The Iran War Expert: I Simulated The Iran War for 20 Years. Here’s What Happens Next

- Yep, every strategy for 20 years, and it's laying out right now, so I can tell you that we are losing control of the situation. Like, we don't know where that nuclear material is, but they have the material for 16 nuclear bombs.

And we've given them every incentive to develop them.

“- Professor Robert Pipe might be the single most important”

credible person we all need to listen to right now. The supreme leader that we took out was against nuclear weapons. The new supreme leader, and he's way more aggressive. - He's advised two decades of presidents in the White House. President Trump is really stuck, but he thrives in chaos.

- And it's been 30 years building the curriculum that trains the air force for the exact type of war that's taking place now in Iran. And one of the most mind-blowing things I've learned is that there are three stages to this conflict.

Unfortunately, Professor Robert Pipe, who has two decades have been correct with his predictions, gives us 75% chance that Trump is about to escalate to stage three. In this episode, we're gonna explain exactly what this means.

- Just give me 30 seconds of your time. Two things I wanted to say. The first thing is a huge thank you for listening and tuning into the show week after week. Means the world's all of us, and this really is a dream

that we absolutely never had and couldn't have imagined

to get into this place.

“But secondly, it's a dream where we feel like”

we're only just getting started. And if you enjoy what we do here, please join the 24% of people that listen to this podcast regularly and follow us on this app.

Here's a promise I'm gonna make to you. I'm gonna do everything in my power to make this show as good as I can now and into the future. We're gonna deliver the guests that you want me to speak to and we're gonna continue to keep doing

all of the things you love about this show. - Thank you. (upbeat music) Professor Robert Payne. What the hell is going on in the world?

Now I should ask first. Who are you? And what have you spent the last several decades of your life studying and doing? And how does that relate to what's happening in the world

right now? - We are going through a crisis more in very intense right now but it's a crisis that we have been through before. 20 years ago with your rack war, even before that we saw the bombing of Kadafi,

we saw the reactions there. Now I have been studying military strategy, air power, international terrorism, now terrorism in the United States and also political violence in the United States.

It's not related to particular groups. So I've been studying political violence for 40 years. - What is the headline that people need to be aware of

“when you've looked at 30 years of these types of wars?”

- The bombs don't just hit targets. They change politics. - What does that mean? - That means that before the bombs fall and even as the bombs are falling now,

we tend to focus on the tactical success of bombing. We tend to ask, "Did the bombs hit the targets?" And it's with the smart bomb age. It's almost mesmerizing. They hit the target and destroy the target,

crater, crater, crater concrete, destroy buildings, 90% of the time.

The problem is wars are not just about the hardware.

They're not just about the military operation of putting a bomb on a target. They're about politics. And when the bombs start to fall, the politics in both the target, the enemy, change,

and the politics in the attacker of the initial change. And that threshold is the beginning of what I'm calling the escalation trap, because you get at stage one tactical success often. What's missing here is the next consideration,

which is politics. - Who have you advised? - And at what level have you advised them on strategy, will, et cetera, et cetera? - So when I finished my PhD, right away,

we started to fight the first Gulf War, which was an all-air power war. And I found my work from the 1980s, suddenly more relevant than ever. I was in the Washington Post USA today, front line,

designing the stories, because we didn't have the talking military heads at the time. And then I get a call from the US Air Force. And they're asking me to come in and help not just teach, but to build the curriculum.

Then what happens is time goes on. I end up advising every White House

from 2001 to 2024, including the first Trump White House.

I also heard that you've been running simulations on a wall with a run. - Yep, the last class of every strategy for 20 years. In fact, we did it just last May, just before we started the bombing.

strategy, and all kinds of different ways.

We ended with the bombing of a run.

“And what did that mean? That meant we took out the whole chart.”

We have the targets that laid out. We have the attack plans. We really go through the bombing of Natans for dough. Esophon, there's a number of these facilities and so forth. And then we play, and then we look at what's going to happen.

And what you see right away is 90 plus percent. Those B2s are gonna destroy those targets. - B2s being the aircraft. The stealthy aircraft, they can penetrate the airspace. Very few risk of small risk of loss.

And then you see, but we don't know where the nuclear material is. The whole point of this is not to destroy a building. It's to get at the 5%, 20%, 60% enriched uranium that's the material for bombs.

And last May, it was very clear.

They had the material for 16 bombs. - Now, not 60 nuclear bombs, one-six. - New nuclear bombs. - Yes, nuclear bombs not to produce them all in a single week, but over a period of months.

And then after we did that simulation, we didn't know where a single ounce was. And we weren't going to know for months after. So at the end of every, I make some predictions, I say, what's gonna happen?

What's gonna happen is, after about a year, we are going to panic because that material could be dispersed. Anywhere are in a run, anywhere in that country. And that country, look how big that is compared to the United States. Could be dispersed anywhere now.

“And how many of those are actually developing toward a bomb?”

We will not know, so what will we do regime change? - From all of you years in, I mean, 31 years old, you start teaching about air power and war in this regard. And you are 65 now. - Yeah.

- What is that? From everything you know, 30 plus years studying a stuff. A run, running simulations on a run, advising the White House, being a master, and probably arguably the most informed person

in the United States right now about air attacks, like the one that you are performing on a run. What is the headline that you're trying to send to the world at this moment in time? What is it we're missing?

As we're seeing Trump come out and Trump say, it's going, well, everything's amazing. We've taken out all that guys. What are we missing? - We're missing that we're stuck in a trap of our own making.

I'll explain what that trap is, but the key consequence of the trap is we're losing control. We are losing control of the situation. And what you were seeing with President Trump is he's trying to regain control.

Now, the problem is that starting not just a week

of Saturday, but starting back in June when we took out Natan's Fordeau, we started to lose control. And what are we losing control of? Knowing where that nuclear material is, and we now have civilian satellites,

and you can see them moving things.

“What would they be moving around the nuclear areas?”

I wonder, you think they're moving the, what are they moving here? It's most likely going to be that nuclear material, 'cause you can see they have prepared for this war just as we have, except they've been preparing

for how to be resilient, how to now lash back in increasingly aggressive ways. They are winning the escalation part of the war, and that's not an accident. This you can see coming in stages.

But for anyone that doesn't know, we've got leaders that have different levels of sort of information and knowledge here. I'm gonna try and summarize this and buttering the most in delicate way, possibly count.

So earlier last year, last year, the United States suspected that Iran were very close to enriching uranium. They're at 60%, they're at 60, are they? If they get to 90%, they have a bomb.

Yes, but possibly even with the 60% Steven, it depends on just how good their scientists are and we're not really sure. So there's somewhere, where at 60%, we're already very worried, you go to 90, it's a gimmie.

- And the United States dropped these big, bunk oboster bombs, they flew those B2 airplanes in, dropped these bombs, smashing up the site. And then it felt like it was over. And then the United States went into negotiations

with Iran to try and get some kind of deal done to get the material we didn't get. - Oh, you see, why are we even talking to them? If this is really obliterated the program, why are we bothering to talk to them?

What exactly are we talking about here?

So when you say we thought it was over, that's the public.

“Now the public, need to understand, they're very busy people.”

They're to play them for the price of eggs, okay. So they're not supposed to be able to be up on us.

- Good point, I've never thought about.

- Yeah, why would we be talking to them? - Why are we talking to them, you see? So right from the get go. And by the way, all of the Israelis, we have a thing called the Defense Intelligence Agency,

their reports that were done after the bombing were leaked. And they all say the same thing, which is we created holes. We probably shook these underground chambers. We're not sure, 'cause we had no eyeballs on that. But we have no idea where that enriched uranium is.

And we have good reason to worry. They got 'em out, 'cause we actually have a satellite picture that shows two days before we bomb four dough. There's a bunch of trucks moving stuff out. Gee, what do you think you might move out

if America's about to bomb your site?

