public and particularly, of course, those who's loved ones are serving over there. But everyone deserves clarity and our allies and people around the world. It's so irresponsible. I mean, this is like a little thing in the big scheme of things. But it is worth noting, I think, as you and Sarah did.

I mean, it's not just silly, but it's damaging, right? I mean, yeah. I mean, there's been no presidential address. And it's totally insane. Like on Tuesday, three days before they started the war,

it was the biggest address that a president gives every year at the state of the union. Like, give one paragraph on this. Then has not given an awful office address since then has like randomly called up John Carl and Jake Tapper. That is crazy.

It's the biggest military operation that we've been involved in in a generation. The president should be telling people what the point is. And he's boasting to Tapper. The big ones really coming, I don't know what that means.

But if you accept hexas account of the goes to the war, it could end now, basically.

I don't think it's any danger around doing anything to us. They'll take them so long to recover from the decapitation of their leadership and the decimation of so many of their military assets. Why are we continuing to fight now?

“I think there are reasons if you really want to try to help get a better regime in place there.”

That may be reasons I don't know about in terms of some assets. They still have that we haven't hit yet, but we could do that pretty quickly at this point. And so the whole thing is, yeah, in coherent, this might turn out okay. Wars are unpredictable. You can get lucky. The whole machine could collapse even though we don't want. We're not even trying to make a collapse into the class.

Anything to turn out okay, like look what happened in Syria. We don't know if long-term Syria turns out okay. The Turkish rebels weren't trying to even really take out a side. Like all of a sudden, like the house of cards just collapsed, the sides gone. It's replaced with this old al-Qaeda guy.

You know, is he going to be better than a side? Me, you know, so probably. Yeah, so yeah, I agree. I don't want to reclude that, but I'd say to the degree that we are talking about a serious, as you said. A serious war by far the largest of Trump's presidency.

No congressional authorization, which, by itself, makes it much more of a gamble. And it's Trump's own risk taking. And then no precise goal. Very hard to defend. I really didn't have to believe that.

Here's the text at this point in case this clears it up for you. This is not a regime change war, but the regime did change. I don't know how we would splice that. Why is the Secretary of Defense saying that? I mean, that's he's supposed to be talking about the military side.

It doesn't mean there's a Secretary of State. It might have a few views on what the broader, you know, conceptual the war is. I, it's nothing the president, the vice president has gone. It's hiding, I guess. So I don't know how the whole thing is.

And here Dan came next to him, who is doing the military update, which was useful. But yeah, and then they took 13 minutes of questions. Given the scale and scope of this operation, I'm not nearly up to, you know, what would be called for. As far as responsiveness to a free people who want to know what's happening. I, there's literally a January 6th insurrectionist that was in the room.

Today, we're in a stock, I don't know if you got a question. So, this is one of these buffoonish kind of state media organizations that were asking them like, how did it make you feel to kill Communious? And Cain was really being just like brass tax about like what has happened.

It was basically all he did.

And then you have hague stuff up there. I'm doing a Saturday night live performance of it to far defense secretary attacking media outlets, calling people stupid, you know, leafality. It's like it's crazy. Just one more thing on the regime change.

So kind of get through a couple of these other plausible explanations for what they're trying to do. Maybe Trump was reviewing something to the New York Times and Michael shared.

Where you bring in the Iranian Delsea Rodriguez. And then we're kind of the junior partner, at least in some of the military operations. And Israel is out there with a little different objective. And they're taking out people left and right. And I think that Israel might be okay with a period of uncertainty in my regime collapse.

And that could be a sign that while the operations are cohesive together, the like mission might not be. But you want to see if that actually doesn't want to waste money. You know, but it was listening to Scott Gallo any other day and looked at your subscriptions, realized you could save some money.

If you're unsubscribing to the terrible tech oligarchs that are ruining our society. Here's another thing you could do to save your money. Big wireless carriers are taking too much of it. So if you're tired of spending hundreds on crazy high wireless bills, the bogus fees and free perks because you're more in the long run than a premium wireless plan

from mid-mobile for 15 bucks a month might be right for you.

“Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been.”

Mint exists purely to fix that. And it mobile is here to rescue you with premium wireless plans starting a 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered. On the nation's largest 5G network, you bring your own phone and number. You can activate it in minutes and start saving immediately no long-term contracts or hassle.

That's just before this is, you know, especially if you're getting into the kids' families. We're looking into a wireless program for them. You know, this is something that's affordable. Not quite there yet, but we're all discussing it in the moms and dads group chat.

So we're starting to think about when the right time is for kids. And you know, at 15 bucks a month, it's not breaking the bank as much as some of these other plans. Will it? If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at MintMobile.com/bullwork.

That's MintMobile.com/bullwork. Up front payment of 45 bucks for a three month, five gigabyte plan is required. Clivent to 50 bucks a month.

New customer offer for first three months only.

Then full price plan options available, taxes, and fees. Extras, C, MintMobile for details. Other potential theories on a put forth for what the real mission is here. Revenge, Trump to Jonathan Carl last night. I got him before he got me on the Ayatola.

