Rational Security: The “All Takin’ and No Givin’” Edition

So, the new Bundesliga series, as well as the future, is a great mental and sport director. Because all games are then in the same way as the KickBass series. And if you're now watching KickBass, what's that? KickBass is the fourth fan of the Football Manager.

But that's the first thing I'd like to say.

You're a little bit more ignorant, you can even read the rules. Or you'll see the real Bundesliga profile in your card. So, this time, you'll see the football world, the Count on Life, the Bundesliga season on the tag. It's an August, dream of a great opponent, a great league and a side-fond tag. KickBass, just download and leave.

Good kick and fun. I feel like we're recording like, you know, for an angel today.

“Somebody, I think, is the line that I've seen said about this many, many times now that I'm going to steal.”

Dolly part died. This is such a bummer. I'm kind of doubt about this. I can't say I'm like, she's just such a cultural, I'm the present cultural figure. I can't say, I like her music.

I know some of her music, I'll probably not all of it.

I can't say it's a future problem in my life soundtrack. But, you know, it's kind of boring. She's just kind of like, in a woven or way with so many parts of American life. It's kind of weird to think that she's a, she's a gun. Yeah, she was so important in my parents' generation and kind of grew up watching her play

guitar, the folk music, rental opera, and kind of wanted to play myself. And then my kids read the line of children's books that she sends all around America. So she's been such a blessed person in our lives for like three generations, hard to imagine life without her. That's pretty crazy. It also paid for the modern vaccine as we forget sometimes, or at least a good part of developing it.

We're just pretty wild. Today, for a song's feature in your, your musical debut, Julia, on, uh, I guess the daily collar.

“I'm going to tell you another prominent music, I guess, that's what you could do.”

No, I probably should have gone there. Uh, yeah, no. Instead, uh, you'll be back my ode to our current president of the United States, plastered all around the internet. I got who posted that?

I can't remember. Hmm. Fast forward to object lessons. We're going to get there. Don't want to get on the steel.

Wait, was you'll be back from Hamilton? Is that the Sunday action? I haven't got to listen to it. I've seen the video, but I have not. I turn the audio on.

Yeah. And he'll send. That's a great. The fully armed battalion to remind you of his love. I just want to point out that the audience, which was composed of an ineffable combination

of CIA officers, current and former NSC staffers from the Biden administration, law fair folks, and office of the vice president, Mike Pence staff, erupted in applause on the line. I served you well. Hmm. Hmm.

For a while anyway. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Rational Security. The show, where we invite you to join members of the law fair team as we try to make sense of the week's big, national security news stories, whether they are in our lanes or not.

I am your host, Scott R. Anderson, thrilled to be back with some more of our team members, our beloved team members here from law fair, joining me once again, is law fair, editor and chief, Rational Security co-host, Emeritus Benjamin, what has been, thank you for coming

back on the pod, always a pleasure.

I feel like the musical fauna, but behind you, has diversified, because there appears to be some sort of gross potato playing a trumpet. I don't know what that is exactly over your shoulder, but it's bizarre. No, though, it is a flower playing a saxophone, I was this close. It arose because there was concern about the gender diversity of my flora and fauna, Bob

Muller, and both of the cactus is being male. Fair. All right, fair enough. We'll take it.

“The flower is implied female, but, okay, all right, I think that's a big lipstick.”

It's definitely female coded, as we say. Okay. All right, all right, we'll take it. We'll take it. Well, joining as well as law fair's public service fellow, Julia Curley, back on the

podcast, again, one of our more regular appearances lately, Julia, thank you for coming back on the pod. Thank you, Scott. Pleasure. Yeah, and I'm in my new studio, otherwise known as my side closet, and, uh, 'cause

my wife kicked me out of my well decorated one, I'm not going to be--

It's a little bit hurtful.

“There's no cactus in the background, there's no stolen valor from her highly, you”

know, her high achievements in academia, so, and there's no British new wave. So the audience will just have to live with this. Okay, yeah. This is why it looks like I'm recording out of Buffalo Bill's basement, which most of the time when I record from home, because my wife gets a nice office space for a good reason.

For a good reason. We are also going to be joined by law fair contributing editor, Alex Zerdin, a little bit later in the show.

But he's not going to be here for the first segment, simply because of some scheduling

challenges. Now, let us get right into it into our three topics, topic one for this week, SkyNet's The Limit. A Russian drone guided entirely by onboard artificial intelligence with no human directing the final strike appears to have killed three civilians at a gas station in Zaporizia,

through Crayon on July 6, and what experts believe may be the first killings carried out by a fully autonomous Russian weapon. As both armies race towards greater battlefield autonomy, driven in part by electronic warfare that James, the radio links pilot drones rely upon, the strike marks a threshold arms control experts have long warned about machines, not people deciding whom to kill.

“What do we make of this development and what does it mean for the laws and practice of war?”

Top of two, real talk. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott present unveiled a new round of sanctions on Iran and what he called its enablers, bringing the campaign operation economic outcast, and promising a "economic d-day aimed at severing every financial lifeline that stands the regime.

May not fully understand what that metaphor means, I don't know if Scott doesn't understand it, one of the scats doesn't quite get it, but that's okay. The measures target a global network of broker, shadow fleet vessels, and firms moving Iranian oil along with Tehran's access to digital assets, gold aviation, and shipping, the present has been pickously held back the biggest penalties on some major Iranian trading

partners like China, favoring quiet diplomacy instead. The announcement lands with Iran's currency at records lows, and the U.S. Iran work grinding into its six months after a ceasefire window has collapsed. His maximum economic pressure is substitute for military force, and will it actually work to bring the conflict to a close that the Trump administration appears to hope?

And topic three, sorry, not sorry. Trade talks between Washington and Ottawa collapse late last week that the stroke of midnight

in August 21, President Trump's 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods,

everything from hockey equipment and furniture to liquor and clothing, and T.S. Canadian hardwood, took effect. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who blamed the breakdown of last month on economic and unfair U.S. demands, vowed to match the tariffs dollar for dollar with his own duties on U.S. steel dairy appliances and electronics starting September 8th, and once a far as to say Canada

is at war after being attacked. With the future of the U.S. M.C.A. free trade packs suddenly endowed, how did two of the

“world's closest trading partners get here and where does the escalation go next?”