“Again, I don't think they're moving out the popcorn.”

So, and it's pretty, this material can be moved in what look like large scuba tank. They call them scuba tanks. But I try to show pictures of this too. They're actually like as large as this table.

So you need basically trucks.

Trucks like that satellite photography shows that they took out. So we can't say for sure. But what you see is these are the indications that you worry they've dispersed the material even before we hit the site.

- And then we attack. - Yep, the United States attacks in February, February 26, which is fire. - Yep, February 26, February 28, 28, we started again. This time with regime change.

Notice we don't go even after the nuclear material. We don't know where it is. So for the average person, the average person would think if you take out the supreme leader, then the war is over.

Joke the bomb on the person and the war is complete. - Yeah, so let's talk about your ginga thing here because what I find Stephen, so keep in mind, I am advising, teaching, some of the most brilliant minds in the country.

Now, a lot of these smart people though, they don't know that they've been given like one inch deep briefings, maybe even one sentence briefings. So their image is often like this and it's wrong.

This is what they think the regime looks like. And they think that because they've been given, they basically have been consuming probably for years, one or two sentences about the structure, they know there's a supreme leader,

they might know there's nuclear facilities, missiles command, and so it looks like, oh my goodness gracious, that if you could just simply take out the right node, you would be able to make this whole thing fall down. Okay, but that's the wrong image, Stephen.

This is the way smart people think.

The problem is, this is a false image

of most regimes, even the bad ones, and certainly the Iranian regime. Let me just focus on the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is more like a matrix. It's more, it's not brittle the way this is.

So you can keep trying to pull things out,

“but with a matrix, or I think the corporate structures now”

are built to be adaptive, to change, because you have so many changes that happen, the structure needs to adapt to change. That is basically the structure of revolutionary regimes going back to before World War I.

- Okay, I want to ask a dumb question. - Yep. - When they took out the supreme leader in Iran, they're, who's gonna give out the instructions? The adaptive system adapts and fills in the holes.

It fills in the holes, usually with what's left, and in this case, the supreme leader that we took out, this particular hole, this was the guy who had two fought was, they're called, these are religious edicts.

It's like a people, you edict, which is against nuclear weapons. We'd say religious, he's the leader of essentially the religion, a little bit like the Shia Pope. He is actually issuing religious doctrine,

and that's called a fought war, and as a religious doctrine, he issued two that said Iran should not have nuclear weapons. The guy we killed was one of the guardrails against nuclear weapons. How does that, he was developing them?

- No, no, he's developing the enrichment material. They hadn't been fashioned yet that we know of those nuclear weapons. Okay, so we're worried about again, this enrichment going from 5%, to 20%, to 60%,

which is more of an engineering step to develop the nuclear weapon. Now, we took out the person who at the very tipi top was balancing the hawks and doves, and he had decided four decades to issue this,

these fought was, he did not just once, but twice. His son, who took over the new supreme leader, no fought, well yeah, that fought what died with this guy. So, will the new leader come in? It's not clear he's got the religious authority

to do anything like what his father did. This is a very different world, and he's known to be way more aggressive than his father. He's been in charge of the Basie,

the basically, the police that like to go

and kill the protesters. He's been the guy who's been very strongly supporting if not leading that particular effort. - And last night it was announced that he has been appointed as the new leader.

“- He's the new supreme leader, did Trump expect this?”

- I think that he expected it because he kept trying to talk the Iranians out of it. This is what he meant by a last week, when President Trump was saying that he wanted not this, he specifically said not the son.

And then he had a problem because people kept pushing him and they said, okay, well, if you don't like the son, who would you pick? And he said, well, it is a problem because when we killed the supreme leader,

we killed around the leader, 20 or 30 others, who we actually thought were better. So we actually took out the best alternatives when we killed the supreme leader was killed. And it's like everybody scratched in their heads,

God, what are we talking about here? So we actually helped the by killing the competitors to the son, we made it more likely the son. And so what I'm trying to explain Stephen is this adapts, okay?

“So that you're not really taking these pieces out,”

you're rearranging them. And you are moving up, in this case, you're moving up, the next supreme leader? Well, there's the supreme leader, but what we're not showing here,

you're seeing the target sets that are being discussed,

you're not seeing the revolutionary guard.

What is that? That is part of the army. The Iran has a million men in arms, a million. That's as many as we have in our 300 million people. They have 92 million, they have a million in arms.

And about 150 or 200,000 of them are what are called the revolutionary guards. These are the most aggressive, the most well trained. These are the most dedicated to the regime. The news, the son, who just took over,

is the prime candidate for that group. So when we took out a link here,

“it's not just being replaced by another cock.”

It's being replaced by a very aggressive individual, who's backed by some of the most aggressive part of that million man army. So this is what I was trying to explain in my substacks where when you take out the leader,

you may kill the leader, but you get in its place a harder regime, a more resilient regime, a tougher regime that wants to lash back even more aggressively. Because you killed that.

If you killed dad and also, if you don't lash back, how does the new leader get his credibility with everybody else? If he's a limp, why doesn't he get a bullet in the back of the hat?

You see, the new, just because he's appointed the leader, he's still just like when you're the head of a new company. Like, let's say you take over a, there's a company that's in shambles, and they get rid of their CEO, and they bring you on.

Okay, well, you gotta have a plan, you see. And if you don't have a plan to turn that thing around pretty soon, you want to have the big plan. If you don't have that plan, guess what? You're out, same here.

So you have incentive structure here for not just replacing, not just Wimpy Replacement, certainly not pro-American replacements. You have incentives for lashing back against the attacker, which is why

when we tried to kill Kadafi in 1986, he lashes back and takes out Pan Am Flight 103, killing 271 civilians, 190 Americans. When we tried to take out the Molosevic regime to degrade it, and March 99, Molosevic lashes back,

sending 30,000 ground forces into cleanse,

that is, get rid of a million civilians in cost of all.

This over and over. I mean, you have written books about suicide terrorism.

I've got one of them in front of me here called dying to win.

So I mean, you know, a lot about this subject. And this is one of the concerns that I actually, my fiance had said to me. She said, I explained to her, I was like, you know, around they really just have drones at the moment.

So I think that's fine. And then she posed a question to me.

“She was like, yeah, but what about suicide terrorism?”

Let me just explain. So here we are. It is here as of course, Iran. And imagine it's back in June. So I'm going to start the story in June.

This is the beginning of the smart bomb, the escalation trap. Stage one, we hit four dough, which is right around there. And then we hit metons and some other sites right around here.

And what does Iran do here?

They lash back and who are they lashing back against Israel here? They have their missiles focused on Israel. They're not really hitting our bases here. They're hitting Israel. And they send 3,000 Israelis to the hospital.

The most since the 73 war. So long time, that is stage one, okay? Now what happened when in February, 28, February, 28, they're lashing back a bit against Israel for sure. But now they're at stage two.

This is why I published this piece today in Foreign Affairs

“about how Iran's winning the escalation war.”

So it just came out just a few hours before we came on. And what's happening here is called, I call it horizontal escalation. Because what they're doing now is they're using drones, mostly a few missiles, but mostly drones. This was almost all missiles, no drones.

And they're using their drone capacity, which they have an lot of, and it's precision. These drones are like precision guided weapons. They go right to the target. And what they're trying to do is break this coalition.

Freeman, I can't see at the moment, they counted with horizontal escalation against Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the coalition that had been formed against them. They're trying to break the coalition, you see. And they may well do that. Why would they want to break that?

Why? Because then escaping to buy at the moment, I've got a friend staying in my house and Cape Town because he doesn't want to be. Because they want these countries to kick the Americans out of their country. Okay.