They tried twice while I got him first. So that's all this is. Maybe maybe it's just Trump on a revenge against Iran on the threat scale. Scott Jennings of CNN had said that there was an immediate imminent threat coming. That he had friends inside the administration.

We had to act because it could have been a quote, mass casualty event. That turns out to be wrong. DAD briefers did go to Congress over the weekend. And they said that Iran was not planning to strike the U.S. forces or bases. The Middle East and less Israel attacked Iran first.

Long-term threat headset today saying that Iran was building powerful missiles and drones.

The could help with their nuclear umbrella.

“In that initial clip I put at the top, I guess that's what he's trying to say.”

I guess that's the safety and security case that he's making. Yeah, I mean the missiles are our danger to the region. Certainly Israel. I don't think many people think they're much of a danger to us here. I guess they were danger to our troops in the region.

But Iran was being pretty well deterred from attacking U.S. troops. Right? I think there's a reason they presumably haven't done it much in the last few years. And especially in the last six, eight months. I mean, we could cover them if they do that.

And so there was no need to go in. Again, I, it's such a horrible regime. I know so many people have been involved. Honestly, in Iranians, dissident circles that Iranians who left their friends and family have suffered. I was moved by all the celebrations and the streets of terror and Saturday and Sunday. I so much want to believe that this may have been the right thing to do and could work out.

But I've got to say, I've found with Trump's, you know, particular series of interviews. But there were ridiculous, but they all tended wouldn't just say in the direction in scaling back the hope of freedom.

I mean, the first one, as you said, was a Saturday.

“Warning, perhaps I think, with the post, Washington Post, Saturday, but day.”

And that was a little war. Yeah, freedom. And then by Sunday, it's all just, you know, it's personal revenge. And then I want to work it out with the IRGC. Maybe they can kind of deal with some of the other people. We have a list of three people we want to put in charge, as you said.

But a couple of them out, they're all dead. I mean, it's so demoralizing, really, the idea that we moved unbelievable number of assets there. American servicemen of women are at risk, for if died. I mean, others are wound in, and others are now going into combat, returning to combat for more missions. It's so demoralizing that we don't have a serious subjective war.

And essentially, it doesn't have to be, you could have much more limited objective. And that could be serious. But that would then imply a more limited war plan. There's no evidence marker. It links by this point that the actual planning, which is very impressive,

Yeah. And the supporters are trying to have it all the way. You know, I mean, to your point about, like, how I want freedom for the Iranian people. I was also moved by some of the images.

Like last night, our friend in Congress Nancy Mace posts, like if you're angry that Iranian women may finally be free,

“you need to seriously examine your values and yourself.”

That's like, is that what we're doing? Like, is the effort here to free Iranian women? You know, because I don't know, like, you know, I would not have been totally hostile to that mission. If there was a plan, and there were allies, and we had a competent people in charge. And the case was made to Congress and American people, right?

That's not an illegitimate thing to hope for. But like, the supporters of this are just trying to backfill any possible rationale. They can. And, you know, some of them are talking as if, you know, this is a part of the freedom agenda. And like, others are talking completely differently.

And the president is saying different things are different seconds.

So anyway, one other thing that they have put forth, according to the Atlantic, Trump told the confidence that he believes his legacy could be defined by his overthrow of the regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and potentially Cuba.

“I think that there's a madman Trump element to this, too.”

And I think that you think obviously a huge being high in your own supply sort of situation. In terms of his personal ability to run these things of the U.S. military's ability, which is very great. Don't get me wrong, but it's not infinite and not, you know, it can't do everything everywhere. There will be casualties and setbacks, too. There's a kind of megalomation now, I think. It's very dangerous, actually.

We're standing like the hot guy on the crap's table. Yeah. Yeah. It's like this Venezuela thing worked. Yeah.

You know, let's keep pressing. Not really a way to run a country. We hear a lot from folks in the lab and people opposed to Trump. Is that everything we just talked about is all just kind of window dressing on the more true rationale, which is advancing the domestic authoritarianism agenda.

Tim Snyder, you know, for one example, basically saying that the case that Trump wants us to rally to a war,

because it turns everyone as opposed the war into a traitor, and that also, you know, maybe provides rationale for putting certain conditions or limits in the midterm elections. This is called Trump. He's kind of joking with Zelensky, but, you know, a lot of times Trump's jokes have a tinge of truth to them. Where, you know, back in the Oval Office, where he's like, "Oh, you can't have elections during a war."

Maybe that's something I should look into. You know, and then you have kind of the Epstein distraction, sub bullet to that.

“I don't really think that's what's happening, but I think we should at least chew it over.”