So for first topic, I want to turn to you first, Ben, because you had up close and personal interactions with some of the emerging tech around drones and the intersect with the UK and conflict when you visited the country a few months ago, earlier this year, I'm curious during that visit, whether you had conversations about this next late, which people have been anticipating for a really long time, but we hadn't seen any recorded case of that,

but that is this fully on board AI driven system. And let me clarify the facts of this case as we understand them, this is coming from the New York Times, which is drawing from a number of reports by Ukrainian officials based on an autopsy of this event in July. It seems like this relatively small drone had a fully on board AI system that was essentially

trained to identify certain types of targets, in this case they believed them to be like gasoline or propane tanks that were being targeted. So it wasn't actually targeting these three civilians, but three civilians were killed when the drone hit this gasoline depot in Ukraine and detonated it. As we mentioned in the top, the drive for these devices is driven in part by the fact that

non-automated drone drones are driven by remote pilots, are increasingly having their signals jammed and therefore they're not operational miles, useful getting behind enemy lines. That's one reason we've seen these long, wired drones being used in Ukraine where you have these filaments kind of connecting physically a operator to the drone in a way that can't be jammed, at least not as readily instead.

People you have Ukrainians and I'm sure Russians as well, probably spooling up these cable and trying to cut them and find them and cut them. This is the natural next step of that. There's no cable and nobody's driving this thing, you don't need it. Instead, you kind of set it in a direction, give it some parameters and have it go to town

in a way that doesn't need a radio access to anything. But obviously, a scary amount of other people have been kind of writing into science fiction

for decades at this point, people have always thought we're close to, if not fully operationalized

and now we're seeing it in action in Ukraine. So where does this fit into your sense of the universe of tools that we've seen in Ukrainian conflict around World Warfare, how expected was this and where do the people who track this stuff we're living this day today in Ukraine, which has been at the forefront of this drone warfare, expect us to go next?

Right. So a few background points, one is when the Ukrainians use highly autonomous weapons and we don't

know that they're doing stuff that's pretty close to it and they're attempting, let's

“just say they're not morally above using a highly autonomous system.”

When they do it, they are generally operating on their own territory where there are no Russian civilians and so the capacity for Russian civilian death if something goes wrong is extremely minimal, at least if you're dealing with the front lines or the middle strike. Conversely, any time Russians are targeting Ukrainians, they are also operating on Ukrainian

territory and there are Ukrainian civilians and so my first problem with this is not

an autonomous weapons problem. It's a broader Russian policy in Ukraine, which is that they are insufficiently attentive

“to protecting human life, civilian life, collateral injury and sometimes are actively targeting”

civilians and so to give you an idea of how bad that problem is, there is an ongoing effect, which is called the drones safari in Russian behavior in this part of Ukraine, which is you fly drones around you see people and then you follow the people around and it's really fun and then you kill them by crashing drones into them and there are hundreds of documented cases of this and so my first reaction is I don't care if it's a robot doing

it or a human doing it, it's a freakin war crime and the fundamental problem here is in this case I don't think as you said it was targeting civilians but in other cases it

“is and I think the autonomy of the weapon is a concern but it is a secondary concern in”

my view to the fact that they have a policy of killing a lot of civilians and humans are

very good at that too so the second thing I will say is that look I have always departed

in my view of this subject from the mainstream of the human rights community which takes a a kind of per se there must be a human in the loop attitude there cannot be any fully autonomous lethal systems to my mind the right question is does a fully autonomous system perform better or worse than the comparable system with a human in the loop in the targeting accuracy and civilian protection department if your first deployment of it kills three civilians the answer

to that question is no and so whether whether you take the view that the traditional human rights community takes which is absolutely not we should have a per se redline rule against fully autonomous lethal systems or whether you take my view which is that there should be detailed legal review of application and deployment just like any other weapon and you have your we know your obligations this fails that test and you know three civilians are dead as a result of it

here is what I would not conclude from this the day that the Ukrainians have capacity to get you know they recently launched a ground raid with entirely with robots and they got a surrender of a significant Russian position entirely remotely they are experimenting with highly autonomous systems as well and they are a rule of law compliant military that is not operating in dense civilian spaces and so do I want to conclude from this that under no circumstances should

the Ukrainian military deploy a similar system that was more responsibly managed and could target Russian positions in the same region no I don't want to conclude that I want to say that this is a fast evolving area the degree of autonomy particularly with respect to shooting down incoming drones which also has lethal consequences for people on the ground there's a lot of opportunity here and

possible and I know a lot of people are going to be pissed off at me for saying that what do you let me come to you your perspective on this from the policy perspective I don't know the extent to what you've thought about the stuff I suspect it would likely have come up with various points in different issues you've covered over the course of your career because it has become such a feature at a more primitive stage a lot of asymmetric warfare for the last 10 years 10 to 15 years

“and we've all anticipated this possibility I think for the last several years as AI systems”

have rapidly developed become cheaper you know from the policy perspective what are the pros and

cons and tradeoffs of this and you know this is personally the first step of huge technology these

drones are not expensive anymore AI frankly is not that expensive anymore so we're giving me the point where a lot of people are going to be able to manufacture these things relatively cheaply what does that do for the kind of just the national security considerations more generally what is a battlefield look like when these become common tools of common soldier not just for major militaries but perhaps even for small states small territories or maybe even terrorist groups

yeah thank you so first it probably comes as no surprise that the CIA officer in the room is not morally outright rage to what what Ben said in fact you know I think feel like it's much more of a a continuation of the battlefield development of the offense and defense evolution over time um for a long time I have not actually really understood the the specific outrage around autonomous weapons why it is greater morally outrageous that a person who is targeted by one of these weapons

is worse than the dumb artillery weapon that flies over its target and blows up a school I mean it's also autonomous from the moment it is fired by the way so it at the end of the day we should be judging by the outcome and the legality and the target and the proportionality and all of