Get rid of the embassies, get rid of the bases. If you can, then we don't have the platforms to plaster them. You see, these are our basically ground-based aircraft carriers. I thought they were attacking Saudi Arabia, for example. Because that will make Saudi Arabia call Trump and say,

"Listen, stop, please, we're losing our tourit tourism. We're chatting our Apple." Well, what they do want to, they are threatening the tourism, hitting the economic nodes, they're hitting hotels, they're hitting the airports, what they are trying to do

is by threatening tourism, which varies from 5% to 10% of the GDP of these countries. This is not trivial amounts here. They're basically trying to drive wedges between these countries and America.

And America right now, I don't see any movement through Congress.

Where is this $100 billion going to the region

to make up for their lost tourism?

“I don't remember seeing that bill comes through Congress last week.”

So I'm just putting a little humorously to point out. These countries are losing a fair bit right now. And that tour is a may not come back for a while. I've got friends that have moved. You have got friends that, one of my friends was thinking about leaving

is now in my house in Cape Town. And he's been after five years, he's leaving. And he's going to move to America. I've got so many friends that I've quoted here. And imagine that we have 500,000 American citizens here.

And we have the State Department on CNN. Call this number. We'll help you escape. It's because even the media in the UK, you see it's like, they're showing like the BBC showing like a vacuations of UK citizens.

They've been creating the Apple putting Microsoft's. So this is putting a lot of pressure here. And there's something else that's not widely known, which is there's a big gap between what the leaders of the countries want willing to support the US and Israel and their publics.

You see this coalition that's been built against Iran here is not clearly going down well with publics. These are publics. They may not like Iran, they may be Sunni and Iran Shia, but they don't want to be part of an Israeli expansion plan

where Israel's going to conquer more and more territory. And so forth. And so this is where the soft underbelly here of this. This isn't just about the tourism. That's the short-term.

The longer term is, bottom-up pressure, sadat. He was a leader of Egypt in the 1970s. He cut a deal with Israel. It's called the Camp David Accords, peace for land. But it was very favorable.

Well, after Sadat did that, the president of Egypt in 1981.

at the military parade, marched with their guns,

came up to his place and they shot him dead. So this is the real world here. So this is very, very dangerous for these leaders. Now, that's stage two. Now, what happens if we decide to have one of these limited

ground deployments here? Because after all, we still don't know where this material is. What does that mean? So if anyone that doesn't know anything about, but what does a ground deployment mean?

Because I saw Trump being asked about this from the plane yesterday, and he didn't seem to deny it. It was going to happen. It means you try to control a limited amount of space, say, the space around foredo, or the nuclear facility that you bombed

in June, and you would send the, say, 82nd airborne in to control

the space. I don't know what I need to say. Oh, I see. So 82nd airborne is a division that we have that's especially equipped to go into hostile area and land and control, say,

airports, control space, think about controlling all the size of LAX.

“So if you want to control LAX, you bring in the 82nd airborne.”

They will have 5,000 men and women, not just guys now, and they will come in and they will control that space LAX. But they will also be doing this probably not for a day, not for even a week. They're going to have to spend weeks and weeks

to search for that material, because we don't know where it is, and it's all deeply buried, and a lot of the stuff has been, the entrances have been blown up. So this means, this means long-term presence there. You might also take some of the oil fields

to cut off some of the money here for the regime. That is where that book comes at. Do you think that it's likely that America will put boots on the ground, American soldiers in Iran? I think it's at least 50, 50, if not immediately.

So people keep expecting the escalation to be continuous. And then when there's a pause, as there was, between June and February, they think, oh, it's over. I'm going to go now worry about something else. And there's plenty else to worry about.

So we got Minneapolis, we got plenty to worry about here, even with violence. But that's not how escalation operates. Escalation can have a ratchet effect that has that spaced out by months of what seems like peace.

Only to come right back and you're stuck in that escalation momentum, which is what we've seen, which is exactly what we've seen. And for the reason I'm telling you, we don't know where that nuclear material is.

That has been the $64,000 weakness in this entire idea of using air power, and not just in the last 10 days, going back to June. It's not just even about the regime change.

“It's about how are you going to get that nuclear material out?”

We had a deal, this deal with Obama, Trump did not like it, but with that deal, that held. And Iran took out almost all, virtually, just only a tiny bit was left. They were not enough for a bomb all out of the country.

And we watched it, we monitored it. We had 24/7 cameras to monitor this. We had human onsite inspections to monitor this. 2018, Trump just ripped it up, walked away unilateral, and from that point on, it's been pedal to the metal

by Iran in upgrading that enriched uranium. And that's how you got to that material that would be enough for the 16 bombs. And right now, we don't know where that is. So, stage one is, okay, stage one,

you are beginning the escalation trap. In this case, it's a smart bomb trap, but it, because it's with smart bombs, where you have tactical success, near perfect, call it a hundred percent, because it really is.

But that doesn't mean you have strategic success. Tactical success, plus strategic failure. Then, that strategic failure weighs on you over time, because the enemy still got the thing

that you wanted to get in the first place.

Now, you do stage two, which is regime change, because, after all, you've already hit the targets. You can make the rubble bounce,

“but that's why we're didn't bomb them in the last 10 days.”

We might go back and bomb for those some more, okay, but we already bombed it. So, there's more we watching the bubble, but now we're at stage two, because what are your options? The only other option is, well, let me get rid of the regime,

because then the regime, I will control, and the next regime will just give us the material. That's not working now, and you hear today,

He doesn't want to say the words over, okay?

“He doesn't want to say the words going on,”

but the bottom line is, we don't even,

he won't even be clear about why we're fighting the war anymore. And I'm telling you, there's a real problem. The nuclear material is still there, and it can still be fashioned into those 16 bombs over time. So, this is where, then, you get this horizontal escalation,

where now they've really, really working on this, 'cause now it's a long war. - They start attacking their neighbors, and try to make it up. The consequences go on for months.

So, just imagine, when are your friends exactly going to move back? So, let's say the war is over tomorrow. Are they moving back tomorrow? And when was the last time, have you started to plan

for your next vacation in Dubai? - I've been to Dubai. - I was planning speaking there in a month's time, but it's been canceled already. - Well, just, yeah, just start to think about that,

“and minor thing like a drone attack could suddenly”

come out and know where, you're not even, you think it's, I'm just trying to point out that this is the world now that a lot of people, this was a luxury market. This was the playground of the rich and famous.

This is really now changing, and it may come back a year or two from now, but it took two years for air travel to come back after 9/11, just think about that. Now, we haven't gotten the stage three yet,

which gets to your girlfriend's point. How do we move from stage two to stage three? - Oh, well, because you still don't know where the nuclear material is. And we don't have to move to stage beyond to stage three

this week. We could do it a month from now, six months from now.

The problem is, we've now put in place

a much more aggressive leadership, much more aggressive regime. We've taken away some of the, what may have been guardrails. I can't say for sure for the nuclear weapon.

This new regime, much more alike, and we've given them every incentive to develop the nuclear bomb. We're killing them. So what exactly is there incentive? They're best way to survive is to have a nuclear weapon.

And you'll say, well, we're gonna kill 'em. Well, we're already killing 'em. So we've taken away their incentive not to have a nuclear weapon. So we will start to worry as each week goes by.

Not because we have great intel, not because our human, it's because of the opposite. We don't have the exquisite intelligence we had with the Obama deal to know we had froze in the program. Now that we have Swiss cheese at best

and what we will see in the holes of the Swiss cheese are indications of nuclear development. And that will make us worry because what happens with the nuclear weapon is it gonna go to Hezbollah and his Hezbollah

that we're gonna help put it in Heifa? What's gonna happen with these, are they gonna give it to the Houthis? So these are the kind of worries we will have that will push us to the ground options.

And that, that is with stage three, the retaliation approaches the homeland. That is realistic. If ISIS with its 30 to 40,000, I suppose not a state,

Iran is an actual state with 92 million people.