Yeah, and he did say something about the elections around messing with the 20, 20, 20, 20, 24 elections. Friday, maybe that's good. Yes, yes, yes. He posted on true social about how Iran, I was, you know, trying to oppose him in the 20, 20 election, and that was part of the steel. And the excuse of foreign interference or dealing with foreign interference is, I think, one of the obvious excuses they could try to use for federal intervention or partial takeover

or part to the 20, 20, 20, 26, and 20, 20, 80 elections. So I don't think we're going to war for those reasons. It's Tim Satter, right, though, that authoritarian government, once you succeed in building at home and some building abroad, you try to do more building abroad, maybe you think if Ali's people to you, it's sort of big stop in your own, but I'm not sure that distinction almost to the domestic and foreign policy, at some point, almost to exist and his mind. It's all about him being on top of every, you know, in charge of it, bullying everyone, right?

And showing his on top, but if he's on top of fraud, he thinks he'll remain on top at home and get away with doing things on the elections, or maybe just people will be so oppressed, they'll vote for him. You know, the intent to discount the kind of war, you know, it's to distract from the Epstein-Fast thing. I didn't really focus on the work, so you read it about the personal, so, you know, how many you wanted to get me, and so I've got him. It wasn't wanted to kill the American president or what it's, or either, you know, or the US had to make clear this as unacceptable.

It's all personal, right? Yeah. If you want to get me, I got him. He got got. That is much more in my mental module of Trump, Megalomania, and how he decides things than, you know, some of the more four-dimensional chess theories of, like, what nefarious activities he has in mind.

I don't mean to say that, of course, you'd like to talk about other things besides Epstein, and, of course, if they're ways from the end of metal and the mid-turbs, they'd like to do it. I just think that the other explanations for what got him to this point, like more sense to me. And to that point, let's talk about the geopolitics, because I think this is huge. Seems like he was pushed into this in a big way by DB and MBS.

I, like, B.B. is not really hiding the ball on that, like on what his objective is here. And there's reporting that, you know, a lot of this started back on one of his research, the lighthouse, December, they're talking about this and talking about how degraded Iran is, you know, how, you know, how competent Israel is that, like, this is a moment to go after a weekend regime. Other reporting that MBS, I guess, was calling Trump last week, saying he's for this pushing him for this. Of course, a Saudi Iranian, she is soon, you know, kind of proxy fight happening for a Germany in the Middle East.

So, what do you make of that part of this story? As you say, I don't think Netanyahu has made much of a secret about his desire to deal more comprehensively with the Iran threat than he's done at the best.

He's been Prime Minister a long, long, long time and has never been able to felt he could, I suppose, deal with Iran in the way he hoped.

He would be both the military capabilities and the stuff he did to Hezbollah, which took away that threat mostly, you know, after October 7th, and then getting up American President who's willing to take the threat of our fleet and move them all to the region and use up on awful lot of munitions. He thought, okay, this is his moment. So, I think that's quite possible, as you say, he's not really, he's candid about it. He's well-ordinated if the US hadn't moved all those ships there, I don't know, honestly, that would be a good, just a quote, maybe they've done a more limited thing, but obviously it's Trump's decision.

“And, but I think I met you earlier, point of view, some of Venezuela was very important, right?”

He did that one day in June, in Iran, at the end of 12 days of Israeli pounding, Iran, and that went okay. Then he was, he talked about Greenland, I think he made that so far, at least Panama, but Venezuela, they gave him a good plan and he did the special operations thing. I don't know if Venezuela is that much better off, honestly, now that it was to us to go, and I don't know that it's going to be much better off for months from now, and I don't know a lot of oils going to come out of there, and I don't know a lot more freedom is going to be there.

But whatever, it was a victory, I mean, and then that went to his head, and I do think he now looks at the world, and where can I move all the US troops and beat up someone? And in this case, it's a regime that really is awful, so people like me want to at least be instinctive, lead for it, and Venezuela is very bad too, actually. But there are actual trade-offs here, right, in terms of, we haven't done anything to help Ukraine, which is actually fighting in Europe against it awful. So the reason is that they should fight a great power, right?

So that's a great point of time. Yeah, that's right, I think that's key. And China, God knows if all the China hawks in the administration, they are all lying about the Middle East. This is the hated people like me who thought they were at least as important, because we get in solid diversion. It's all ridiculous, we need to have all our forces ready to fight China.

Now all our forces are busy fighting Iran, which is sort of an ally, sort of a China, and a Russia. So it weakens Russia a little bit, probably, which is good for Ukraine.

“But also maybe distracts us and resources that could be given to fighting Russia, honestly.”

So yeah, so it may be an helps Russia a little bit, actually. It doesn't weaken Russia. No, it helps in terms of, I think, yeah. And so, of course, we're using things we can't help Ukraine. I mean, we're going to move a lot of troops around and use a lot of air power and stuff.

You know, maybe we should use some of it to help Ukraine directly, honestly. I mean, that's as they were invaded by Russia. Yeah. Iran is a very horrible regime of what they did at home, over the last two months, is really terrible. And for me, would be a ground for kind of an intervention, just because it's a domestic slaughter of their opponents.

