Why Trump Might Send Ground Troops to Iran

Pots of the world is brought to you by HIMS. ED is more common than you think. Again, it's simpler to treat than ever. Through HIMS, you can connect online with a licensed provider to access personalized treatment options discreetly in on your terms. Through HIMS, you can access personalized prescription treatment options for ED if prescribed. HIMS offers access to ED treatment options ranging from personalized products to trusted generics to cost 95% less than brand names if prescribed. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to feel like yourself. HIMS brings expert care straight to you with 100% online personalized treatments that put your goals first. This isn't a one-size-fits-all care that forgets you in the waiting room. It's your health and goals put first with real medical providers making sure you get what you need to get results. Think of HIMS as your digital front door that gets you back to your old self with simple, 100% online access to trusted treatments for ED and more all in one place. To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, weight loss and more. Visit HIMS.com/world. That's HIMS.com/world for your free online visit, HIMS.com/world. Feature products include compounded drug products, which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality, prescription required, see website for details, restrictions and important safety information, actual price will depend on product in subscription plan. Go to votefromabroad.org and click "Request My Ballot". Ask to receive it by email. Questions? Ask our support team directly. Don't miss this chance to shape the future. Don't delay. Votefromabroad.org. (upbeat music) - Welcome to Patsy of the World. I'm Tommy Vittor. - I'm Ben Rhodes. - How's the Iran War in Somalia for you? - I do have this kind of habitual fall asleep and wake up at 3.30 in the morning and-- - I was right at 4.30. - I'm racing and then start reading stuff and then you're up, so-- - Yeah, not a good idea to look at your phone these days. - Not a good idea to look at your phone ever in the middle of the night. I break that rule frequently. And I do think there's like a weird instinctive, you know, I'm not trying to over dramatize this, but having in eight years had to kind of feel like you had to work when something terrible in a modern world situation. - Yeah, I mean, you just kind of like, there's this weird instinctive thing in my body that's like. - Do you see the thing where the, when the war started about all these dads who were saying they had to monitor this situation? - Yeah, yeah, I did. - I did. - Once seeing that all day or under some PC or whatever. Yeah, well, that's basically us. - Well, by the way, it's an interesting war in that regard because I mean, I hate to say this, but I don't find CNN's coverage to be particularly eliminating. - Look, I got that guy in CNN. - That guy's good, but some of the, let's just say some of the guest choices and the panels are pretty, - Oh. - 2004 feeling. You kind of have to really search for your content on this war, you know, it's got your mix of outlets and social media and people in the region. There's clearly censorship happening. - That is real. - Why does Al Jazeera have all these images that don't seem to appear on other stations, you know, - Yeah. - A lot of people covering it from Israel are probably having to deal with sensors. The guy's name is Frederick Pleikin, P-L-E-I-T-G-N. He's doing great job. - He is doing great. - Frederick Pleikin, search for him on Twitter if you want to see what CNN's doing actually in Iran, which is, I mean, it's pretty fucking brave to get in the car and drive into Iran as it's getting bombed. - Can't get in the Gaza. - Right, you can get in Iran. - That's a very good point then. We're obviously going to focus much of our time today on Iran. We're going to talk about the total incoherence of the White House's messaging. And we're going to try to figure out genuinely whether this war is about to end, whether it's about to escalate something in between. Like, I genuinely don't know. I'm excited to hear your opinions because we haven't talked about this. We'll take through seven to latest developments from the last week, including casualties, all things oil and then some scary signs of escalation. We'll tell you what we know about the new Supreme leader of Iran and what his selection signals from the regime. We'll also talk about what a ground operation to get Iran's nuclear materials, what actually entail. The latest on the bombing of an Iranian girls school and then what's happening in Lebanon. And finally, Ben, we're going to talk about the US military's new counter-drug mission in Ecuador. And then the Gen Z rapper who is about to be a prime minister of Nepal. That's actually a fun story. - That's a fun story. - Then you can hear my interview with Mike Harowitz. He's been on the show before he is an expert on how the Pentagon adopts and uses new technologies. We talk about the fight between the Trump administration and the AI company Anthropic over the use of its model Claude, as well as growing concern about this munitions shortage, especially missile