“these things and the specific technology at the end of the day doesn't strike me is all that important”

but that's just that's just my view so first on this point this has been a feature of precision

guided weapons for a long time and I know what we're talking about is somewhat different and may have legal dip different implications but anti-shakruse missiles other guided weapons have terminal guidance systems with parameters that allow them in that very last split section to pick a target and I guess part of the differences that these are moving slower over there or that we can you have forensics that we can we can follow it but at the end of the day we of for quite a long time

had weapons making a human programmed but still at the end of the day autonomous lethal targeting decisions and and so from from from my perspective this is a continuation of a problem

and there's always been either a human in the loop or a human on the loop either way a human is

involved in making these decisions whether at the algorithm level or at the this target not that target level and and that still should be held accountable the second thing I wanted to go to was the broader point about the evolution of combat and this just seems in Ukraine as the laboratory of modern war to be the next logical step that we should all be watching and I know that other countries around the world are watching as you noted there was this back and forth over jamming

which resulted in the tethering of UAV systems which is now resulted in you know with in other countermeasures to block those which is now resulting in greater autonomy which is now resulting in spoofing systems on the ground and this this is just going to keep continuing and as long as these evolutions are have battlefield improvements in a in a lethal war I don't see any way to to stop them and for those of us that support Ukraine which I certainly do this is another way that that we should

be partnering closely with them learning from their experience for our own benefit as well and just just to talk a little bit more about the cost of all of this if the Ukrainians and the Russians are developing weapons in the in the tens of thousands that have these kind of lethal effects that could be fully autonomous that can avoid all of the very expensive countermeasures and millions of dollars of of intersector missiles the only counter to this will be countermeasure UAV systems

a to fully autonomous systems that can also make these kinds of decisions and that is inevitable. This has implications in places like the straight foreign moves where the Iranians are are building much of the same technologies against against us we need to figure out ways very

“quickly and I believe there are some U.S. firms who are working on the ground to try to do this”

to feel cheaper autonomous systems that can counter these systems. I can tell you in the China Taiwan

action with high technology and so this is unfortunate development that the people who are killed

“it's a tragedy but I think we can see more continuation than discontinuity in all of this and”

our adversaries are watching this very closely around the world and so should we. You know the Russians in Ukraine have been more than capable of murdering people in the most analog fashions imaginable including you know starvation right in 1931 so you know when people talk about this as a rubicon crossed what they're talking about is not Russian murder of Ukrainian civilians that is a constant across technology and so I would just caution people against overreeding

the significance you know this is not enabling anything that wasn't already happening it's simply changing the modality of it and it is it is possible to hypothesize that this is a grossly a responsible use of a technology that got some civilians killed in the context in which killing Ukrainian civilians is part of a Russian objective and that there may be very responsible

“even inevitable as Julia says uses of the particular technology in question so I will be”

honest I tend to agree with you all which maybe it doesn't mean there were not representing a full range of views on this by trying to channel that critiques it definitely means that so let me let me try and channel a few critiques and concerns particularly ones that I find more credible or concerning which to me a lot of the concerning parts of this is less about the inevitable arrival at a point of autonomous weapons but what it's going to be like to live through the period

where these weapons are emerging for the simple reason that a training these things is going to be

very complicated and you're always going to have kind of countertraining impulses people adapting

patterns and things like that to say well as are other ways we can beat whatever hard-wired training these systems might have although that gets into some weird questions about I suspect perfecty and raising a bunch of other legal and ethical issues like how how much do you want to hydrate or military personnel and equipment if it means that your systems these systems may be accidentally targeting civilians right or opening their aperture but that's also something that's

not entirely for to can modern warfare absent kind of autonomous weapons but you have this period where these wet things we have are suddenly becoming very cheap and available we don't know what fully what the training data is going to look like we don't have when we've seen the amount of money and effort put into things like waymo where the data set is huge and it's going pretty well in the very confined environment it's operating in but not flawlessly I mean we still hear stories

about Tesla and other automated vehicles that aren't on the the fixer routes and kind of more constraints that waymo and the company on our having like pretty severe incidents from time to time and then you have the pressure to rapidly roll these things out and the ability what it does to the kind of parodies of power on the one hand it's hugely democratizing and eventually bad way right like a lot much weaker actors all of a sudden be able to do potentially really devastating

stress you know imagine if 9/11 he's going to be able to have to hijack four planes take that roll tray that could just send a drone to the parking garage and you know plant it properly

to detonate it like the first roll tray said her mom and kind of tried to do right you know

you could that may be the best parallel but you can think of scenarios where that would be a hugely powerful tool on the flip side when you're really talking about state-to-state warfare it really puts economies at scale hugely where actually economic powers do kind of potentially have a huge advantage because this this is going to become a question of how quickly you can over-round like measures and countermeasures can overwhelm each other at a certain point so if you're

really talking about war at scale as opposed to surprise attacks small things it strikes me that this really underscores and reiterates the you know economic power as being a major vehicle of potentially driving the military power that's already true in some ways it makes it even more real and the perhaps most kind of distressing part about this I guess from a from a US law perspective

I think that applies to the country as well is that we've always relied on friction

as and time friction in particular is as the way we regulate and have some ability to have them or kind of checks on warfare you know what is the limit congress has put on the present

“story to use warfare through statutes war powers those you have 60 to 90 days and then you have to”

come to congress in order the fact that that's never been very effectively enforced the the core limit there is the idea that you're perhaps some time to debate and think about these things after the present takes his action the president can you know unleash a swarm of drones day one

Iran releasing the first few days we saw this incredible way of high impact targeting before

any sort of really check even a head of our true mental checks at time to kick in it raises big questions about well how quickly can democratic institutions can the processes where the our value judge channel our value judgements is opposed to more strict rules keep up with these

“sorts of systems I don't know if any of those I think those are all real concerns are real”

problems are reason to be kind of scared of this moment although I tend to agree you can see an outcome at the end of this where maybe we find ways to adapt all those things am I being too pessimistic and raising those concerns or is it that we're just going to be living through as in so many things with AI really dangerous moment even if the other end might not be as dire as some people suspect but yeah so I I think those are exactly the right questions in some ways the the the

crude stupid version of this conversation is should we allow AI driven targeting and the answer to that question is go debated in a philosophy classroom in the field it is happening it is going to happen and it's going to happen because for every side fighting war it is advantageous to their own goals for it to happen and we are included in that and have been since at least the creation as Julia puts pointed out of the tactical tomahawk in the 80s right autonomy is creating a

ability for yourself your own forces to hit things more accurately from further away is the essence of warfare all parties will want to do that and therefore it's going to happen and the question

“of should we not let it happen is a silly question honestly I don't mean to sound contemptuous of it”

but the transition costs are a real issue and let's talk about wemo because wemo is a super interesting example here wemo the data that wemo's are safer than human drivers by a lot is overwhelming and you are definitely better off getting into a wemo in San Francisco than an Uber if your metric is you want to be alive and on injured at the end of the ride and yet there are these videos that you can find there's a great one this episode of Rational Security brought to you

by wemo this next part brought to you by Uber there are the great videos you can get from Los Angeles of wemo's driving into a police standoff and of course which is something an Uber driver would