But if you are on a more strict peat head-seth America first, J.D. events,

you only get to deal with countries when they cross borders, if found you can't deal with anything domestically. Isn't Russia the example of this in the Iran hasn't invaded anyone very recently, you know? Yeah. So if you're talking about, you know, defending democracy and freedom, it's like, well, there's a free Ukrainian government that we could help. Right?

It's still not even clear what those people would be in Iran. Yeah. And to pay over the Lincoln is pushing N.E.K., which is a more support in Roslan than it does in Iran. And it's basically all it's like, okay, I'm for it, but what's the plan? And like Ukrainian, there's a clear plan, you could move this type of assets there and I've actually helped them.

This one more item on this, like, the geopolitics of any incentive structures in the Middle East. This also ties directly to the corruption story in America, right? It's like, how can you just entangle it?

Is the fact that Saudi, you know, put in a billion dollars to Trump's son-in-law,

“the deck give them more sway here, you have to say, maybe, right?”

Is the fact that Qatar is giving Trump a plane and the UAE and Qatar investing in these media companies that Trump is, you know, encouraging to be taken over by allies in America? Is that part of it? Is that the UAE is in the crypto deal with Trump? Is that part of it?

I mean, Trump is like mobbed up from a business standpoint with Saudi UAE in Qatar in a major way.

We have the acute story of, like, the war, what's happening in the war and that crisis.

“But it's, I think it's an interesting subplot that Ike.”

It seems like we're being walked around the dog track by Arab and Israeli interests, actually, right now. Yeah, and by Trump's own wish to believe people he can get away with bullying and trying away from confronting Russia and China and other two great powers. Which, incidentally, is certainly marked general, and pointed out our conversation Saturday and Sunday with him. In the actual defense strategy, this administration produced just two or three months ago.

It's all about China and not about the Middle East. They kind of, they're shunning the Middle East a little bit. So if Iran were such a threat, when did it suddenly become such a threat? I mean, again, I don't want to be pedantic. I'm a who cares if they mention the strategy.

Maybe their things would have changed and their reasons you got to do what you've got to do. Well, it's very early. I mean, they're not a threat. They're not a threat to us. It's not even worth.

Yeah. Like, right.

You know, giving them any sort of credence on that.

And throwing your weight around all over the world, if it's against the noxious regime, obviously, people give you more room to do that. But it's not cost-free.

“I mean, it's literally not cost-free in terms of lives and money and material and resources.”

It's also not cost-free in terms of just attention and what other countries can do elsewhere and and the lessons that people learn from this. The lesson people learn from this is not that we're, unfortunately, I say this, genuinely with a terrible, with a threat. It's not that we're on the side of freedom.

I'd say at this point, it looks to me like the lesson. They're likely to learn from this. You know, we have a very capable military and we're willing to go in and use it against regimes that are kind of flat on their back, like Venezuela or Iran. And they're already a terribly weak end.

But we're not willing to help Ukraine fight Russia. And God knows what we're willing to do. In the Asia against China. So I mean, maybe it's mercantilist also. It's what people take away.

You know, you can, you can do whatever you want, actually. Domestic, because no again, nobody believes the Trump did this because of the killing of protesters in Iran. It was a heinous killing of protesters in Iran, but we've killed protesters in America this year. And we are not letting Iranian refugees come to America.

In fact, we've been sending Iranian refugees back to Iran. And some of the countries that we're dealing with in the Middle East have terrible human rights records themselves, right? And so I, obviously, you know, to me, if you're the around the world, the lesson is that at least as long as Trump is around, this is like a pay for play thing.

Get in, get in with Trump. And yeah, you know, who didn't get in with Trump on his corrupt BS, Madora and Kamini. Now, there's a new investigation of the Kersichmect investigation. The investigation is done.

Now, the investigation is done. The investigation is done. The investigation is done. The investigation is done. The investigation is done.

Almost there on the Arab stuff, because this is obviously interesting to watch. It's pretty clear at this point. And obviously Saudi is probably of the reporting. It's pretty clear that UAE encounter folks are on board with us, at least some degree. That said, the Saudi official to Al-Jazeera this morning says America is abandoned us and

focuses defense systems on protecting Israel, leaving the Gulf states that host its military bases at the mercy of Iranian missiles and drones. Something to watch, not unprecedented. Saudi would be behind the scenes talking about how they're for America and then to the public and talking about how they don't trust America.

So we'll see how that shakes out. But there have been serious hits. The iconic hotel in Dubai. You can see the picture there by the airport. That got hit.

There are people fleeing Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There's a great sound for story about how it's like, charging $300,000 a pot for people to take a 10 hour black car from Dubai. And Abu Dhabi to Riyad and then a private jet from Riyad. The Yer up to get out of the Middle East.

So again, that's this kind of thing. When you go into something like this, maybe they're on board at the start. But the case wasn't made to their populations either. Like the the Emirates and Qataris and Saudis. I could, it's just two notes, right?

Like how, you know, especially if this escalates how that ends up shaking out. And energy prices look like they might be short-term. I will see what happens. Obviously. I've been so assuming they would settle down, but maybe it'll go up.