So if ISIS can foam that command-directed inspired suicide attacks and other attacks in San Bernardino just to kind of bring a little bit closer to home here across the United States, Paris, remember the big Paris attack?

So why exactly is Iran not, I mean ISIS was a lot weaker than Iran. Do you think in Iran at the moment,

“they're working on that, they're working on a terrorist attack?”

- Well, I don't, I think that my work tells me that it's most likely to come with the presence of the ground forces by us. Doesn't mean it's a necessary condition, but it's just most likely.

Russia, 96, with our help, we played a trick on them. Assassinated the Chechen leader, it's a leader of its Republican in Russia called Chechenia, to die only a million people. And Russia killed the guy and we actually have pictures

of him seeing the missile hitting him, 'cause we can put the cameras right in the nose cone. Then the new guy took over. His name was Bosia, and he awanched within three months, not the next week, Operation G-Hod.

And his Operation G-Hod was much more vicious tactics, kicked the Russian forces, Russia's a big country. You know, 100, almost 200 million people compared to this little province of a million, kicked the Russians out after three months,

launches waves of suicide attacks, massive kidnappings here. This really went on for years and years. So when you say, "Are they planning it?" I don't think it's quite right, Stephen.

they're about to execute.

They have the next wave of possibilities,

“which would come, I think, most likely was staged too.”

So sage three. So as this is expanding, as the war expands, it will go global, really. You are already seeing a global with the supply chain and you're seeing it with the oil.

So that's already happening. So what Iran said today, the response to Trump's press conference today, they just literally happened before we came on, is, "Okay, we will allow Gulf States your oil tankers to come through if you kick the Americans out."

So kick the Americans out and we'll let you pass. If you don't, if you don't, we got drones. So they didn't put that in there, but everybody knows. They got drones.

And again, if you were explaining this to a 16 year old.

Yep. Just to keep it super simple, there's this passageway across the water, where a lot of the oil tankers go. Yep, it's straight of horror moves. And it sounded like the tankers are refusing to go through there.

Oh, sure, because one has been hit. But it only takes one to be hit, but the drone, only one. Because the people driving those tankers here, they're doing it for a paycheck, not a bullet. They're not really wanting to die for this.

This isn't a nationalist cause to ship the oil. Explain what it matters to the world. If oil doesn't go through this straight of whom it happens. Yeah, well, we can talk about it in like technical terms. But the big thing to say is, this is what's going to increase

the price of gas at the pump.

And it's already gone up.

When you cut the flow of the oil, it has global effects. It doesn't just affect this little region here. It doesn't just affect China over here. It affects everybody.

“And that's why the Europeans are starting to freak out.”

Because they're already. Every government worries about, we talk about affordability. That's about to change. And it's the issue point about how it changes the politics at home. Because people still go to the pump today.

They go, why is the oil higher? That's right. Why is the, we just came, we now have 4.4% unemployment. If we, and President Trump was trying to say, it's all getting better, the interest rates are going down.

Well, that all predicated on us not having inflation. You see, when the oil is cut, the inflation goes up. The affordability becomes a problem. That is what is panicking a lot of the businesses right now, because they're going to lose business.

And it's a problem of risk. It's not just about the damage. So a little, a few of these drones can have an inordinate effect on risk. Now, let's bring in another piece, which is Russia, we find out, is providing targeting intelligence to Iran.

Much the way we provide targeting intelligence to Ukraine, to hit our targets in Russia. And what does that mean? That means those drones, which are precision guided, now can more easily find exactly which ship to hit. So they know that Russia are doing that.

Because we've got it pretty well confirmed from. Yeah, it's, you would hear much more pushback here. And what you're hearing from Secretary Higgs-Seth is not, it's not happening here. Oh, no, well, let's not overware, no.

It's happening, and they're worried. Because that's the, that's the, again, the dancing around. They're not denying the fact that it's actually happening.

“I think Trump actually went almost, said something,”

what's to the effect of, I wouldn't blame them, because that's what we do to them. Exactly, exactly. And why is he talking to Putin today? He's not talking, he was just on the phone with Putin

before he did his press conference. What's he talking to Putin about? Bad intel, I'm sure. And maybe cut in a deal, which is will deny the Ukrainians, the intel, if you deny, you see, this is the,

this is the, this is the, the cascading effects of the politics, dominates the tactics. And if that's exactly what Trump said. He said on much the seventh, when I asked about Russia teaming up with Iran on intelligence, he said,

if we asked them, let's say we do it against them. Wouldn't they say that? We do it against them. That's almost justifying it. Trump often just speaks his mind.

Sometimes he kind of hides things, but some often he speaks his mind. And what you're seeing here is of, this is the natural thing. Russia is what's good for the goose, good for the gander. They're doing the same thing to us that we've done to them. And they have, and they're doing it to hurt us, you see.

So rather than just spas modically or spas response here, which we often think, the, the foes were up against her stupid. We essentially think they're dumb. We call that irrational. But what's really happening, Stephen, is since the Vietnam War,

which is the way to get at us is politically. Make it a long war, play the politics. You can't go toe to toe with us on the battlefield. We'll just clean their clock over and over. They don't often try.

They don't go toe to toe with us. We lost the Vietnam War with never losing a battle. How did we lose? We lost the long game. 58,000 dead, no end in sight of forever war.

What are we doing this for? That is how the North Vietnamese won. And that's how the Afghan Taliban won.

“That's how the bad guys typically beat us.”

They don't always win, but the bottom line is we have a soft underbelly.

It's not the military. Much of the reason most people haven't posted content or got their personal brand is because it's hot and it's time consuming. And we're all very, very busy. And if you've never posted something before,

there's so many factors in your psychology that stop you wanting to post. What people will think of you. Am I doing this right? Is the thing I'm saying absolutely stupid? All of these results in paralysis, which means you don't post.

And your feed goes better. I'm an investor in a company called Stan Stort. You've probably heard me talk about. And what they've been building is this new tool called Stanley that uses AI. Looks at your feed, looks at your turn of voice, looks at your history,

“looks at your best performing posts and tells you what you should post.”

Makes those posts for you. You can also use it for inspiration. And sometimes what we need when we're thinking about doing a post for our social media channels is inspiration. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life.

And I think it could change yours too. So I'm inviting you to give this new tool a shot and let me know what you think. All you have to do is search coach.stan.store now to get started. One of the smartest things a business can do is build like a bigger company without actually hiring like one.

But the problem we all face is that most companies don't have every skill in house. So when I look at the businesses seeing real success today, the consistent pattern with all of them is how quickly they move. They bring in specialists with skills and emerging areas to keep themselves ahead. Even in our company, we spent the last year pulling in talent across areas like AI native strategy,

no code builds and product workflows. And we find this talent for a long time partner, five-year pro. Their premium service only shows you vetted talent.

So you've always got the safeguard that anyone you pull in to help you with a complex project

has the skills that you're after and will deliver to the same high standards as your internal team. And, most importantly, they'll keep up with the pace. It's a simple strategy, but it lets us stay agile without compromising on quality. So if you need these kind of skills in your business, head to pro.fiver.com to find a pioneering talent to fill your businesses gaps.

That's pro.fiver.com. What do you think happens next?

“If you have to, no fencing. If you have to predict what you think happens next,”

what would you predict? Well, I say this at the end of the Foreign Affairs article that just literally came out a couple hours ago, which is President Trump is on the horns of a dilemma. And he has no golden off ramp. He's looking for off ramps, but there's no golden one where he comes out politically ahead.

So he's got a choice, sometimes called a Hobbsian choice, a Hobbsian choice, where you cut your losses except political loss now. And right now, if he pulls back and what does it mean to pull back, you got to pull your forces back. It's not enough to say you're just doing a pause.