“never do and why does the wemo do this because the police standoff prevents traffic from going”

through there and so the wemo sees wow there's no traffic this way and it drives straight into an active police standoff now that is analogized that to a war situation right on average it is going to be much much more accurate it is going to be unless it's operated by Russians who are trying to kill civilians it's going to be more civilian protective is it going to make mistakes that no human would make that are would be funny if it were wemo's and will be not funny in in a

wartime situation yes yes yes yes yes and so you know it is possible from multiple things to

be true at the same time the third thing I will say and this goes to an issue that both

Scott and Julia have talked about in other contexts which is you know we had a solution to this category of problems in in theory and that was a cadre of people whose job it was to do serious professional legal review and it's called the jag core and I for one had a lot of confidence in the jag core and the idea that there were serious operational military lawyers who were reviewing weapon systems individually and in the context of individual deployments for the

legality of their use that was a great thing and did it completely eliminate this problem no did it greatly mitigate problems like this in general absolutely and then what do you do you say

well first of all let's politicize the jag core and let's let's not let them do their jobs and

so that the AI's give us the answer that we want and we are limited only by lawful use as

defined by jags who we now have political control over and you can see how all of these forces are combining to produce worse answers to questions like this and rather than thump the table and say no autonomous weapons no autonomous weapons I would like to thump the table and say in the face of inevitable real change in the way we fight war let's have institutions that can operate autonomously operate ethically operate with moral and legal seriousness and that seems to

me to be the risk that's the risk that I'm most worried about that we're not allowing the systems that we've built to operate effectively as constraints as thought generators as issue spotters and we're going to have a lot of police standoffs with Wamos driving through them as a result. The only last couple items to add to this conversation one is that the cat is probably out of the bag where further expert controls on this technology is probably lost there was

probably an opportunity of coming out of the Biden administration to continue to clamp down on the export of US origin chips or design chips and that clearly is now gone and despite the fact that you can't that the Russians shouldn't be able to buy these technologies are clearly getting them of the the Chinese and that's unfortunate but there's probably no rolling that back and then the last thing I wanted to say on the evolution of military technology that this that this again

“illustrates is that the Ukrainians are showing that in a protracted conflict one of the most important”

elements of this and the Russians are showing this as well is the ability to iterate on the battlefield in in the laboratory of war and the kind of military industrial complex the United States has where major changes to weapon systems can take years of time and and loop back to the United States in elaborate testing we it in a protracted conflict they just don't have time for that and the Ukrainians and the Russians are showing us what it looks like in the field where

algorithmic warfare on both sides of the of the measures and countermeasures are having real lethal consequences on the battlefield and so going ahead the United States just isn't prepared for this kind of a conflict where we might need to take existing weapon systems and reprogram them on the fly to deal with opponent countermeasures in the field and it's something that I know people are thinking about but the US industrial base just in the way we do contracting for the

“DOD is just not up for this task. Yeah that's a important thought to close and we're going”

to have more opportunities to talk about all of this moving forward but let's move on to our second

topic and let's bring in our other guests of course we have law fair community Alex Zerdin joining us to the rest of the episode Alex thank you for coming on the pod. Scott thank you so much for having me. So with Alex with us now let's go to our second topic we have seen a new phase in the Iran conflict start this past week this time on the economic front it's kind of a new phase same as the old phase sort of situation with Iran. Iran we know has been the biggest focus set for

maybe Russia arguably for US sanctions policies of the last decade, decade and a half arguably longer honestly particularly since the first Trump administration came into office installed it's a maximum pressure campaign we have seen Iran targeted by I think it's fair to say a whole ray of novel we're kind of envelope pushing economic measures on a variety of fronts and now we're about to see another wave of those with this new campaign operation economic outcast that the

Treasury Secretary of the Senate has announced where they are proposing and implementing a whole broad array of measures targeting not just Iran but also using secondary sanctions are getting all sorts of actors with ties to Iran what percent describes as a navelers and really trying to

“cut off Iran's access to a whole swaths of the global economy. Or at least in theory that's what”

this will do. We already know these sorts of plans have big tradeoffs because Iran is global actor that trades with some of the same actors we do or at least trades with some of the same actors that trade with some of the same actors we do. So if you go down that chain you end up hurting or potentially targeting people with whom you or people you care about have relationships

and those things have to be navigated and manage. So I want to come to you first on this

Julia as you've been one of our correspondence on the Iran front where does this fit into this broader strategy with this administration has been doing with Iran is this part of a broader strategy

can't give in that the military front either hasn't made the progress they want and escalating

further there is going to have domestic political costs as well as potentially global strategic and other costs. Strategies of very strong word that I would not associate with the

“administration's approach on Iran at this point. So if this was such an important economic tool”

to take to drive the Iranians to the negotiation why wasn't this done months ago where was the interagency policy committee a meeting that put forward this measure was it was it happening in some some dark room that I'm not aware of I doubt it what is the goal so best it went out and told CNBC that this is somehow going to be a regime ending move and has been describing this this effort is an economic day it's a side show for a regime that has been enduring economic sanctions for

decades he brought up the Cuba example of of U.S. economic sanctions the Cuban regime has been in

place for 64 years under economic sanctions. This always reminds me of this conversation I

“once had with a senior administration official in the first Trump administration we were talking”

about economic sanctions and he described something he called the last chicken sandwich problem which is that when you use economic sanctions against a closed off regime the last person in the country that will not be able to eat the chicken sandwich is the leader the people that actually make the decisions everyone else below them will go without chicken sandwiches for some time it's a nice colloquial way of putting it but this is highly unlikely to achieve the objectives the

administration continues to lay out which are all over the place frankly they will not achieve

regime change through further iterative economic sanctions they also have carved out large parts of the Iranian export economy that that frankly constitute most of how the Iranians are continue to keep open their lifeline including the Chinese and that's clearly because the president is going to have an economic summit with Xi Jinping or a summit with Xi Jinping next month and prioritizes the political relationship there so this is just a continuation of the

bargaining that is going on bargaining sometimes with sanctions sometimes with with missiles on our side and then the Iranians continuing to use the the straight and and dialing up and down the amount of traffic that's going through them but the Iranians know full well that the electoral calendar is on their side now and a theocratic regime facing and a fight for its survival up against a democratic White House that that is looking at the midterms is just in a much better place to

hold out so I can't imagine this will have much effect on the Iranians. , I have heard you will then have a mobile phone call but so simply let me see if I can come from. We will meet with a XXL streaming app. I will take a look at the red one. I only have an old dream. , I'm going to come to you on this you are somebody who lives in the world of sanctions and other kind of economic measures for most of your career. Talk to a little bit about what is being

done here, how novel it is, how aggressive it is, where it is the delta it is beyond prior maximum pressure measures and we're kind of fits into the arc of what the administration is doing. We all have to remember a few months ago this administration actually gave a license to allow around start exporting oil and concerns about global oil prices topped out. So now, admittedly I think they would say well that was during a moment where we were more optimistic about avenues to diplomacy

and we were in this pre-season fire we were in negotiations to cease fire to have a cease fire to have a