I mean, look, you start a war. Things start to happen, right? And they're supposed to go bully these guys and they bully those guys.

But I also should stipulate that that has second and third or effects of its own.

As we're seeing here, right? And the Saudis may be sort of spinning for now. I just tried to pretend that we're very unhappy. But at some point, maybe they really will be unhappy. Or maybe the other allies really will get hit the ways that we don't retaliate.

“And suddenly they're like, what the hell's happening here, you know?”

We encourage Trump to do this, we thought they had a real plan.

Well, there's uprising among the people.

People get pissed. Like, why are we doing it? You know what I mean? Who the hell, you know? Could there be protests in Kuwait?

Are you a against us? Yeah. Awesome. Yeah. TBD.

On how that all shakes out. Just one more geopolitics thing was Iran also attacked the British targets. Your stormer has came out and said that we can use their bases. So again, kind of how this thing trickles out remains recene. Do you mention the energy prices?

“This is, I think about what the domestic impact is on the politics.”

And this is part of the reason why I just, I think that the idea that this is a distraction for Epstein will be a rally around the flag is part of an old construct. You know, it's like the wag the dog was a movie in the 1990s. People really did rally around the flag. I just don't, I don't know that that's true anymore.

We live in deep, we polarized times and we weren't attacked. You know, maybe they'd rally around the flag.

If there was, you know, all the conspiracy theorists always talk about how there's a false flag.

You know, this attack wasn't real. We did it to ourselves. Maybe there was a false flag attack on America. Then maybe that would change. Maybe not, but I just don't see it.

In the polls, we right now. Epstein's the first poll out. 27% support 43 opposed means a bunch of staunch sure. A lot of times people think about independence wrong. A lot of independence are kind of these.

You know, folks that don't pay a lot of attention. Aren't big fans of war aren't reading foreign affairs magazine. You know, don't like have deep thoughts on all that. So I thought it was pretty note where they how that among independence. So it was less popular.

Only seven percent of Democrats for. And you mentioned the energy prices. It's just gaspers only up about 10% here, but 50% in Europe this morning. Again, we'll see how that all plays out. But I just think even if this goes well.

At home, this feels like something is going to be a political problem for Trump. I mean, yes, you say events matter somewhat. You said this yesterday too. Yeah. War's a war real.

I didn't have events. Things are very event dependent and we'll see what it is. We learn that in Iraq. Obviously it look great. Mission accomplished.

That's not so good. For Bush. You know, and but I agree. I mean, this could be bigger than F. Dean actually in terms of its actual effect. I mean, this could be a defining.

Well, we're going to Trump presidency. He deserves to pay a price for it. It's the way politically on the other hand. I hope it's not in the sense that I hope we don't suffer some horrible defeats. And that becomes what's defining.

But we could obviously in terms of our geostrategic position as well as in terms of just, you know, actually losses there in the region.

“I think the Democrats are pretty are in pretty safe ground.”

You said this yesterday in just opposing the war, right? I think so. And you saw some blowback to Mark Kelly was kind of waffling on this a little bit yesterday. I think that Democrats. If they want to be on the more hawkish edge of the party.

And they want to be on the more. You know, flag waiting patriotic freedom into the party. I think taking the bill crystal position for this podcast would be totally fine. Right? Like, like, like, that I've no love for the, I had told this regime is horrible.

Like, if we are working with allies and had a legitimate plan to help, you know, support the people in the streets. I would be for that. But like, that's not what this is. This is a shit show. They don't have a plan.

They haven't offered a plan for people or dead. They haven't come to Congress for support. They haven't made a case to the American people. Under this administration with the way they've behaved and how they've lied and how corrupt they are. I'm a no, no war with Iran.

I just, to me, like, I feel like that's a totally appropriate place to be. That's not really going to alienate anybody except for, you know, small niche groups that have, you know, various interests.

Now, and I think I think the actual vote they'll have in Congress or votes, I guess, in each house are basically at some versions of war-powered solutions,

which require Trump to come back and get authorization within 60 days or something like that. It's still confusing 90 days. So let's be sure of it. The normal charge that would make me hesitate of four days into a war, you shouldn't demoralize our troops and have to cut them by voting to get out or something like that. Or cut it off funding.

That's not what the vote is. The vote is a kind of Trump has to do what he should have done before and come to Congress. And that's sometimes be little on the left. And I understand why that's just process. They've got to be war, you know, ferociously anti-war. They get, but it's, I think it's not just process.

Hey, it really is the Constitution. It is like we're in a constitutional crisis that he's gone to a major war without Congress. Different from a one day strike and or killing Soleimani. But there's no justification. There's no authorization for this. They have to, you can have to use, if they use water and all.

It'll be the 2001 KIDO authorization and Iran's, but it's a terrorist sponsor, but man, that's a 25 years later. That's a bit of a stretch. And again, it's a stretch for the kind of war we're fighting. If you're knocking off the head of the IOTC, who has generally sponsored terror all around the region, but some of which is killed Americans, Hezbollah, that's one thing.