If you want to stop, if you want to stop for real, you take those aircraft carriers and you send them out somewhere. You send them to Asia, you send them here. You got to actually make, you got to do something here. So choice one is, you stop your bombing campaign, you cut your losses. You do your best to say we just wanted to destroy missiles, even though nobody will believe it.

Okay. But that means you accept a modest loss now. Or the other is you double down and you go on for more weeks. Go on for more weeks, hoping you'll kill this leader and maybe the next one won't be so bad. Or you'll have some other sort of outcome that you can't imagine. And Trump is nothing. I call him a chaos kid.

He thrives in chaos. And he often comes out of this with something happening. Like when, you know, sort of down the road, you didn't expect it. He probably didn't expect it. But in this case, the price is more likely going to be a political

failure of the first order because we have the midterms coming.

So if he, he's got a choice. Stop now, cut your losses, accept a limited political defeat, or double down. Go on for a few months. Go through more stages of this smart bomb trap. I'm explaining. And you're really now in Lyndon Johnson territory. Remember, I mentioned before. We're in Vietnam. He kept escalating, kept moving up the escalation ladder every wrong. He said, well, no, we have escalation dominance. We're just going to double down.

Sound familiar. And then what happened is it became absolutely clear that this was going nowhere. And the 68 election came was coming. And Lyndon Johnson's own Democrats said, Mr. President, we can't ride your horse into that. We got to do something.

“And the problem is it didn't pull the plug fast enough. That's how they lost. They don't,”

they, they don't pull the plug fast enough. So you end up having a bigger loss later. When you talk about the, um, undebelly that the United States has where they can't prolong these

wars, am I right in thinking this is basically a function or a consequence of living in a democracy?

Well, every three years, I think it's a function of a war of choice. So when we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, we were attacked. We were reluctant to get in World War II. And we were, we didn't get in until we were actually struck at Pearl Harbor. Now it was enough to really make us angry. We were pissed off as a country, okay? And we were going to get payback, not just for a month, but we were getting some real payback here. And that's how vicious that island hopping campaign

was. And why it was so vicious here. And that went on and on. And when we ended the war, um, in, in dropping those atomic bombs, 22% of the American public wanted us to forget the Japanese

surrender and drop more atomic bombs. 22% we were that angry. So when we are attacked first,

we have the politics and our advantage. When we do a war of choice, we can make up all the reasons why it was a good idea to start throw the first punch. They were going to hit us. We were going to, but when we throw that first punch first, that's a war of choice. And this puts the politics in the other camps at the end. And that's the problem that we're facing here. Around him hit us first. They didn't hit us first in June. They didn't hit us first before that.

So on this point of war of choice, yep. And there's really two questions I friend of mine. One is, was Trump writes that if he didn't attack, then they would have enriched uranium, they would have made a nuclear weapon, and that would have

put not just the region, but the world at danger in your view. And then the second one is this

“sort of ongoing debate around the role of Israel in this war. And I think it was Marco Rubio,”

that came out and I think maybe accidentally said that the reason why they attacked Iran was because they heard that Israel were about to attack Iran. So let's go back to the Friday, the day before we start the bombing campaign. This is February 27, literally, 315, Washington, time. That's when Trump makes the go decision. But what's in his, what is he choosing between? He has an offer on the table from Iran for a better deal than the Obama deal for America.

And it is, it's not absolutely perfect. They still want to have some minor enrichment, but the verification lots of things here. Now, maybe it's still not perfect, but President Trump has a choice on that Friday afternoon. He can go back and he can work this deal. He can, you know, after all, deal maker, right? Let's assume he's good at deal making. So we can go back and work the deal. But that's not what he does. What he does is he throws that deal away and also the supreme

leader. When he killed, that's the supreme leader was on board with that deal, too. And what are we doing? Instead, we go through regime change. So the choices here, Stephen, were before we got to stage two. We were in stage one. Stage one. We had hit four, though. It would there were

“negotiations and Iran's coming up with a better deal than the Obama deal. And what is he do?”

He goes to stage two instead. So I don't think this is, this, this story you're hearing, they were going to do X, Y, Z. There was a deal on the table. And what did Rubio say that then? Why did he say that they attacked? Because Israel were going to attack. I want to play this video. Which is a good firing, too. Okay. If we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the

very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be in Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act. So what that shows you is that it's the tail wagging the dog that Israel is going to

have, we don't know why Israel decided to attack and kill the Supreme Leader. It was actually

Israeli bombs, who killed the Supreme Leader. And also those other replacement leaders as well. But Israel may well have been thinking that my goodness, Trump is getting too close to a deal.

“That's what happened in June. Trump was on the edge of a deal with Iran. And then Israel goes”

and kills the negotiators, you say. So just think about that for a moment. Trump is negotiating with Iranians. And then they say, well, okay, come back the next day. And what is there the next day? Israeli bombs killing them. So I mean, that's not a great way to handle a partnership. Well, it's just showing you, we had another choice. We could have told Israel not to do it. We could have told Israel if you do this. We're going to cut off all your military aid for

the next three years. That would be put some pressure on Israel. Now, then Trump would have to pay a price politically. So I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do. Don't get me wrong. But we need to understand that these are the pressures for escalation in the escalation traps. So I'm trying to explain why this isn't just randomly happening, Steve. And it's not like, oh my goodness,

“I can't follow what's occurring. So that's why when Trump says in today's briefing, talks about”

stopping the air campaign, is he going to stop Israel's campaign? That's the question that did not come up today. It's in my, I put on my accent. Though one of the big questions that did not come up is President Trump, are you going to call Netanyahu and tell him to stop bombing Iran? Does Trump control Netanyahu and you'll view? Well, again, it's about pressures here. It's about what are the, what are the ways you, you, you don't, it's not about a matter of like a personal

loyalty relationship. This is politics of the first order. That's what I'm trying to explain. So

for President Trump to stop Netanyahu from doing this, this will be paying a price. He will have there are a big part of his mega constituents. He's very pro, not just Israel, pro netanyahu version of Israel. So this is the tension in, in the politics that I'm trying to explain, which is why you don't really want to start the trap in the first place. And I also second to go, no fencing, what happens next in this will based on everything you studied for the last 30 years,

the 20 years of doing so. I think it's more likely than not that maybe not in the next week or two, I've said, uh, end my sub-sag. It's more likely than not. We will get to a limited, um, uh, ground appointment here because of the, because of the, I'm keeping saying because of the, the enriched material that is floating around. And we know it's dispersing. We know it's dispersing. We don't know where it is. And there could be literally hundreds of rooms, not much bigger than this size, maybe two or

three times this size that we're in. There could be used to fashion an, um, um, a fat man style Abam. Not to miniaturize it to put on a warhead. That would be more sophisticated. But if what you

want to do is you want to have a Hiroshima bomb, they can kill 75,000 people in a second or 10 seconds,

that is what they are in the, the, the, the, that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about can they put, miniaturize the bomb to put it on the nose cone of a war of a missile. This is, they don't need it. That's very sophisticated stuff. We couldn't do that for 10 years. So I guess there's two, there's two questions that come to mind. The first is to understand someone's

“behavior, you have to like understand their motivations. And I think a lot about like where Trump is in his”

career legacy, how, how much that matters to him. It appears from what I've seen the whole thing around him wanting to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the, the Peace Board, the being the president, that stops all the, it appears that he's thinking about how he's going to be remembered. And when I'm looking at some of his interviews recently, he's saying things like, I don't want it to be the case that in 10 years time, we're in five years time. The US have to go back in again because like,