defense system shortages and how the US is now turning to drone technology from Ukraine to close the gap in counter of these Iranian drones. So very interesting conversation with him. - Yeah, there's a lot there. I do think again, I'm glad you did that because the Anthropic story is not getting the attention that it might otherwise get, but for the future of humanity, it's hugely important. - Yeah, I'd love to know what the Pentagon is doing with super powerful AI systems. - Why they need autonomous weapons and mass surveillance capabilities. - Yeah, seems like something easy to say no to. Also, for those of you who are friends of the pod subscribers, you can hear Ben and I do a Q&A where we take some questions from the pod save the world discord. By the way, if you like crooked media, if you like this show, if you like what we're doing here, please become a friend of the pod subscriber. It is the single most helpful thing you could do to us as a progressive independent media company. And our promise to you in return, is never to book Lindsey Graham on any of our shows, unless we are gonna be really mean to him. - We promise to play clips of Lindsey Graham and to react to them and make fun of him. - We also, we also know FlyZone for John Bolton. - Yeah. - Although it'll be fun to yell at him. Mike Pompeo, he's in sufferable, he should have. - I just love how much he's disappeared. - Yeah, he's gone. - Yet another proof point that sucking up to Trump does not save you the humiliation and always comes at the end of it. But somehow, Grammys, he's just like a barnacle on the ass of whatever person he thinks is in charge with John McCain for decades, not Donald Trump. Now he seems to have real influence. I mean, it's just terrible. So, I don't know. We're not gonna talk to that guy or take him seriously, but please become a friend of the pod subscriber. Also just subscribe to PodSave, the world on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts 'cause it helps the show grow and helps us displace all the propaganda that's floating around on the internet about this terrible war. All right, Ben. So, we're now 11 days into this regime change or with Iran. The goals in the broader strategy are somehow less clear, I think, now than when they started. We'll do a broader update in a minute on major developments since our last recording, but we just wanted to recap this head spinning messaging shift from the White House this week. So, the quick version is, at the end of last week and over the weekend, Trump was suggesting really maximalist goals for the war. He posted a message on true social where he said, quote, "There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender." That freaked out the oil markets, understandably. To the point where on Sunday night, you saw the price of oil hitting above $120 a barrel, just like exploding. So, it seems like Trump freaked out. The Wall Street Journal reported that his advisors were telling him like, find an off ramp. This is going to kill us in the midterms. So, he made this call to CBS news while markets were still open. The US stock market was still open. And basically it was like, oh yeah, the war's about to be over, everything's going to be fine. And that seems to have worked in the near term, remember because the stock market has this taco phrase, which is Trump always chickens out. Who had folded into that. But once the markets closed, the messaging changed again. We had Trump like talking to Republicans at this retreat. We had him doing a press conference. And then Pete Hegseth was out this morning, Tuesday morning doing another press conference. And this is a super cut that our team put together of Trump and Hegseth messaging from Saturday through Tuesday that I think kind of gets at the incoherence. Let's watch. We're winning the war by a lot. We've decimated their whole people that part. It'll continue, I'm sure, for a little while. We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that in a rid of some people. And I think you'll see it's going to be a short term excursion. We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough. You've said the war is, quote, very complete, but your defense secretary says this is just the beginning. So which is it? And how long should Americans be able to do it? Well, I think we could say about it. We could call it a tremendous success right now. As we leave here, I could call it, or we could go further. And we're going to go further. You probably see Iranian people. You would help them. But it sounds like you're willing to end this fight after your military objectives have wrapped up. Is that-- isn't that unbetrayal at all? Will I help them? I'd like to. They can behave, but they've been very menacing. Today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran. The most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes. I see in the media banners that say war, expanding, or war spread. It's actually the opposite. It's actually quite contained. It's so-- again, I think excellent, super cut there. So let's just take on this idea. First of all, quite a message to the Iranian people. If you can behave, maybe I'll consider supporting you. What