“A major war like this, you need to go to Congress.”

So you didn't go to Congress.

And that's defending the Constitution.

That's not a tack. It's not even being anti war. People can say if they wish, I didn't see where Kelly's comments, but I might say if I were there, look, I can see we could vote for this. You know, if it were properly explained and defended and we had to go here at strategy to authorize certain use of force. It's not like you're necessarily fully 100% anti war.

Most of what it would have been, and probably certainly would be at this point.

“Maybe I would be too, but so I think the Congress argument isn't just a process.”

You know, it has to be at a constitutional argument. I agree with that. I mean, I just, I look, I think the three point the politics of this can be better just being against it all the way down. But that said, putting them on the record matters. Like the rock war vote matters.

You know, like this war vote would matter. And I think it's a tough vote for other Republicans, by the way, but you can get into next. But I don't know if you don't want to think on the Democrats out of this. I think as you said, the rock vote, I guess you were thinking I was thinking too of the original authorizing. But then there was a whole bunch of other votes, you know, funding and so forth as we went forward.

And it's not like this thing just goes away. I mean, maybe it'll end in a week and I don't know if you get about it in two months. And it's a kind of Venezuela, that would be Venezuela, right? Sort of a slightly better, maybe government takes over. It's not too much chaos spilling up beyond its borders.

It's not a huge refugee flow. It's just kind of not great, but not terrible. And everyone kind of moves on. I think that's possible. In that case, it won't help Trump. And I've heard him that much.

But I mean, most of the other outcomes that I can think of are much more problematic, obviously. And so I don't know what it'd be crazy for the Democrats. Six months for now to say, and the war. And you know, right now three months. I mean, maybe that it would be an 90 day authorization.

I revisit 90 days in the war. Now there's cheese. Another kind of chaos that I can't afford to eat. Now it's time for the cheese. Cheese. Cheese. Now it's time to test the cheese.

The point about how it would be a tough boat, I think, even for Magga.

The second genty, who is over breaking points, I just thought this was blunt.

And how he put it on Twitter is this is the most profound campaign to trail in modern US history. He's more on the MAGA isolationist right. We've seen David San out of Ohio already starting to put out statements kind of hedging Massey. It would be against this presumably Rand. So, you know, how far that extends out into MAGA world of the house.

“Do you need to even learn bobert to the world? I don't know, but I think it's a real potential problem for them.”

And it is highlighted by the fact that the person that is the biggest avatar for isolationist MAGA politics right now is the vice president, JD Vance. He's missing. He's not sent to tweet since the war started. He loves to tweet. He sent a picture of him at like the kids table. Like a backup situation room with tall scene ex to him. It was like JD Vance and the cuck chair.

I just want to play a couple of clips from JD Vance. One was from the campaign interview Tim Dylan and the other one was from Meet the Press a couple months ago. Our interest, I think very much, is in not going to war with Iran. Right. It would be huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country.

I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents. And now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not going to be some long drawn out thing. You can see what JD is an out there today. And he was saying this is not going to be some long drawn out thing.

This was months ago after the first attack on Iran and now very much as I mean, even if it isn't a long drawn out thing in the Iraq war sense.

It's drawn out a lot longer than he said it was when he was on Meet the Press a few months ago. And so I think this is real. He's in a real pickle. And Trump has said three or four weeks was kind of the plan. And so, of course, that was a plan with Israel. And again, that does even leaving aside. What about Iran hits neighboring countries and they ask for a protection. What about of our troops are not safe in Bahrain because Iran still has special capabilities.

We haven't changed the machine. And some IRGC focus taken over and it's decided he's going to try to make us pay a price. So we just we need to beef up support there. We'll have to be maybe continued raised to try to take out their missiles beforehand. I mean, again, this is where the dynamics of war become so unpredictable and problematic. And why you shouldn't start down this road unless you've thought through different options. But also unless you're willing to stay the course, I mean, it's just some degree or other, right?

“I mean, and that's where I think, I don't know, I kind of assume, but where are you on this?”

I kind of assume Trump deep down is where J.D. is.

And he'll pull the plug and hope that the world won't quite notice how much disarray he's leaving behind.

“Well, we'll get sucked in. I think that Trump is.”

You know, a little bit jekyll and hide on it. You know, I think that I think I do think he'll want to get out. I mean, you could tell the authority and some of these phone calls that that was his instinct. Another phone call since we've been on I just got sent was I talked to Brett bear. Has it called you, yeah, Bill? You know, phone line is open. We talked to Brett bear told me that the van is way more models are there going for.

But the delcier I drink as if Iran is dead, so okay, we'll see how that goes. Also, the delcier I drink as if Iran, I mean, whatever you think of God, I don't say. I'm nothing to use for maduro and they did a huge amount of damage to that country. Iran is a theocratic state, right? It's a delcier I drink as if Iran is not like delcier I drink as if it is well.