I didn't do a good job. And it made me start to believe that actually one of his, one of the reasons why we might escalate this war further from a United States perspective is because legacy changes in hindsight. And if we think about George W Bush, I think you're putting your finger on it, Steven. George W Bush's legacy now is like completely tonished because of this one, and well, and actually how it ended. Yeah. But it's a mistaken hindsight. But also now,

mirror image that to the Iranians. Why aren't they thinking about their legacy? Think about that for a moment. Why would the Supreme Leader 86 years old decide he's not going to take too many more precautions? How many more months does he had cancer apparently? How many more months does he

for? A coward? Or does he want to be remembered as somebody who stood up for Iran, the revolution, the whole thing he built his whole life for? You talk about Trump. So when I get into behind, when the cameras go off, and I get a chance to, again, let's just say go to the West Wing. I'm not seeing people being picky, minor, petty. I see them worried about their legacy. The national security advisors, their assistants, they're worrying about their legacy. Do they want to go

down in the history of American history as XY or Z? And this is how humans are. It doesn't stop with like how much money do you have? It's what's going to happen with your legacy? So with that in mind, if you think Trump is legacy motivated, does that increase in the part? I want to be

careful in part. It's always a happy re-elected. So I'm like, that's not moving him. Because you

know, you play differently if you think you can win a second time, which I knew would be an

“important to him. But if he is legacy motivated now, when you think about which direction is going to”

grow it going, it does appear on the balance of things that he's not going to want it to be left a mess. And the biggest mess that could really embarrass him in his legacy with international is if Iran has a nuclear bomb and they detonate a test, say next September. Let's just imagine what would happen next September. So people need to think about, see, the discussion of Iran and nuclear bombs here is not very strategic. It's to scare you. It's, oh, they're going to get a bomb and the first

one's going to go on television. The second one's going to go on New York. I don't think that's

the sequence. Why would they, what, if they're willing to commit suicide to take out television, they don't need 16 bombs. Okay. If they're willing to have their entire population destroyed, but they just need one bomb, take out television, they're done. Right? That's not what's going on.

“They're following the North Korea plan. The North Korea plan, the North Korea figured out when we”

went through this with North Korea in the 90s. Okay. The very same thing except we didn't do the bombing because it was not going to, we didn't get, we avoided the trap. What they want is multiple bombs at the same time. So what they want to do, if they can do this, is have say five bombs working

at the same time. And the first bomb goes off as a test in the mountains, in the mountains. And then

what do we say? Oh, they blew it. They're stupid. They blew their one test. And then they do a second test. Still in their mountains. Okay. When we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima, wasn't clear we had any more. When we dropped the second one, nobody needed to wait for a third or fourth. Nobody really, they knew more would come. You see what I mean? So with Iran, this is, again, we're talking about now, you know, let's, let's call it the brown belt or

black belt strategy here that they are, and notice they are been very smart in their escalation. What you would do is the North Korea strategy, which is again, you want multiple bombs. And then you want to do some tests. And even if one doesn't quite work, you want to have another. You want to have multiple bombs so that you can do multiple tests, you see. And that is how North Korea basically stop Trump trying to kill the leader. So notice that Trump, once to say it was just his

winning personality, because you know, Trump is so charming here. But North Korea now has 60 working nuclear weapons as, you know, best we can tell. And the idea that we're going to start killing leaders in North Korea anytime soon, I'm not sure that's going to happen. It kind of immune now, right? Well, and notice that Ukraine had a bunch of nuclear weapons in the 90s, gave them up. And there's a lot of people in Ukraine right now are saying, "Boy, I wish we had

those nuclear weapons back or else we wouldn't be fighting this war." So you start to look at the history. Why does America have nuclear weapons here? Are we an evil country in the reason we

“have is because we're evil? We want it for our security. So why doesn't Iran want it for their security?”

So this is the strategy part that we have to, the politics, Steve, and I keep trying to talk about. So you're saying your prediction is that we're going to move to stage three when Trump cuts pay. I'll go 75, 25. 75% which way that we will put, we will send in some ground forces to get that dispersed material. The only 25% would be if somehow magically the Iranians gave it to us. So that's where the 25% comes from. Because there is some chance, there's some, I don't want

to, I mean, we live in the real world here. But I think the problem we're going to face is,

fashioning the nuclear weapon? We're already killing you. We can pause for months and say we won't kill you, and then you wake up one day in your dead. This, we've done this moving now several times on Iran. Your best chance of survival is a nuclear weapon. And so we now know that our intel knows that Israel now knows that we've taken these options. So unless Trump will make a deal,

“that's that 25%. So I, I think if he makes a deal, then there's a chance that Iran will”

go forward here. If the 75% puff plays out, we put boots on the ground. What happens then? Now we're at stage three. Now we've moved to stage three because we have to search very, not just, so we will start by deploying ground forces in a very limited area, say, we're going to go to esophon, it's called. That's, that's the, we have a, I mean, you could try and round that. Does that work? The thing I'm trying to explain, yeah, assume this is Iran.

Yeah. Okay. We will start by putting in a small footprint. And again, we have several options here to do it. And so the hunt will be for the enriched material. But let's say that we even find it Steven, how do we know that in the intervening almost a year since the bombing, 10 months since the bombing? How do we know they haven't enriched more somewhere else? Because this is what happened with

the WMD and Iraq and Sodom Hussein in the 90s through 2003. We had inspectors in, we could never

be sure there wasn't material. And the problem was over time, the fear got worse and worse and worse. And the fear is a nuclear handoff where the radiological handoff, you hand off some of that material to Hezboa to the Houthis. They, who are Hezboa and the Houthis? They are Hezboa. They are Hezboa, we call them terrorist groups. And the, and Hezboa, which is this famous terrorist group, started in 1982, how did Hezboa start? Where did it come from? Is it the CIA again?

No, it is real invade Southern Lebanon in June of '82 with 78,000 combat soldiers, 3,000 tanks in our reveals. So think about that. That's like invading Chicago with 78,000. So just, or LA was 78,000. So they invade Southern Lebanon with 78,000 Israel does. One month later, Hezboa is born as resistance movement. So Hezboa was born out of resistance to Israel.

“They have hated Israel from the beginning because that's how they were born, you see.”

So what you have is, you have a group that's hot, been radical since, and since '82, this has been going on since '82, Israel just can't put that country, that Hezboa group out of business. And what are they doing literally this week? They're trying to depopulate the city of Beirut. Because what happens when you go up against terrorist groups, which we haven't described, but the terrorist group here is like a group that's in a sea of people, okay? And you keep saying,

only want to do is get rid of that terrorist group. The problem is that in all that effort,

military effort to get rid of the terrorist group, you do kill them, but they regenerate, and they regenerate, and they regenerate just as Hezboa has for God 45 years, almost.

“Okay, and so what do you then push to do? Get rid of all the people?”

So you think, I'll just genocide. I don't want to use those terms because I've written about that. That's a, that has certain, very specific. So that's a whole conversation here. But I just want to point out, how is it that Israel got itself into the idea?

They were going to cleanse, expel, large portions of the two million out of Gaza.

That happened because they got into stage three of the escalation trap in Gaza. So this isn't just about America. So we're only talking about the escalation frameworks with respect to this one conflict, really. It applies much more broadly. I've developed these since I taught for the Air Force because I needed to find a way to help our government, our military, understand how the transition from the bombing or the military piece to the outcome.

And what's in the middle is the military, the bombs change politics.

and that's why we got stuck in a for in two forever wars. And now, we may well just get right

“back into another. Not because Trump wants to be sucked into it. So what happens off to stage three?”