“cease fire. We were kind of on the chain leading that all that's abandoned. That's why we're jumping”

into this measure. I suspect that's the friendliest account of this. Does that make sense to you or

and where it might lead? So I don't think we have a better sense after Secretary-Besson's speech

“on Monday as press conference about the administration's theory of the case with respect to using”

these economic tools. This raised more questions than it answered because as you mentioned we did have Operation Epic Fury which was a military campaign and then only 48 days later the treasure department launched Operation Economic Fury so the economic component to what was a military diplomatic and intelligence campaign and then as you've described 130 days after that we then have Operation Economic Outcast which is the D-Day reference that you described and so this new chapter,

this new campaign and the current campaign looks a lot like the old campaign as you also said we've had economic pressure against Iran in various forms for 47 years. As Julia mentioned this doesn't necessarily portend regime change and if anything regimes get stronger over time in certain instances when you rely too heavily on economic tools and don't deploy other elements of national power. The other part of this too is that sanctions are a tool in a policy toolkit. They are not

ends in and of themselves. They are not the desired outcomes. They are one element that can be used as part of other tools of what the strongest country in the world has at its disposal and so the challenges here and what we saw and especially I don't think the administration did itself any credit or any benefit by giving this long rollout period of a week to say that this is going to be economic D-Day. I mean D-Day was the allied emphasis on allied invasion of the European continent to

defeat Nazi Germany and you know required years of planning it required international and allied partnership and coordination and it was effectively at the end of the day it was a military campaign it wasn't an economic campaign and so the messaging didn't do the the administration any favors and then the press conference similarly we were expecting a dramatic escalation potentially if this were to be commensurate with the with the description and with the the foreshadowing of either

hitting for instance a major Chinese financial institution major emirati or Turkish bank some significant escalation escalation of the of the economic conflict however what we had were increased threats the use as you described it's got a sectoral sanctions which is novel in in somewhat new but it seems you know they're they had actually applied at scale and is hitting you know the sectoral sanctions hit digital assets it hit technology hit aviation shipping in gold these are all

sectors that have been targeted previously and sustained by the administration and there were only

about 60 targets whereas in 2018 when maximum pressure was imposed by the first Trump administration

in November of 2018 they hit 700 targets there was a major international coordinated rollout I mean I I had the the chance to work on that as a civil servant overseas and so here you know

“I don't know what the theory of the case is I think the administration wants to buy some more time to”

increase its diplomatic pressure but you know the results may show for themselves we may not see publicly what ultimately happens and what dog didn't bark in sense of not needing to execute on additional sanctions and measures taken by by partners by allies by other countries and entities but for right now I'm not seeing what the what the current theory is and how that's been advanced by this secretary speech yeah nothing else the name certainly seems to set very high expectations

right like the whole point of day the reason we will still talk about it and we have you know this upgrade is because it ended the war that seems to be what presents promising with us that's setting very high bar given the success maximum pressure campaign then I want to come to you dear for your thoughts on this let me to back and take a little more global picture the perennial

concern about deploying these sorts of measures is always that the United States at some point is

“going to push its leverage too far as huge leverage over the global financial system I think most”

experts looking at this would say we're not close to there's no reason to think we're close to tipping the scales to the straw that breaks the camel's back although we also don't know what it's going to look like so we can 100% say with confidence but there's no reason to think we're that close to it but that the more aggressively we push these measures eventually you start cultivating creating incentives for people to say well we're going to find ways to engage in global commerce that don't

turning to the alternative mechanisms we have seen China set up or in the case of Iran we did see

“Europe set up somewhat successfully for several years after the GCPOA collapsed in the”

re-installation of maximum pressure I kind of doubt that's going to be coming back imminently and on the European front in this context given Iran's attack on regional allies and several European powers and things like that but maybe we'll see you know down the road and pay how long this lasts what is your sense of the global reaction to this sort of better and how much does it matter I mean maximum pressure was something the Trump administration

went pretty much alone on the first time around is a reason to expect you're going to get more support this amount of step from Iran from Israel who doesn't have a lot of trade with Iran so I don't think it really matters that much and and you know how much can they pull their people in a lot of this is good if there are really serious about this going to tail secondary sections basically sanctioning people in other countries for not complying with these measures trying to regulate

foreign actors and their ability to engage with Iran but that's always a controversial thing I mean

how what is the global response could be how does it fit in the broader global relationships that

“the Trump administration's kind of trying to cast first of all you know if you want to stop”

hang costs for wildly over promising and then not delivering Iran on a plate stop wildly over promising and not delivering Iran on a plate and I mean there there is a quality of you know you call D-Day what's actually a you know modest enhancement of existing sanctions if that because you haven't actually done them yet you've merely put everybody on notice that you might do things and you do this in the context of having wildly over promised

both militarily and you have this long history this is where the tariff stuff really comes in

at the entire world knows that the Trump administration is a bunch of blathering blowhards on tariff stuff and they're kind of dangerous because they slap tariffs on people around but they also back down all the time I mean this is where the phrase taco comes from right and so now you have these two areas where they wildly over bluster and over promise kind of dovetailing