Who could be brought off to some degree and who the whole security structure is a bunch of thugs and corrupt people. Iran is plenty of folks and corrupt people, but I don't know. You can't leave me that regime of place is going to be not quite like leaving the Venezuelan regime of place. Well, for sure, I mean, I mean, look, I'm not, I'm no expert on the internal politics of Iran. But I've been doing a lot of reading and it's like, yeah, and there's just a lot more different contingencies and groups.

And, you know, let's, a very complex situation. Like, yeah, I do think his instinct would want to be JD, JD wine to leave after, you know, he's got his scalp. Yeah, demonstrate U.S. strong and now we're out, but like as we've been talking about this whole 15 minutes, like the like events can get out of control, things can get out of hand. And, you know, Trump is also, you know, driven by kind of like the masculine, you know, small dick.

I kind of need to respond. I need to push back if they hit us, I need to hit you harder kind of elements. All right, like, you know, he might want to get out in three weeks,

“like we have four Americans dead don't want to minimize that, but what if Iran has a much more successful attack than that?”

Like, what if there's an attack where does it die? There's a terrorist attack somewhere. This is, you know, like the oldest story in the book, World History of, you know, men getting into pissing matches, where it's just escalation escalation escalation escalation. So I think that's also possible, just back to the political part of the JD thing.

It's that as easy as, like, oh, there's this magnet crack up where there's this isolationist wing, and there's this, you know, more interventionist wing. It's more complicated than that, right, because like the Republican electorate,

I think instinctively is more America first, right, like in an appear vote, like, you know, outside of context of everything else.

Would you want America to be entangled in forward wars or not? It would be like 70, 30 on the isolationist side. I think, I think that there are, but there remains a strong pro-military interventionist wing in the party. Those people still exist. There's not a majority anymore, so that's like a quarter of a third of the party. Let's say that there'll be on board for Trump.

To be of another third, basically, that's like in a cult. And so whatever Trump says, they'll be four, basically. So that takes you up to about 60% of the party. And right now, if you look at polls on that episode's poll, I'm at, I read it, there's like 13% that was against. The big risk for Trump is when you get into Bush territory, where like 40% of the party is like, no, this is crazy.

And that will be event dependent, et cetera.

“But I think you can see the seeds of that in the mega right wing media.”

Fox will be cheerleading for this. Fox can be more excited, but the more alternative media side, you know, from the Nick Fuentes racist young right, all the way towards the comedian, who have been for him, towards even like the Megan Kelly's the world. I think that there's a Tucker. There's going to be a lot of ranging from skepticism to hostility depending on how things go. Developed before you made earlier in this context, like, it's very, very important, which is this.

Wars of dynamic and things can spiral. So, for which is where the downside for Trump here is greater. I would say that the downside, even on maybe the economy or Epstein, or all the obvious ways in which we've talked about. Trump has lost popularity and continued to drift down from 40 to 38 to 36. A little bit of a recession, little, he's mentioned more prominently in the Epstein phase.

Well, million different things like that, obviously, more ice out of ages.

But those really probably are incremental, and as they have been, they can add up. This is the one thing that could really catastrophically capsizes. Right, and what if things go badly, we went through this with Bush, I mean, your ratings don't go down, what are two points if you get casualties and a failed war and a war spilling out further. And further commitments than, as we did in Iraq, to try to save the situation after we've screwed it up.

And suddenly, you know, you're at just a whole different political universe. So, I think you're right. I think this is the one issue where Trump could go from 14% defactions to 40% defactions in six months. Oh, among his voters for sure. Yes, and I like this, getting into a prolonged entanglement here where there are a lot of deaths. And economic collapse, like our basic, the two things that could cause that.

You know, who knows, alien attack or something.

Who knows what could happen, but yeah, and other deaths are great. Anything find on that, I want to give to the Texas primary tomorrow. The other thing I say is that, if we'll affect the long hoped for, hey, we'll report that the Congress ever defact. We'll candidate, ever.

“Defact, this is the one thing that really could lead to it, I think.”

All right, so there are election tomorrow in Texas. We're going to Texas, March 18th, the 19th, Dallas sold out. We still get tickets in Austin, coming out of this March 19th, the work.com/events. There are two Senate primaries, Senate primary and both sides. Coronan's incumbent Republican Ken Paxton, the corrupt, just disgusting on a personal level.

I, all of the, um, vices of maga encapsulated into a single man and just a single vessel that's Ken Paxton. Attorney General, he's primarying Coronan. Another maga guy, Wesley Hunt got in hoping to, like, offer like a more of a clean cut maga alternative to Coronan. That hasn't worked out. He's in the teens in the polls.

It seems like it's going to be packed in our Coronan on the Republican side.

The Democratic side, we have Crockett versus Talloreco. I've talked about this race at Nozium. This, I do not particularly think this primary has served the Democratic interests that well. In winning the seat, which I do think is win a ball of Paxton wins. The new interesting poll came out over the weekend.

That has Talloreco barely beating Crockett.

