Tucker Carlson Says Trump is Considering a Nuclear Attack on Iran | Command Post

Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the bullwork. We're going nuclear today on command post I'm joined as always by our very own general Mark hurtling general. How are you? Then I'm fine and we are going to go nuclear and we're going to talk International relations and combat and complex military operations and it's the day before the election So why not everyone else is talking about the elections. We want to go a different route, right different kind of campaigns Okay, uh, we got to start with this though the president was talking to the New York Post and He's got he's got some complaints. Let's put it that way. Let's just roll the clip We're 18 people. They're 18 great warrior souls So somebody else would lose thousands of people and Nobody would even say anything about it. We lost 18 people. We're in for seven months in Vietnam They lose hundreds of thousands of people. They're in for 21 years. Right? I'm going to just put a quarter in the machine and let you go general But I just have to say this is my least favorite version of Trump the boo who woe is me everyone so unfair to me I don't deserve it like you know if you think you don't deserve it as president Well, you don't deserve to be president. So there you go Well, I first want to comment on that final still where our great producer Matt stopped it The reporter was just smiling as if he had just said everything that was so dramatic and true And none of the things he was just said was correct the war the Vietnam war did not last 21 years Trump should know that since he avoided it Secondly, there weren't hundreds of thousands of of soldiers killed. There were 58,000 American military deaths of which About 10,000 of them were from non-hostile causes 47,000 of them were true hostile actions combat related deaths. We've talked about this before been But again, there was constant ground combat during That period of time that the Vietnam war lasted and you can say It started At the Gulf of Tonkin or before that in the 1960s and went on until the last Military personnel was brought out in nineteen. I think it was 1974 or 73 I don't quite remember. I'm sorry about I should have checked that before I said it But it was the mid seventies And again, he's getting his facts wrong and he's comparing an insurgency uh To a Seaborn operation that had mostly kinetic strikes involved in no combat actions So again, it's it's ludicrous to compare and contrast. It's like apples and tennis balls or apples and watermelons I don't know but again He seems to think and he's dwelling on the fact that casualties are the are the number one determinant of success In military operations and they're not I think this quote that you just played followed on something he was talking about in terms of the numbers of the number of deaths that have been incurred In Iran or associated with the current operation around which is yes, it was 18. Yeah Yeah, I think you're exactly right he never says, you know Let me put it this way He's saying that His reputation should be better than the presidents who oversaw the Vietnam War because It hasn't gone on his war hasn't gone on as long and he's lost fewer people Right by that logic He would be an even better president if he didn't start the war in Iran and the war lasted zero days and no one lost their life The idea that we're actually supposed to accomplish something doesn't enter into his calculus at all And what are the political objectives of the wars now we can debate All about Vietnam on that But boy we've certainly debated all about Iran on that what are the political objectives? What are you trying to accomplish? At least there was somewhat straightforward views although they were somewhat misguided during the Vietnam War and by the way And I you know, I hate to bring this up, but I'm going to make it personal because the Vietnam War was going on when I entered West Point And we watched it very closely Trump also seemed to be watching it very closely because he was looking for ways to get out of it Anyway How much more can we say about this comparing contrasting of body counts to determine success that's one lesson We did learn from Vietnam that body counts don't contribute either on the enemy side to losses or on the friendly side to victory I could have said it better myself. Okay now we have to move on to the nuclear portion of the program because I would say your favorite strategic analyst and mine Tucker Carlson has a long long twitter post today All about how the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is imminent and it all has to do with Shocker Israel drink And I we we were talking about this in slack and just sort of walking through all the ways which it doesn't make sense So here's I think well how we're going to do this the game we're going to play I'm going to read a paragraph of Tucker Carlson's very long post You guys are going to talk about why it's bonkers and at the end we're going to have A shall we say more reasonable and informed conversation about what's actually going on in the Iran War? How does that sound? Okay, that sounds great. All right, let's go Tucker Carlson number one Underpressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran The target would be pickaxe map and central Iran whereas rail intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place The only military option is a nuclear strike Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one quote Bb calls Trump about it every day quote says and informed observer Uh, okay, so pickaxe mountain is a large granite mountain about two kilometers from one of Iran's existing nuclear sites Where they are digging tunnels we can see that in satellite imagery there is disagreement about exactly what's going on inside the facility We don't and the public are we know we don't know for sure these really say some things American intelligence some sure as Ideas and interestingly is one of the targets that through all of the Iran were so