does that mean? This idea that the war has been a success. First of all, the nuclear material has not been secured. We'll get into what that would entail in a bit. But it's 900 pounds of highly-and-rich uranium sit in Iran. The ballistic missiles are diminished, but not gone. The US and Israel are not saying they've gotten all their stockpiles. Before the war, Iran was on the cusp of a leadership transition. But by killing the 86-year-old Aya Tola before he could regenerate himself. We were so tough. We killed the 86-year-old man. That's a die. Now installed is much younger son. So that's great. And we might have taken out Iran's navy, but there are some reports. we'll get into in a minute that they're mining the straight-of-form moves as we speak. - We only took out the people who are 1,000 miles away who are defenseless with no weapons and killed them without saving them. - Yeah, we should talk about that. Right, there was an Iranian ship in the Indian Ocean that I believe was unarmed that had been invited as part of a parade of military assets that we sank, which is probably a war crime. Then, is the war over? Is it just beginning, what's happening? - Trump talks about a war literally like it's a football game. We got a big lead in the second quarter. We're winning and we can call the end of the game whenever we want and I think what those clips confirm, I mean, there are a number of things. The first thing is that he literally started this war with no idea what its objective was or what it was going to lead to or how it was gonna end. I mean, 'cause he himself never defined it and we talked about that, but he essentially came out, made it sound like regime change, Iranian people rise up, the language of regime change, the language of unconditional surrender. I, BB Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham, whatever small number of people convince him to do this, clearly made him think that this was gonna be very easy, that the regime was about to collapse. 'Cause by the way, that's the kind of argument they've been making for years. If only you bomb them, this will be easy and they'll all collapse. I actually think BB Netanyahu knew full well that this wouldn't happen. BB Netanyahu knew full well that this would not be quick and easy and simple and frankly, because he wants to destroy Iran and have it be a violent chaotic place that's fine with him. But Trump cannot say what he talks about winning and we're achieving our objectives, but he doesn't say what they are. Look what our military objectives are. I heard him say in the clip, you know, we're achieving our military objectives, well what are the military objectives? Because we're not achieving any clearly defined objective that you or I could understand. And he's got his finger in the wind here and it's just appalling and we should say it's appalling that he seems to care the most about the markets. You know, not the human beings who are being destroyed, not the geopolitical consequences to the United States. U.S. Service Members dying, Iranian civilians dying, Gulf state security being completely punctured, you know, instability that could be unleashed for years to come. He cares about like the price of gas tomorrow and the stock market because that's the only kind of metric that he knows how to pay attention to. That's appalling. It is absolutely appalling and we should not get accustomed to the fact that he just lies test relentlessly about war. Like he is no different than Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. I think we as Americans, even when we don't like our president tend to think of him as a like a bad, a really bad version of a bad U.S. president, you know, so like we've had president's lie about wars before, you know, take your pick, I'll be Jay Nixon, whoever. He's in a whole other category of, he'll just make stuff up out of whole cloth, you know. I don't trust anything he's saying. - Not a word. - And we probably get more, not what he said, but the girl school, those types of things. - Yeah, we have another clip of that. - Yeah, so show you that. - Yeah, unfortunately. So then there's that. And then the last thing I want to say about Hegseth is again, to take a historic analogy. Remember the body count, you know, in Vietnam, with the only way that we could kind of try to quantify the success was like the number of people we killed. He's taken this to the level of like the number of bombing that we do every day is somehow a measure of our success. That is an insane way to talk. Today is gonna be even more bombing, you know. Okay, what are we bombing? Why are we bombing it? Where is this going? Like he can't answer those questions, and he just goes out there and brags about how many bombs were dropping and missiles were firing. We don't know what the target set is. We don't know what we're degrading to what end. He certainly doesn't seem to know and he's the Secretary of Defense. And he does it in this like annoying cat and a hat rhyme scheme which is really great for just me. Yeah, and so like what you have is a kind of clueless US government that has no idea why it's doing this other than maybe Israel was gonna do it and we had to come