After stage three, this is what America has faced in Vietnam and President Biden faced this in spades here. When you try to pull out after you're in stage three and end these ongoing conflicts here, usually it ends poorly for your legacy. And you saw that with Lyndon Johnson, and you saw that with President Biden. President Biden actually, President Trump is the one who was negotiating with the Taliban to pull out. But President Trump wouldn't leave. Not leave. He didn't leave

before. Who did he hand it off to? He handed it off to Biden. Biden pulled out. And what is Biden's legacy been? It's been negative ever since. If you look at his opinion polls, President Biden,

you will see he was riding high until he withdrew from Afghanistan and he never recovered. Yes,

inflation hurt, too. The bigger hit was the Afghanistan problem. And this is where this is why President Trump is really stuck. You see, he's on that horns of the dilemma. Does he want to accept the short-term price, which is real? Or does he want to go and double down? And then you face the potential long-term price of becoming LBJ and President Biden. This company that I've just invested

“in, it's grown like crazy. I want to be the one to tell you about it because I think it's going to”

create such a huge productivity advantage for you. It was supposed to flow as an app that you can get on your computer and on your phone, on all your devices. And it allows you to speak to your technology. So instead of me writing at an email, I click one button on my phone and I can just speak the email into existence. And it uses AI to clean up what I was saying. And then what I'm done, I just hit this one button here. And the whole email is written for me. And it's saving me so much time in a day.

Because Whisper learns how I write. So on WhatsApp it knows how I am, a little bit more casual, on email a little bit more professional. And also, there's this really interesting thing they've just done. I can create little phrases to automatically do the work for me. I can just say Jack Slink didn't. And it copies Jack Slinkton profile for me because it knows who Jack is in my life. This is saving the huge amount of time. This company is growing like absolute crazy. And this is

why I invested in the business. And why they know our sponsor of this show. And Whisper Flow is frankly becoming the worst kept secret in business productivity of entrepreneurship. Check it out now at Whisper Flow, spot W-I-S-P-R-F-L-O-W dot AI slash Steven. It will be a game change if you. We have finally caved in. So many of you have asked us if we could bundle the conversation cards with the 1% diary. For those of you that don't know, every single time

a guest sits here with me in the chair, they leave a question in the diary of a CEO. And then I ask that question to the next guest. We don't release those questions in any environment other than

on these incredible conversation cards. These have become a fantastic tool for people in relationships,

people in teams, in big corporations, and also family members to connect with each other. With that, we also have the 1% diary, which is this incredible tool to change habits in your life. So many of you have asked if it was possible to buy both at the same time, especially people in big company. So what we've done is we've bundled them together and you can buy both at the same time. And if you want to drive connection and instill habit change in your company, head to the diary.com to

enquire and our team will be in touch. I have to ask then, you know, you said when you're in the White House, they're very smart people. Yeah, presumably Trump knew this stuff or someone around him knew that by the way, when you drop bombs, these sort of very specific bombs we have now that can hit a hit a very narrow target and take out a leader. You get into an escalation trap.

“Surely he knew this. I believe. I believe. I believe he told him almost this in so many words.”

I believe it. I don't have the exact evidence for it, but we have some inklings of it. What do you think he thought was going to happen? I think he, I've described Trump as the ultimate chaos kit. There are people who thrive in chaos. They feel the best when they're in a chaotic situation. And I think that he believes he can navigate the chaos better than anybody else. So what I want to, the answer to the question I was looking for is what did he think was going to happen?

Did he think I'll drop these bombs? How many will be out? Someone else will come in, then we'll negotiate with that guy, and then we'll get it better. I think that's not quite, I think that's too specific. People keep looking for that. In my experience here, it also is that's too narrow of a way to understand what I think happened here. And again, we're reading quite a bit into very few tea leaves here, because it will come out over time. But I believe that what

the chaos going. And then he reads the chaos very well. And when it's a media storm, man,

“there's very few people that have beaten him. Just think about that. That's why he's President”

twice. He's beaten quite a few black belts at this, right? But this is a different story. So if you take that same MO, and you apply it to political violence, now you have these other actors, you have this other set of momentum. You have Israel playing this big role, you have the Iranians playing a big role. You're suddenly now have more players that can trap you in the chaos. And this is

I think what is happened now with Venezuela. He also went through the first stage of the trap and

noticed that with Venezuela, he just said, oh, yeah, we're just going to forget about developing the oil. No second stage. Okay. So in with Venezuela, there's a reason why that has paused. It's because he didn't go to stage two, because the oil company said, we're not going to die for you to build that oil.

“So he is basically, he took out one person, just literally one person, that person's not even”

dead yet. And he's not really developing any of those oil fields in Venezuela. They're just not being developed. He said he has a good relationship with the Venezuelan government, now that as long as because he's not doing any, the Venezuelan government, he's live on a man's place. He's basically declaring victory and moving on. He removed Maduro, kept the others in, and it sounds like he kept the regime. It sounds like that might have somewhat inspired his

move to bomb around, because it appears on the surface that Venezuela kind of didn't go too badly. Kind of was a political victory. Chaos kid. Chaos kid is chaos. It's not just him off. That was his matchup. But then he stopped. So this would be the equivalent would be last June. So last June. Okay. He went through stage one, and he tried to stop. What made the difference here? It wasn't Trump. It was the intel he got from Netanyahu, the phone call from Netanyahu,

which is President Trump getting ready. We're about to assassinate the Supreme Leader and about 20 of his associates, the other leaders here. You decide how you want to handle this, but we're taking off. And so that did not happen with the Maduro regime. So just imagine that there was another country that had after Trump took out Maduro decided they were going to keep assassinating the regime in Venezuela. Now you would be in a different story. You made a quite famous

prediction professor. You predicts in 2009 that America's era as the world's only superpower

“was ending. Oh, yeah. And I think that is true. We haven't talked about China, but I believe”

that since Trump has come into office, he's making China number one. His tariffs have done nothing, but help China. China has been on charm offensive since the tariffs have been and they're picking up all the pieces. I was just spent two weeks in China in June while we were bombing Iran. I said, I had to learn how to do social media. I toured advanced industries in China for

two solid weeks. One of the most amazing visits trips I've ever had in my whole career.

And it was stunning. So Steven, since COVID, almost nobody has gone to China. Now if they have, they've gone to Beijing or Shanghai. They haven't gone to Wuhan. They haven't gone to San Shenzhen, visited the BYD electric car factories, seen the robots that are now doing the metallurgy. And you can't see it very well on the web because China's keeping it to themselves. They don't want to brag about it. They're going, they're motoring ahead. So Wuhan,

to give you an example, Wuhan is kind of like Pittsburgh. It's a bigger version of Pittsburgh. It's an old steel area. That's not Wuhan today. Wuhan today is the AI. It's developing not just

a robotic company. They're uplifting nine million people in Wuhan. Their medicine is improved.

Their infrastructure is improved. They have more construction jobs than ever before because they have to build so much to uplift the whole nine million people. This is what Pittsburgh should have been and hasn't been. And I know I'm from Western Pennsylvania. It's a heart breaking to me to watch what's happened to Pittsburgh over the last 30 or 40 years. Wuhan exactly the same trajectory. An old steel city is now one of the leaders here in they have a robotic silicon valley there

that I visited. And so, what is this matter? What is it matter if the U.S. and no longer the world

first of all, you get enormous tension here for violence. So when you see big, hegemonic shifts. That means when one leader, the world's number one becomes replaced by another, bad things happen. This is what happened. How you got the wars between Britain and France. When they were fighting theirs wars, this is how you got, essentially World War I because of the rise and fall of Germany versus Russia versus Britain. So these rising and fall, they make a huge

difference. Doesn't always happen. The one time it was peaceful was when America replaced Britain

as number one. So just think about that. But other times have been very tense. So I was trying to feel that the U.S. and now at war with the Middle East. So what's interesting is to get ready for coming on here. I listen to the all-in podcasts. And I hope that's okay to talk about it.

“I think they're brilliant. By the way, I love it. But what they said just in the most recent”

is that Trump's playing a game for China. What they said is China shaken in its boots. And what this is about is it's kind of Venezuela, plus Iran is all about to cause Xi to be shaking in his boots in April. So that he will somehow make some bigger deal with Trump. I think this is just wrong.