far we haven't really hit So Carlson is right That it is a difficult target to attack because it is a tunnel complex where something is going on under 300 feet of granite Is he right that a nuclear weapon is the only military option? Uh, I don't believe he's right then, but I would almost be ready to defer to the strategic acumen of Tucker Carlson But here's the interesting comparison that I'll draw pickaxe mountain which he describes is under 300 feet of granite and can only be destroyed by a nuclear weapon that's about the same kind of mountain that we house Strategic command and some of the forces of the United States in Colorado Springs, Colorado purposely because they can't be affected by a nuclear weapon So I think the the first thing we should talk about is what kind of nuclear weapon Would Tucker Carlson be proposing? How is it going to get there and what is the command to control and the course of action analysis and planning that would be required For something that would occur right after the midterm elections because BB Netanyahu wants to do it Okay, we're going to get into the Israeli politics in the sec But let's get into the nitty gritty of nuclear weapons and I'm smiling because I do not take this seriously at all So let's get into it. There are three ways that we have a delivery Can I just can I just point something out? I wouldn't have taken it seriously either Except for the fact that so many times in the past many things that we shouldn't be taken seriously because they're so ridiculous I'm taking everything seriously that some of these people say even Tucker Carlson, but go ahead I'm sorry. Yeah, that's a fair point So there are three ways that the United States has a delivery nuclear weapon You can launch a missile out of a silo in the continental United States You can launch a missile from a submarine somewhere out in the ocean or you can drop a bomb from an airplane Now I think we both agree launching a missile from a silo in the United States is absolutely not going to happen First of all the nuclear warheads on those missiles are way too big They would be total overkill and second once the Russians and the Chinese and the other nuclear powers start seeing Nuclear missiles taking off from the United States. They're going to freak out pretty fast I think the same thing would happen with a launch from a submarine So I thought maybe the most likely answer was a bomb dropped from an airplane You seem to disagree with me. So why would talk me through this? Well, it depends As all military operations do first of all, let's talk about who's going to do this There's actually you know, we've all been talking about sent-com for the last eight or nine months and Admiral Cooper Well, there's another Navy Admiral in charge of an organization called Stratcom And that is the organization strategic command which is In charge of all our military nuclear forces. He advises the Secretary of Defense on strategic deterrence He looks after nuclear readiness to ensure all the weapon systems are employable He does not independently authorize the new the use of of nuclear weapons, that authority alone rests with the president. But it goes through the Stratcom commander, and his name is Admiral Coral, CO-R-R-E-L. He was a former submarine officer, served several years as the Stratcom's deputy commander before he took on the command role, and he probably, Richard Coral probably knows a whole lot about nuclear weapons. But going back over your question in terms of the kinds of weapons it would be used, it has to do with primarily not only the delivery systems, but the payload. So a submarine-launch weapon, what they call an SLBM, submarine-launch ballistic missile, can go from a yield of eight kilotons, which is about half the size of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, all the way up to 100 kilotons. And then they have a special weapon, which is the SLBM-W888 to try it in 2D5 to get technical. That has the capability to deliver a weapon of up to 455 kilotons. So that's a significantly larger weapon system than was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a big pop. The Minimment International ICBMs, there are two different types. A Minimment III, W78, which has a capability of 335 kilotons, also very big. And a Minimment III, W87, which has a kilotonage of 300 kilotons. Now if I'm confusing with these numbers, and it's because they go from small, 0.8 kilotons, which would be considered a tactical nuke, all the way into the strategic nuke capability. We'll come back to that in a second. Yeah. The B2 bomber has a gravity bomb, which is up to 1,200 kilotons. They also have an air-launch cruise missile, which are the same as the C launch ones. They can go anywhere from 5 to 150 kilotons. Here's the deal with every one of those that were launched or dropped then. As soon as you said a minute ago, as soon as one of those birds takes off, or as soon as one of those bombers goes over Iran, and they're capable of dropping a nuke, and there's a large flashbang and EMP value that comes along with it, electric magnetic pulse, somewhere in their picket mountain. Every single one of the nuclear capable nations in the world will certainly react to it, and say, "Okay, since 1945, now the Genie is again out of the bottle in conflict." So what does that mean for us? Anyone that would recommend the use of a nuclear weapon or even pass rumors about it, like Tucker Carlson is doing, "I'm going to put him in the absolutely crazy category." Can we deal with that? Speaking of absolutely crazy, let's get to this paragraph. Okay. That was paragraph one. Okay. This gets less into about nuclear weapons, but he says Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. Fact check, arguably true. After last week's election results, he can't form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics, and burgers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the kineset. Otherwise, he's out as Prime Minister and on his way to ignominy investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war. I