“And it's really a coin flip, Crockett's winning with non college voters, older voters, black voters,”

and led to a lesser due with women. Talloreco is winning with younger college, gay voter to lesser due with men. Slight edge to Talloreco, Latino voters, that might be the battleground. And he thoughts on either side of the Texas Center race tomorrow. I mean, assume Paxton Coronan or assuming Hunt doesn't surge unexpectedly.

Goes for a lot of office time. We'll take enough votes.

Preserve way if it's close.

Preserve way more of those hunt voters are Paxton and Clyde, I should think. So you've got a slightly favor Paxton for the actual nomination. Do you think you have for sure? I have a friend that's still in Republican politics that's still, you know, that is suffering through that.

Really? That's a little suspicious. That was suspicious. And now he's asked about the race. And they felt very strongly the Paxton was in Paul position there,

without a Trump. Unless Trump comes in and saves Coronan. Yeah. What he did and do this weekend, he went to Texas. We can some people are thinking to the doors.

If it goes to a runoff, I guess I would extend the timeline for Trump to. But then he will do it if he thinks he's going to lose, going to lose. And I'm totally on and form got instinct. I'm not. If I were there, I'd vote for telegoat, but I think Crockett beats him.

I just feel like the momentum seen as greater on on her side. And but I could be totally wrong. Could be very close, much less likely to be a runoff. Yep. Look, telegoat is at least presenting a case to Trump voters.

I'm not sure if it's a winning case, but at least he has a theory of the case.

“And to me, that's what separates him from Crockett.”

Crockett has no message for Trump voters. Crockett's message is that she will energize non-villators to vote. And that just that might work in Georgia. I think that'd be an interesting race, interesting political science case in Georgia. That is there aren't enough non-voting Democrats to win a Texas Senate race.

Maybe if the economy tanks think it's in the Iran where I sure like accidents happen all the time. People accidentally win races when there's lathe elections. So that could happen for Crockett. But she hasn't presented one. That's right.

I fall on the telegoat. Telegoat is out of this, but this primary is heart telegoat. He's going to need turnout with black voters. I think that'll be add to the challenge for him in the general now because of the nature of how this race is going. But it's gotten really personal, particularly on the Crockett side aiming at telegoat. And the way that I don't think was very helpful.

Just a little subplot when the Texas race is tomorrow. Dan Crenshaw, not a friend of the pod. Yeah, your friend. Tony Gonzalez, the congressman who has six kids in a marriage had an affair. With his staffer, the staffer set herself on fire, killed herself.

Tony Gonzalez got congratulated by Trump at the rally this weekend. I'm clear what the congratulations was for. But both of them are in primaries. And I don't know that it serves the pro democracy mission at all for either of them to lose their primaries. But we would enjoy it.

It's nice to enjoy the pain of people that deserve it. And Dan Crenshaw has been like the most the biggest condescending prick. And like the biggest disappointment possible of all of the quote unquote "normal" Republicans. And I don't know if you happen to be living in Dan Crenshaw's district. And don't have, don't have a horse in the telegoat Crockett race.

Consider pulling that Republican balance tomorrow and voting against him.

One idea, but I don't know if you had anything there.

“I like the idea of Tim Miller doing in Crenshaw, he was such a pain.”

But you know, on Gonzalez, not to get to high and mighty and marvelous. I mean, he bullied this staffer. It seems like right into this affair in a really horrible way. And sadly, she committed suicide, it seems. He shows up Friday at this Trump rally.

It's Friday. It takes me like, yeah.

And they're all there, according to these guys.

Trump explicitly welcomes him right from the stage. Yeah, congratulations. The others are all fine with being with him. I mean, it's nauseating, really. I mean, they have this guy.

It's like that he's fine. The Republican party's fine with them.

Speaker Johnson's fine with them.

John Coranan, the established Republican, who's it.

“Is it in my dealings with him in the past in the before times?”

Is it a nice guy? Did he think I? He's fine with just being up there. I don't know if he's literally on stage with Gonzalez. We're being in the group, let's say, with Gonzalez.

None of them have said a word. It has a single texture from Republican that we know of. Said a word that, you know, this guy should resign. It's a disgrace that he's, I hope he. I mean, it really would be good for that.

Really would be good for the country if you lost. Honestly. Yeah. Nobody said any of that. I mean, in part because the Republican House majority is so narrow now that if Gonzalez resigns

like nasty, it's like a controlling vote on a lot of stuff. So that's the reason. And also just that they. There's just a break. And the Trump era has removed, you know, any sort of moral red line from consideration.

If you're in a Republican politics, like there's literally nothing that you can do. To cross the line now. And Republican politics pretty pretty dark stuff. Bill Crystal. Thank you.

Another Monday in the books. We'll see you next week, hopefully.

“And as a matter of this world tomorrow, I think we'll have a double head.”

We're going to go to one for you tomorrow. So everybody, we'll see you back here then. Yeah. The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with Audio Engineering and Editing by Jason Brown.