“and I think the rest of the world is likely to shrug and say like let us know when you”

actually do anything and then we'll assess it and that seems to be the way people reacted at the time and I would expect that people will continue to behave that way unless and until the administration does something that really dramatically in convenience is some actor at which point you can expect them to do exactly what you just described which is figure out a way around it and that is why the Iranian state is still around after 40 plus years of this and if you do it enough with enough

different actors in enough different contexts eventually they're going to figure out more systemic work around to things like the dollar being the reserve currency because they don't want to be held hostage to this and so at some point and I don't report to know when that is you start trading away your major advantages because you're you know a blustering fool to echo something that you all have been saying one of the things that made the maximum pressure campaign really work in the previous

iteration was the really close cooperation with our allies and partners and this administration in its effort to alienate those allies and partners and not including them from the start in this in the planning of this effort of the war and really the disproportionate costs that our allies and partners have paid economically because of the fact that the United States has its own sources of oil and gas where they do not really will make them unlikely to cooperate at this

late hour with that kind of maximum pressure campaign we would need to to really inflict economic pain on the Iranians. I traveled in France earlier this year and in the spring and it was very clear from local television and radio who they blamed for the astronomical cost of oil and gas and for the fact that no one could plant the spring crop among French farmers the local government the national government was very happy to blame the United States for this and so yet another round

of economic sanctions in which we did not include them in the coordination of it they're very

benefit or pain we're inflicting on the Iranians here. Alex let me come back to you for your thoughts

on the kind of downstream consequences let's say the administration does move forward to some version of what they're doing aggressively pursuit of secondary sanctions broad targeting the energy sector sort of other sectors Iran has that's going to have implications for Europeans at least has in the past I don't know current state of economic trade with Iran but I'm sure they're still some substantial avenues there we know with you know oil exports a lot of that the oil

that Iran had been exporting was going and what they are still exporting is still going as far as you know to refineries in Southeast Asia China gets mostly attention but it's not just China

“you know Singapore is on that list I think Malaysia has been on that list a couple of countries”

with which we have meaningful economic relationships and political relationships in some extent particularly in regards to other issues like balancing China and assorted other things so so what are the tradeoffs of this and also what does it mean for this tool set does it make this tool set less effective if we leverage it this aggressively or the risks of that someone will rest in it now I think the risk are very real and they yeah I think the more you use the tool

the less effective it becomes you were talking about developing financial alternatives but I think there is precious diplomatic capital that is also deployed when using this tool and there is a finite resource to it obviously the world continues to change and needs and incentives also change however you can't be incredibly draconian and incredibly unilateral on something like sanctions and then expect allies partners just their countries to play ball in other contexts and it's

“really this question about prioritization that I think cuts to the core about what the goals are”

for this administration and what the goals are for this sanction if we are prioritizing competition with China and trying to marginal and mobilize a global coalition to compete and challenge China this is not the way to go about it by dramatically increasing cost of living dramatically increasing the cost of basic everyday inputs for large parts of the world I mean this is hitting you know again you mentioned we're pretty resilient with US oil prices which have still gone up

very high in national gas is has relatively maintained but you know large parts of the world are being impacted by this and you know they're we're losing goodwill as Julia was describing not just in Europe but in many parts of Africa Asia and elsewhere and so you know the the question again is to what end are we doing this and how much political power are we deploying in addition to our economic our economic levers and so sanctions I think I fear will be less effective going forward

because as you described as well that this creates more incentives again not just on the financial transactions but for economic activity writ large if this is catalyzing Chinese economic inner Chinese exports of solar of wind of you know greener energy that reduces reliance on golf sourced oil from Iran as well as the GCC+ you know does this really transform

how third countries are interacting with supply chains and paradoxically it's pushing them more

reliant you know to more reliance on China which is not the goal of the United States which is not the

“intention here and so that's what I'm really concerned about is but the financial rails are proliferating”

for alternatives and adversaries are developing this Russia has China is but also on just you know trade and and economic other kind of real economy economic activity so that's the bigger concern and those are the tradeoffs that I think you were you were hinting at and again it's just so many different countries around the world it's not just a US China binary but it is so many other other places around the around the world. Well speaking of rising cost of living in other

concerns other parts of world up and perhaps here as well let us turn to our third topic and another topic in the economic domain we are in the middle of another war this time a trade war declared on us by the most unlikely of enemies perhaps or perhaps we declared on most unlikely of enemies our neighbors to the direct north Canada one of our closest political allies one of our closest trading partners for decades and decades we've over the last week seen negotiations over a

tariff deal completely fall apart Canada in particular under Prime Minister Mark Carney is taking it particularly as a sign about the United States making unreasonable demands and insisting that they are willing to stick out the pain and inflicted back on the United States if the United States really proceeds as President Trump now has with installing tariffs and other restrictive trade measures

Alex I want to come to you on this in the first instance talked was about exactly what the United

States has done what Canada is promising and how this fits into the broader trade relationship

just last month you know the United States basically said we're not gonna opt to renew this I think

“there was a 16 year renewal option as I recall where they're going to this kind of annual review”

process so doesn't mean it's ended it's still in place but it's subject kind of ongoing scrutiny and debate which is not a good sign at least compared to the possibility of renewal you know how close does this bring us to a bigger breakdown in the broader relationship that's kind of been the defining feature of North America for the last 30 plus years this is incredibly concerning but the the basic facts of what we're talking about is that trade talks as you describe broke down

between the US and Canada and immediately the US imposed increased tariffs from 15 to about 50% on about

20 billion dollars of goods that the US exported to Canada and now in this was dairy alcohol,

electronics, industrial machinery, cement, building materials and we even imposed against apparently hockey equipment just to really make a fine point on it and then in response Prime Minister Carney has said that Canada intends to retaliate so we're engaging in a trade war now at that same 20 billion dollar level and those tariffs will go into effect on September 8th and so the purpose of this too is to target politically sensitive and economically sensitive sectors in the United

States to punish ostensibly the allies of the of the Trump administration and constituencies that appear close to the Trump administration and really concernedly Prime Minister Carney also used language of warfare he said in this is a verbatim quote quote you're at war when you get attacked we got attacked and quote and so this coming from a major ally and partner our our neighbor our longest peaceful border and then also there's military consequences I mean the US and Canada jointly staff

NORAD the US North American defense component element to protect the homeland I mean there is so much coordination on every day basis between the US and Canada so to escalate and to have this

“economic war begin to brew I think is is just generally short-sighted and again I don't”

understand and I don't know what the theory is from the administration about what their ultimate

endgame is and what they ultimately seek to achieve but what we have here is a a prime minister

a you know middle middle power country challenging the Trump administration a way that has not happened to date when other the EU for instance in previous trade agreements kind of caved and they said the broader relationship with the United States is more important Ukraine and other other issues are more important and so they will take economic concessions they will take economic losses in order to preserve the political relationship with the Trump administration in the United States

here we're seeing a different path occur let me come to you Ben on this cut I've kind of curious about your thoughts for in that question that Alex is raised this this middle powers question and we know this is the verbiage that Mark Carney brought out uh over the pat over the summer I can