think basically all of that is more or less true, except for the fact that Trump can somehow go into the Israeli political process and start organizing coal elections. Trump can barely organize a coalition here at home. How does this look like in Israel? Let's talk about the future, too. All that happened with Mr. Netanyahu's election last week is the same potential about to happen in Mr. Trump's election this week. Yeah. So are they both going to be partners in crime, putting together a nuclear, or attempting to put together a nuclear strike after both of them have suffered significantly in elections? And we're taping, obviously, doing this show before the election results to come in. But can you imagine if something were to happen in the next couple of days where President Trump says, yeah, BB, we're going to help you out. We're going to pop a nuke on Pickaxe Mountain. What would be the reaction of, first of all, I'll say the members of Congress, secondly, the American citizens, especially after a significant potential defeat of the mega movement in tomorrow's elections? To be clear. I'm not an expert on Israeli politics, but my understanding is here's how it works. Israel has a prime minister who's actually leading the government. They also have a president who's more like a figurehead, like an elected king of England kind of. When there's not a clear majority in the Knesset after an election, like we have now, the president asks the leader of each party, who do you think I should ask to give the first try to form a government? Each party leader says, I think this guy is the best shot to form a government. And then the president goes to that guy, in this case, it looks like it's going to be opposition leader Gadi Eisenkott and says, you now have 10 days you're going to put together a coalition to make a government. You'll notice none of that involves the president of the United States. So how Trump is supposed to get involved in Israel's elections and put together a coalition or otherwise he has to nuke Iran already. I feel like Charlie Day with the red string in the mail room. It's like, none of this makes sense. But should we talk real quickly, if it is Mr. Eisenkott who's chosen as the next prime minister, he is a former military guy. He is also conservative in some ways. But he has not supported many of the issues with the combined U.S. Israeli strikes against Iran. And he realizes the situation it has put Iran in in their region of operation. So if he is chosen, like you said, how does Netanyahu get involved in this? And how does he build a coalition with President Trump who may be going through the same kind of dynamics when the votes are in tomorrow night? Yeah, we'll see. So Carlson says, to that end, he, that is Netanyahu, has applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and sent Commander Brad Cooper. I think we got to just put a little asterisk on describing the sent-com commander as one of the closest allies of the Israeli prime minister. Just not going to take that with that a comment. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they so grievously mismanaged, both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Mark Rubio and CA director John Ratcliffe, CA director not usually a position that weighs in on policy a whole bunch, especially in nuclear use, are also following Netanyahu's lead as our leaders of the Democratic Party. Breaking news, leaders of the Democratic Party following Netanyahu's lead, I didn't know that. Okay, I promise I just could have read this. I'll do less editorializing. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha. So I guess Tucker Carlson is very plugged into what former president Barack Obama is saying about the Iran nuclear deal at a meeting. We don't know when, we don't know with him, we don't know about what. Well, I would also say regarding at least President Obama, I can't think we can use this as an example, probably applied to the Democrats who also allegedly support this operation according to Tucker Carlson, that there's a real long, there's a huge distance between I don't support the Doha peace agreement to let's nuke him tomorrow. I mean, there's a couple other options in the middle of those two extreme positions. What do you think, Ben? I think there are a few, as I promised, we're going to get into a more serious conversation about what's actually going on at the end, but before that, we have a quick break we're going to take. So falls my favorite time of year, the temperatures get cooler, the leaves change colors, you got football back, Halloween, all that candy Thanksgiving, all that turkey, Christmas, not quite fall, but you're creeping up there, you got to do a lot of shopping and then you get into the new year and it all comes really, really quickly. So there's so much to look forward to and the last thing that I want to do is spend a week stuck in bed when I could be out picking apples, you know, got to make those apple pies, hanging out in the pumpkin patch, got to take those Instagram photos or just, you know, taking in the autumn air. I don't want to miss any of it, which means my health has to come first, but when life gets busy, it's hard to stay on top of everything. That's why I use Zock Doc, who is sponsoring this episode. Zock Doc makes it easy to search for in network doctors nearby to see actual appointment openings and it has more than 150,000 providers with over 200 specialties across the country. You can see real reviews from real patients to help you pick the right care that works for you. And the best of all, well, you know, it's free. Your health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. So are you ready to be seen? Head to zock.com/BullwareTakes to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. Let's get straight back into it. Tucker Carlson is Slide 2. It's so long. Oh my God. Let me say you think that if you actually had news that the president of the States was planning a nuclear strike on any other country, you wouldn't, first of all, that would be the very first sentence of your post, which it is not here. And then you wouldn't follow it up with like hundreds and hundreds of words of, like, as I said, like red string conspiracy theorizing, you just say, right? Anyway, the, and this is Tucker Carlson again, the rest of America's longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect, by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran, the Emirates refused. It's not clear to me there if he says the final attack is the nuclear attack or some other kind of attack doesn't seem clear. The Emirates refused, after months of conflict, the Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won't recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 super tankers, use the transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. And October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. Okay, we skipped some steps there, but fine. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fall out from a ground explosion, we'll come back to ground explosion at Pickaxe Mountain, would contaminate the Persian Gulf poisoning the water supply for 100 million people. There's a lot there. We've got a secret Netanyahu meeting in Abu Dhabi. We've got the imminent global recession. We've got the super tankers and we've got fall out from a nuclear explosion at Pickaxe Mountain. Where do you want to start? Let's just go straight to the nuclear fallout at Pickaxe Mountain, because I'm not quite sure what Mr. Carlton is trying to portray there. Is he saying if we do launch a nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain, there's going to be massive amounts of radioactive contamination that could affect up to 100 million people in the Middle East. I believe that's what he's saying. That's what I think he's saying too. These things are really hard to model. For example, partially because some of the nuclear gravity bombs we have are designed to penetrate deep into the earth in part so that they can produce bigger explosive effects as a degenerates like a shockwave, like an earthquake, but less radiation that gets out into the atmosphere. In part because one of the things we haven't talked about is a cruise missile, which would have a different effect. It's also not clear to me that Carlton knows how far this facility is from the Persian Gulf. It's not really that close. These things are very hard to model and other people know more about this than I do. I guess if the winds are blowing the right way and you have a big enough explosion in central Iran that could irradiate the Persian Gulf in a way that would be really, really bad. Either way, it's a nuclear explosion going off. It would be really, really bad. I'm not sure he knows exactly what he's talking about here. When he used the term tactical nuclear weapon, I personally would like to say, hey Tucker, what do you consider a tactical nuclear weapon? Is it just one weapon that goes against one target? He would like, and with a low kiloton yield of say 0.8 kilotons, and if so, is that enough to do damage to a granite mountain and facilities that are 300 feet underneath that granite mountain? Or do you need a couple of 100 kilotons weapon to penetrate or go underground? Again, this is a guy who probably has no idea what he's talking about in terms of weapons or weapon systems. Truthfully, neither do I. I'm not a nuclear guy. I was a tanker. Back in the early days of my career in Europe, we had plans to use tactical nuclear weapons up to one kiloton against invading mass military forces from the Soviet Union, but that was a last resort. Again, sometimes these kind of pundits grab hold of terms and think that it's sort of like, call the duty. You've got a couple of things that you can blow up and everything's going to be okay. But here's the point. Again, as we were saying in our previous text back and forth, when I was a young officer, I had an instructor who once said, "Once you pop the first nuke, it's Katie Bar the door because escalation is going to occur." And this one guy said, "You could even use a hand grenade that has nuclear capability." And the next thing you don't know might happen would be a hundred kiloton bomb dropping on your head because it will escalate that fast once the proverbial genie is out of the bottom. These are deterrent weapon systems. These are last resort weapon systems. These are not things that the President and the Prime Minister of Israel, the former Prime Minister of Israel, collude together and say, "Hey, let's use this before somebody stops us." And if they do, it will cause, in my view, a worldwide calamity that could potentially be the start of no kid in a nuclear world war three. And that's not a good thing, Ben. I know that from reading history. We're going to get there. This is Carlson's next paragraph. Those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. In fact, check true. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to, that is to say, the Russians to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. I'm not sure that's true. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other. Again, not sure how it works. As with North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final. Yeah, nuclear war would be bad. We agree. Great Carlson's right there. I'm not sure that just because, I mean, this is so ridiculous. I'm not sure that just because one nuclear weapon goes off, it means that all these other deterrent relationships immediately break down. Like, one of the reasons the Russians aren't using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, one of several, is that the Chinese and the Indians really don't want them to and I've put a lot of pressure on the Russians not to use nuclear weapons because the Chinese really don't want anyone using nuclear weapons. As I think to the Israelis, I think the Israelis are in a much more secure position if they have this Trump card to borrow a phrase that no one else in the region has, but once people start using nuclear weapons, I'll also hold. I think Carlson is getting to the