I think that it may be that there's some China does, absolutely by 90% of Iran's oil. There's

no, I'm not disagreeing with the facts of the matter. It's the interpretation and the consequences for who's going to be number one down the road. So my assessment here is China is probably thrilled that we're on the verge of getting into another quagmire in the Middle East. And that they would gladly give up. They have about 20% of their GDP, the energy, not GDP. 20% of their energy, it's a much smaller fraction of their GDP that turns on the oil issue. Most of their energy is

not generated through oil. And so I think they would really, if they had to give all of the Middle Eastern oil up to suck us in to a another forever war with Iran that would go on for years

and years. Oh, my goodness gracious. Because they see themselves as growing through Asia and spreading

their wings through Asia. And so to get us pinned down in the Middle East with an even bigger

“problem than we had with Iraq, this is Mana from Heaven from China. And that's what they told,”

that's what I saw when I was there. If I was Putin or if I was running China, based on everything you've said and based on everything I know, I would really want this war to go on for a long time. Oh, for sure. I'd really, so I'd really be helping Iran, you know, prolong this thing. And also because Russia and their in-situation had the moment with Ukraine. So it's quite a distraction from whatever Putin's objectives are in Ukraine. No one's really

talking about Ukraine this week. And it's bad for the Ukrainians because what's happening is by, by the little bit that Putin has gotten himself involved here, there is a chance he's set the stage for a deal, which is again, America stops the intel to the Ukrainians. If Russia will stop the intel to Iran, that is much, much, much to Putin's advantage with Ukraine. So I think that you have a situation here, Stephen, where Putin, it's not so much he's itching to get in the fight,

is he's trying to do it in ways that he gets something out of it in his relations of war with Ukraine. Think about that with President Xi. I don't think the Chinese want to get in the fight.

“I think, in fact, right now, if I'm assessing this correctly, they're probably not wanting to”

get in the way of an enemy who shoot himself in both feet. So right now, America's damaging itself a lot more than China could. And if China inserts itself, there's a very good chance then that would help Trump, again, pull a rabbit out of a hat. I don't think they want to do that. I think right now, you just look at this from, we're running out of what's called standoff pgm, number secretary, head chef said, well, yeah, okay, we're running out of standoff pgm,

what we're going to do something from the, from the, the bombs that we can drop more over country. Well, that's the problem for a problem for Taiwan. If we're going to defend Taiwan, we've got to do this with long standoff precision weapons. And we all, everybody who studies this knows that. So if we're really running low on standoff precision weapons, she's just leaking his chops. They and my goodness, how much better does this get?

If Trump was listening, probably get in the case, I think he just watches CNN and yeah, Fox News. But if Trump was listening, what would you say, Tim? What I would tell him is take the deal. I would say stop right now and do everything possible to go back to the deal you rejected

60% enriched uranium out of the country as possible. If you could also get the 20% enriched uranium out,

“that would be good too. But you probably not going to get as good a deal. Because the supreme”

leader you were dealing with is gone. And you now have a much tougher, so you might have to accept President Trump a worse deal. Oh, we're just kicking the kind down the road here because if you're in a rainy and like you've said, you've watched bombs drop you've realized that the reason why you are such a target is because you don't have these nuclear weapons. So is there not an element where Iran getting nuclear weapons is inevitable in some way? So Steven, this is the myth of

100% security. So we see this in not just America, but in lots of conflicts in history where the idea that you don't have 100% security leads you to essentially do things that look like suicide for fear of death. So we know that there is a long-term problem out there and sometimes a really good solution is to freeze it for 20 years. Just freeze it for 20 years. And you know what, it's your right. You didn't permanently take it off the table, but if you can freeze a problem

for 20 years, that's actually a lot of you might get lucky. You might get something good like the Soviet Union might just fall apart on you. You know, out of the blue, if I just fall apart on you. And not because you did anything, it's just because something else changed in the world. So the way to think about this, Steven, is not this idea that we're going to take an action and have 100% security. This is how big powers lose wars. Big powers are up against these little

countries and think about how often they lose. We lose to Vietnam. That's all I got into this

business in the first place. I wanted to understand that. And so this idea of the search for

perfect security is often getting us into trouble. Kick a can down, you're right. It's only 20 years. I'll take that. That's better than where we are right now. Professor Robert Paype, of all the things that we've talked about, which has been a wonderful conversation by the way. And very diverse, but really focused on this subject of what's going on in the world, maybe with Iran and Japan, but America is divine. What is the thing that we should have

talked about that we didn't talk about? The big thing, well, we're finally getting to it at the end, is the real consequence of what President Trump has done since coming into office. The real consequence of the tariffs, the real consequence of not just threatening discussion of Greenland, but becoming very aggressive with our European allies on Greenland, being very aggressive to the point of taking out a leader from Venezuela, which is in our

Western Hemisphere. So it's creating what this is really doing is it's threatening America's primacy. So I am a big believer that America should be the strongest, most secure state on the planet. I think that is good for us. That means that it is valuable to be the top dog, to be the number one

“strongest economic military power. But in order to do that, you have to be the world's number one”

economy for real. And with $40 trillion in debt, with us pushing away our trading partners, with us engaging in hostile actions here, which are scaring the rest of the world to further drift away from us and maybe not side with China, but being neutral. Oh my goodness gracious. And again, as I said before, China is motoring ahead on the AI revolution. We're talking AI, but are we really doing Wuhan? Are we up to Wuhan? I think it would be interesting for

folks to go to Wuhan and actually visit or go to San Chen and visit or go to Hangzhou and visit. And see where Alweba is and see that it's not just one company here, it's not just deep sea,

that there is clusters that are being built, that are uplifting 10 million people at a swath.

And my goodness, why aren't we doing that in America? We certainly need that in the rest of the world. We're too distracted. We're too distracted, which is what I'm trying to say is to China's advantage.

“And I think this is the real long-term price, which is, are we actually eroding our position”

as the world's number one? And I think our primacy is in danger. Professor Robert Pate, we have a close-enchedition of this podcast where the last guest leaves a question for the next guest

you have for the future that most people do not want to hear?

“Well, this is going to lead into the conversation. So I have a book coming out in September”

called our own worst enemies. As bad as all this problem is, Steven, as bad as it is, I have spent the last several years focusing on what's happening with political violence

in the United States and its normalization. And the biggest danger that we face,

even bigger than Iran, and all the problems we've just talked about, is the normalization of

“political violence in our own country. And by political violence, you mean, I'm talking about”

in the last 10 years. We have seen a surge of violent riots. We have seen a surge of political assassinations that we haven't seen since the 1960s. On top of that, we just had operation midway, Blitz and My City, Chicago. That is the surge of militarized, um, immigration enforcement, which surge ice, which surge into neighborhoods over almost 300 times, not just a small, and then what happened after they left Chicago is they did even more of that in Minneapolis.

So these, this trajectory, Steven, that we're on, where we are seeing the incredible normalization

of political violence, and it's happening on both the right and the left. It's not, I'm not trying to make moral equivalence, but it is in the book we'll explain this, is probably the greatest danger that we face, because if we are our own worst enemies,

“think of what that means for us, being that great power that is so important for us, and the”

great future we want for our families and our our communities here, we are in danger of becoming our own worst enemies, not for a day, not for a month, but for years. Professor, thank you so much. If anyone wants to go and read more about many of the things we've talked about today, where do they go? Substack? I would go, you can read my books on it, you can get them from Amazon. I would go to Substack, and then, and that's the escalation trap. Um, and I would also just be

aware that there will be a more discussion of political violence, so it's not just political violence or broad, and it's not just political violence at home. It is both happening at the same time. Professor, thank you so much. Thank you very much, really. We're really enjoyed. Thank you so much. Fantastic.