“remember somewhere this spring last few months basically saying we need a middle power solution”

where while individually no state may be able to stand up to the United States economic and potentially military power at this point we're primarily talking about economic fights collectively Europe Canada may be Australia maybe other affected kind of middle power countries many from art traditional allies on trading partners have a lot of economic power actually compared to the United States do you expect us to see kind of initial salvo by Carney to say hey look we shouldn't be taking

these nods by these these attacks by the Trump administration sitting down so far the most common response from most countries on U.S. tariffs has been to push back to negotiate but to negotiate quietly you haven't seen a lot of really other than you know public statements saying we don't like what the United States is doing they shouldn't do it but we haven't seen this sort of escalation usually people go to the White House they say hey look we're happy to talk to you hold off on

these terrifying of a conversation they go these long drawn out debate processes and many of those have come out of the deal at the end or an interim deal not all of them have most of the even the interim deals the Trump administration is said that's not enough we're going to keep pushing for more but it ends up getting push and it's kind of procedural zone Canada has appears to decide either that's not going to happen that hasn't worked or that's not good enough and that we're

going to go ahead and move to the open conflict phase our will other countries follow is a reason to think other countries may follow and if it even if they don't economically is this significant

from a political kind of optics perspective for other issues all right so let me say first of all

I admired Mark Carney's speech when he laid this out a few months ago and talked about it in the language that was genuinely shocking actually he talked about the United States

at at some length Vatslav Havel's parable of the of the grocer in Czechoslovakia it was really like it was quite a shocking thing I thought it was extremely well done and I also think his

behavior this week is very well done very powerful and here's the problem I don't think he has the

cards to play that this strategy requires and the reason is exactly the one that you just identified which is getting other countries on board for it is very hard because the United States has so much to offer and eventually Canada's leverage is two big cards one is potash and the other is energy and those are extremely painful for Canada to use but they are big big cards in the U.S. relationship

“this is our agriculture sector it is you know Canada as I believe the largest supplier of American”

energy and so you know they can play rough if they want to but they can't play rough without massive damage to themselves and I think the message that that sends to other countries is do you want to cut a deal with the United States and and take advantage of opportunities that Canada's problems with the United States will present or do you want to align with Canada

stand with Canada and get your asses kicked and the problem is that it is not at least from my

point of view it is not obvious to me why countries don't act because of the moral power in trade because of the moral power of the positions and so I'm concerned that the result of this will actually be very painful for Canada moderately painful for the United States and will not attract

“a middle power coalition and that's the risk of it now why do I think it's the right move anyway”

and the answer to that is because somebody's got to do it and the EU is not going to do it individual EU countries will do it on certain issues but mostly that's in the defense space and it's not an accident that the two countries that are being most effective in this regard are the two countries against whom Trump has made territorial claims which is to say Denmark and Canada and this is understood in Canada by a lot of Canadians and not just by a you know America

fobs as reflecting actual territorial designs on Canada and actual wanting to eliminate Canadian sovereignty and from the Canadian perspective this is the Russian playbook about Ukraine.

“They are responding to it as such and as a genuine threat to their sovereignty and I think they're”

going to be willing to absorb some significant pain in order to from their point of view maintain their independence and you know I can't say I think that's the right approach for them to take I am worried about the consequences of it because as with any abusive relationship there is nothing quite like saying no and asserting yourself to antagonize the bully. Julia what do you make sense of that I think how do you respond to Ben's take on this? Yeah I'm not in

economists I don't have a lot to add to that what I what I will here providers a couple things is one is there's domestic politics in Canada and every move the president has made has made it much more difficult internally in Canada for pure economics to to rule the day and at some point it will be doing irreparable damage at least in the near term to a Canadian prime minister's ability to to to make concessions and so that's something to watch and then the other thing is that you know

in the absence of any kind of interagency process in this administration I'm sure this never happened

but had there been an actual in a sea having a meeting at least someone would have raised the fact that we are deeply intertwined with Canada with our intelligence and the five eyes relationship

and of specific actions that have been taken in response to all of this but there are other US interests at stake and the Canadians with whom we share a vast border and we have joint military commands in in order to defend the North American continent from airborne threats they're going to start imposing costs on that at some point I don't know when but we have other interests besides the the pure trade relationship that the president seems to be single-mindedly focused on

yeah fair and the single-minded focus on that is something that we've seen run into complex situations like China remember we used to have this really really tight trade war with

China and China in a lot of ways actually was the first country to really hit back hard they hit

back on AI supply chain or at least threatened to and that's led to this kind of big shift in the

“relationship between China and Trump ironically I think the Trump administration may have an easier”

time kind of reaching that sort of data with China than with Canada because of rhetorical positions because of this kind of idea that China and the United States are major powers in Canada is a and therefore Canada does it the same status but you know there there are limits to how far you can really push this trade only agenda that the administration has to wrestle with at a certain point I want to come to you one last closing thought on this what do we think about the president's

ability to impose these tariffs legally and sort of politically because it strikes me there's two sort of variables here one my understanding is that these tariffs are under section three three eight tariffs one of the three number tariff authorities but basically for discriminating against you know

you can slap 50 percent tariffs for discriminating against our countries that discriminated against

US goods I know there's some questions about the legal liability of that I don't think it's as I think it's probably stronger case for it than maybe it's less untrought in territory than the AP tariffs for other contexts but at least we might see a more of a legal fight over this sort of question but then more bearable question may be the sustainability of these tariffs or the political cost of them on the US side because of course we're heading into an election an election where

high prices on goods coming across the northern border is going to affect a lot of swing states including main were Susan Collins is up for election including Michigan where was one of the relatively few democratic seats of Republicans were hoping to pick up in the Senate so big swass of competitive states are going to be really affected by that's in of course lots of states further from the barrier border will still be substantially affected potentially as well and we know

Canada among other countries when they've floated reciprocal or responsive tariffs before they've targeted sectors where really matters for red states or for electorates that matter in upcoming elections like they've made it hurt in ways that have political costs quite deliberately and I suspect we're going to see that again with what the Canadians are going to respond with are there limits to how like realistically how long the president can maintain this or is this

an area where it really comes down to the president's willing to eat the political costs or that it has legal authority and how far you can ride this out until somebody pushes back and that's likely to be down the line could the Canadians be in other words trying to kick the can down the road and delay things in hopes that their political situation where they don't have