right place in the wrong way. Yes, an escalation if you use nuclear weapons is possible, but I don't think it's like an automatic tripwire sort of one goes off and then all of a sudden the entire world is in flames the way he describes. Yeah. The thing that as we finished with this thing, as we're sleepwalking toward something that he says has been happening for months, Ben, the question I have after having read this a couple of times, after listening to you read it out loud and then the two of us talk about it, I don't know what Tucker Carlson is trying to do here. Is he just letting on that he's talked to somebody in the White House that says we could use nuclear weapons? Is this being fed to him by somebody in the White House to get people to stop what's going on in Iran? Is this an attempt at breaking news that he hasn't been able to do, or is this conjecture about how the winds of war begin? Tucker is not one of the people that I'd rely on to predict what might happen in future combat. They got out of control because he's not considering that. He is basically saying in the last paragraph you read that a lot of other things could happen, and of course that's true. But he starts off by talking about the potential plan between the US and Israel to do something like this. Again, I'm not sure what his very long message is meant to do for the administration, the American people, or world stability. Do you have an idea? I have a theory. I'm going to read two more paragraphs this time, and then I think we're going to get a hint. We've been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America's nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called battlefield nukes. Easier and therefore more likely. It could be easier than for less likely. That's how it turns works, or whatever. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we're on the brink of it, and then he says close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. Weird timetable. That would be November 7th, six days from now when he posted this. To his credit, he's hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friends, Steve Whitkopf, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made. So, I think, I think what he's, doing is just arguing for a deal with Iran, or is he arguing that JD Vance and Steve Wickoff are the smartest people in this administration? Yeah, that's, I sort of agree. Yeah, that's what he's getting at. I think that's the point. And I guess the point he's trying to make is these are your only two options, what you said earlier, right? It's either we have to make a deal or we have to nuke them tomorrow, there's no middle ground at all. All right, we're going to finish up here. I'll be the last two because we promised we would. They're right. They'll won't be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances and elements of that government have become more radical since I had to lay a Lee homin a and his family were killed in February. He says and his family, though his son is currently a supreme leader. So asterisk on family. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. I don't think it's isolation per se that did that. There's a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel. There's a widespread belief among taco cars and supporters that Israel controls the United States. But overall, people who have spoken to decision makers in Iran say there is consensus that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making. One group that hasn't been canceled so far is the global population had the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children. If Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into logic and nuclear strike next week, now would be the time for them to speak up. Okay, here's my grand unified theory of this whole thing, which is that we know that Trump is freaked out by the subject of nuclear weapons. You know, I talked about this. He worries about escalation to World War III. He takes nuclear bluster like from people like Vladimir Putin very seriously. And so I think maybe some message from the administration, maybe from JD Vance, maybe from Steve Wickoff, got a little bit muddled when it got the Tucker Carlson. But I think what he's saying is, if you don't sign a deal and end the Iran war now, I know those guys are hard to work with, but you got to sign a deal. Otherwise it's World War III. So just finish the war doesn't matter because you'll be avoiding hundreds of millions of fatalities around the world with whatever you do. Peace at any price, I guess. Now finish the war. I mean, it's either finish the war or these guys are going to get out of control. That's the same kind of alternatives we were talking about earlier. Again, I kind of think this is some kind of support for JD Vance and others in that side of the house. Because I think what Tucker Carlson is saying is some of the hardliners in the Trump administration to include Trump himself, even though he has said something about nuclear weapons. I mean, the first clip we played today, then, about the 18 casualties and the number of people killed in the Vietnam War, this would make that seem taint. This would be, the Vietnam War would be, you know, kismet compared to what might happen if nuclear strikes occurred and the repercussions of such strikes. So again, none of this makes sense. It doesn't have any logic trail behind it. And, you know, to just say, instead of dropping nukes, make a deal. Well, the president has been trying to make a deal for nine months. And the, the Iranians see their situation as in the middle of an existential threat. Right? They've seen the Americans do think to them multiple times. They're not going to make a deal. They're going to fight to the death. So there's probably a whole bunch of other courses of action between making a deal and using nuclear weapons that I think the president hopefully is considering. And they run from baby bear up to pop a bear in terms of the course of action development that I'm sure the Pentagon is working on and trying to present to the, to the administration. It shouldn't just be the Pentagon. We've talked about this multiple times before. This is a requirement for a whole of government approach. The military, whether it be with central command in the waters of the Middle East or a nuclear weapon coming from strategic command or reinforcement by other forces, is not going to be capable of ending this war. You can't kill your way out of this with bombs and strikes. There's got to be a whole lot more to it. And so far, President Trump, unless we get a November surprise, has not seemed to go away from the fact that he thinks the only way to end this is continuing to bomb Iran and oblivion to make them make a deal. They are not going to make a deal. This is an existential threat for them. We've got to find other ways. And some of them are going to be painful to the United States. We're going to have to give up some things. But I don't think Mr. Trump is willing to do that. No, not at all. If people want to learn more about Pickaxe Mountain and all these Iranian nuclear facilities, my go-to source is a group called the Institute for Science and International Security, or they call themselves Good ISIS, because they're acronym is ISIS, and they had it before the Islamic state had it. So they're good ISIS. And they do a lot of really good work on this using open source satellite photos and things like that. They're real expertise. Their thinking about Pickaxe Mountain is that the Iranians are definitely tunneling in there. We don't know exactly what's going on inside. They don't say that it would require a nuclear weapon to destroy it. One of the things they point out is that tunnels have entrances. And so we did this during Operation Midnight Hammer with the Iranian-Berryed Facilities at Fordo, where we flew some cruise missiles into the entrances of the tunnels, and instead of destroying the whole tunnel complex, we just sealed them off under rubble. That worked fairly well. That's going to be an option for Pickaxe Mountain. One of the things that they say, according to their analysis, is that just repeatedly bombing the Iranian nuclear sites is not a sustainable option. It said that based on their understanding of how fast the Iranians can build and repair, what the munitions requirement would be like. Also things like every time you fly a B2 over Iran, it becomes a little bit easier for people to figure out rather how to track a B2. So that's a bit of a wasting asset or not a wasting asset. It's a bit of a price you pay for using it, a whole bunch of things like that. So they say the only solution they see in the long-term is some sort of diplomatic agreement. People can have honest differences about their policy projections, but it just comes to show that when you ask the actual experts, they have a much more sophisticated answer than the only answer is the nuclear weapon. So you must sign a deal, which is just silly. Well, the other thing Ben, I'd say this, we're talking a little bit of tactics now in terms of sealing off the Gax Mountain. But what the Iranians have said publicly, and I believe them, by the way, because they have proven this to be true, is they said any future attacks on Iranian territory will result in an autonomous response by the Iranian army, the IRGC, and the government. In other words, what they are saying is, because you cut off our command and control and our headquarters, it doesn't matter. We are going to shoot at everything from all locations. And as I've said before, Iran is three times larger than the nation of Iraq. And you can't control that entire nation from shooting things from within to different locations around the Middle East. So it is only going to be more devastating to forces and allies in the region. If we decide one more time to do a massive strike against whatever the targets are, whether it's pickax mountain or bridges and energy facilities, I don't care what you're going to say, because Iran, you can't hit every target. I mean, the United States cannot hit every single target. So there are going to be a whole lot of missiles coming out of Iran, and they've been given a couple of months, truthfully, to regenerate some of their supplies. I think they're ready to continue to fight. There is no right way to win a war. But I think over the course of the last nine months, we've seen almost every wrong way to fight over. Right. Right. Right. Any final thoughts before we wish people a happy election in tomorrow, and we'll be back. We're not going to do a normal Wednesday show, but we'll be back later to discuss whatever happens. Yeah. The only thing I'd say as a final thought, Ben, is we keep getting simple solutions from either the administration, President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, Minister Wyckoff, George Kushner, are now Tucker Carlson, for a region that is probably the most complex in the world. And no simple solutions, whether it's sanctions all the way to atomic weapons, are going to solve this problem. This takes smarter people than what we've seen negotiate over the last nine months. And it's going to take a lot more to get out of it than just Tucker Carlson saying, don't nuke them because it could cause a worldwide calamity. What I would say in response to that is, hey, no shit, Tucker, you know, I'm sorry, I don't want to close this show with an obscenity or profanity, but you know, these are, this is amateur hour. And it requires somebody that's a whole lot smarter that realizes not only the effects on Iran, but the second, third, fourth and fifth order effects on the Middle East, the region, the globe, and some of our allies. I said it better myself. Hopefully, by the time we talk next, we will not be talking about nuclear war and we'll maybe have some good news, but honestly, uh, well, I got my fingers crossed. Okay. All right. Good talking to you again today Ben. Sorry for the last sentence being a profanity. Haha. No, it's good. You said it's a YouTube thumbnail. We'll say. Yeah. Yeah. Please don't. All right. Talk to you later.