“new elections I think scheduled till 29 at least currently might be on a get them a longer”

horizon than the Trump administration has so I think he raised a lot of great points as always

one thing to note I think that it didn't come up previously was that the Canadians put in a deadline of September 8 and so we're in this liminal period right now where that does provide a little bit of an off ramp a little bit of breathing room for potential negotiations to prevail to make this move and so while I don't think that's necessarily going to be the case based on the tenor that we've been describing and the increasing tensions between the U.S. Canadian bilateral

relationship and the significance of walking away from these negotiations there is a little bit of a safety valve release valve that makes this so you know small chance but not a you know zero possibility the other part though is you know I think the administration is learning from its prior actions and you mentioned Scott the IEPA challenge at the Supreme Court overterm the president's IEPA based tariffs designations are used here there they are on stronger rounds and so I

think that there is a lower chance I'm there will you know probably be your decent chance of there being legal challenges to these in position of of tariffs but you know the administration has time and as we saw again with the IEPA tariffs it took a little while for those to be overturned and you know we're dealing with the consequence of that now but through the election I don't think we'll see a major change for this midterm election and as you described yes it's hitting

“consequential states and in districts that are important to Republicans in this midterm so again I”

don't know what the animating theory was behind the Trump administration's decision to invoke this this Canadian retaliation but I don't think it helps the Trump administration's case however they are return to this in other ways so we saw with the operation economic outcast on Iran

certain overseas partners that the US does not intend to engage in military action that it actually

“seeks to lower the temperature to to reduce the spike in oil and gas prices ahead of the midterm so”

it is factoring into their calculations I just don't know what decisions they are making because these decisions appear to be contradictory one on the Canadian tariffs in position and then secondly trying to reduce tensions at least military tensions with the Iranians to impact global oil prices ahead of the midterm so this is the challenge this is the tension that we are we are grappling with right now and you know but I do think these tariffs are on more durable ground especially

than the IEP tariffs were well we will have to see where this all goes we'll have opportunities revisit this topic in the future but for now we are out of time but this would not be rational security if we did not leave you with some object lesson to ponder over in the week to come Ben what did you bring for us this week well you referred to at the opening a certain article by the daily caller headline purged CIA officials plan their return at deep state plot already at gay karaoke bar

and I want to say that the article in question does not quite deliver on the headline but there was a party at Freddy's which is indeed a gay karaoke bar near the Pentagon that was last Friday it was a goodbye party resignation party for one Julia curly and uh karaoke may have happened I cannot confirm or deny that but if karaoke happened it would have been Julia curly singing a song dedicated to the president of the United States that was giving

real mad king uh you'll be back from Hamilton uh and it would have sounded something like this song you'll see you remember you belong to me you'll be back time will tell you will remember that I just want to say to the daily caller if I didn't come to me I have the receipts on this whole party that I happily would have given you video of this I'm sure you can start

“already up on Dr. daily honestly story could have been so much better if you want to see the”

whole video check out my Instagram page it's all there there we go there we go wonderful well Julia Ben did just under jump for you but I'll come to you anyway what object lesson do you bring for us today thanks boss yeah well um yeah many people may not know uh that uh a musical theater background is a prerequisite for the public service fellowship at law fair uh so uh for all for all of those interested uh start start you know start working on it oh for for myself yeah so

I wanted to say uh thank you but uh second yes for my object lesson you know Christmas is coming

or Hanika or whatever you celebrate out there and uh I have to say that uh as a fully paid up you know member of the law fair family merch is my object lesson and I have been trying to clear out as much of the law fair uh store online and I'm very happy with my with my purchases and uh

“you know a celebration of of my time I'm buying it for all my family clearing out and uh I think”

we should have some new stuff coming anyway that's it that's your way to support the law fair public service fellowship among other things is our merch store hey there you go there you go uh you

know I once said that if I first saw someone walking down the street with him on a merchandise

that the people in the models on our merch page are actually wearing a plough for how to be terrified and stuff so it's a direct and but Julia you may be that person or you could be if you choose to wear it all I once uh given the amount of merch I didn't even pull out during these weeks right there you go they will have to work that one up okay okay well for my object lesson this week uh I want to do an interesting piece I thought I actually did spend more time I

is so there was something at the time I was pushed out there changes and so I was going

“on with the exact reading what's read this poem today and with this morning and there were”

10 seconds this morning and thinking about it all day because they had this very interesting segment one as your pounds in the station of a metro poem which is kind of like a famous short poem like two-line poem that kind of where AOS got one of their critics actually broke it down and had an interesting visual with it it's actually pretty compelling I really enjoy poetry I know nothing about poetry I like to read like a little poem every day I don't know it just like brightens my

day I used to have with a great poetry and poetry app the poetry foundation release that is now

“since appears to be DOA but you know trying to dig them out where I can but this is really interesting”

I gotta break it down so for if you're a complete amateur poetry fan I thought to New York Times done did a fun service to take a look at what exactly is happening with this poem and why it's so compelling and with that Alex I'll hand over to you what is your object lesson today yeah well

first I'd love to not go last next time with these heavy hitters this song you think of thing

yeah that was he really really brought it well done team so a couple it's it's in the music can say any sentence on you on Alex is that I will refrain from that for everyone's benefit but it is in the musical musical vein so this week it's Secretary Bessent announced Operation Outcast and economic outcast and I found myself writing it OUTKAST in a nod to the Atlanta-based rap group with big boy and Andre 3000 and so as Secretary Bessent and I are both sons of the

south I want to bring my object lesson is outcast and their song bombs over Baghdad from the early 2000s we'll take it we'll take it I don't know if that's where Secretary Bessent's you know head is at and this particular moment we'll see well there you go well with that note we'll take

“us to the end of this week's episode of National Security but remember our security is of”

course a production of law fair so be sure to visit lawfirmedia.org for our show page for links past episodes for our written work and the written work of other law fair contributors and for information and law fairs other phenomenal podcast series while you're at it be sure to follow law fair and social media wherever you socialize your media be sure to leave a rating or review whether you like be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of law fair on patreon for an ad

free version of this podcast among other special benefits for more information visit lawfirmedia.org/support our audio engineer because through this week was known as band of goat rodeo and our music

as always was performed by Sophia and we were once again edited by the wonderful gen patcha

behalf my guest Julia bannon out's i am scatar Andersen will talk you next week until then good bye shiksa as well in sacksenanheit for the landfax wall fragen sich viele wie teck das land eigentlich wirk im podcast that's wischen gibts echte antwoven keine clichest sondern echte einblicke in ein bundesland imwandel wir vom podcast radio detector FM schauen hin and ordnen ein hintergründe statt vor verteile per trein in the podcast that's wischen in

aura liplings podcast app or of detector FM slash dot zwischen