in or what. I just don't know what we're doing. Why that? And we can go through like they can blow up some more nuclear material, the Iranians will regenerate it 'cause they know how to do that. They can blow up a bunch of ballistic missiles, Iranians will regenerate their ballistic missile program. They've killed the Supreme Leader, now we're the younger Supreme Leader. Like this is making everything worse. It's not making anything better. And it's creating all these risks, some which we'll get in here. And they don't even know why they're doing it. Yeah, there's a big picture strategy piece missing here. So we're gonna go deeper on the Supreme Leader in a second, the ground operation. How Democrats should respond and then the latest on Lebanon. But just something like quick kind of news updates in the last week, Ben. So in terms of the casualty count for the broader region so far, these are from official government sources. So for the US, it's seven US servicemembers have been killed. But today we learned that 140 have been wounded, including eight who are seriously wounded. So that is new information. Iran says 1,255 people have been killed in 12,000 have been injured. Obviously that number is probably growing as we speak. Israel says 12 killed over 1,900 injured. Lebanon says 486 killed over 1,000 injured. UAE's death toll is six Kuwait reports six dead as well and Bahrain reports one. And then on the oil front, the Trump seems to primarily care about. As we're recording, oil is back down to about $86 per barrel. But the straight-of-four moves is still effectively closed. And there are reports right before we started recording that US intelligence is either starting to see indications that Iran is taking steps to deploy mines in the straight-of-four moons. Or CNN went even further and said that Iran has begun laying mines. They said it was a couple dozen in recent days. So after those reports, Trump posted something on true socials saying that, quote, we have no reports end quote of Iran mining the straight. But that if Iran did do it, he wants them removed or else there will be a major military response, which, as far as I can tell, - Where are we? - Major than doing. - Yeah, so that clears things up. But if the straight is mined, it would be a disaster for shipping. And if shipping is shut down in the straight-of-remoose, the oil producers in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, they can't ship their petroleum products out, they will have to either further cut production or fully stop production in ways that could permanently impact supply. So like watch this space, as people say, and also like Congrats Vladimir Putin, because you're now getting in a bunch more revenue because the price of oil just went way up. So, first of all, we heard in that clip, Hegses say this war is contained and getting smaller even though the bombing is getting bigger. There are 700,000 displaced people in Lebanon because of this war. Like the violence being unleashed in Lebanon would normally shock the problem. - The front page news. I'm sure the reason Israel is doing it is because they know that the attention is on Iran. But the war is in Lebanon, it's in every Gulf state. - They're firing missiles at Turkey. - This war is not contained. - No, it's the first thing you can say. - And part of what is so frustrating is that those of us who've been warning against this type of war with Iran for 15 years, all of these things were very predictable. These are the things that were going to happen. And they seem caught off guard that they're happening. And it's horrible that we should just pause for the people of Lebanon that there's a normalization and a routinization of Beirut's being bombed again for the umpteen time, right? Then if you get to the Straits of Formus, again, any Iranian war game scenario knew that the extreme version of what the Iranians could do is mine the strait. 'Cause if they threaten the Straits of Formus, even if they blow up a tanker, it has a huge impact for a period of time. But then kind of once the hostilities seem like they have diminished that traffic begins. It takes months and months and months to demine the Straits of Formus. And so if you are disrupting or halting the traffic of 20% of the world's energy, the oil and gas coming out of the Straits of Formus, the economic consequences of that could be absolutely catastrophic and go far beyond high oil prices and gas prices. It could be a seismic shock to the global economy. Again, very predictable. I'm not sure why Trump is surprised by that. And he has no strategy to deal with it other than to bomb them more. That is a logic of escalation of a regime change war. Oh, I'm not able to get you to do what I want by bombing you. So I'm just gonna keep bombing you more, which is gonna make you want to do more to hurt me. I, you know, keep mining the Straits of Formus, keep shooting at the Gulf States. And this is the other crazy thing I see and how Trump talks about this. He thinks he controls the timeline. He doesn't. No. He can like stop bombing in two weeks. The Iranians could still mine the Straits of Formus. They're not going anymore. They could still launch supercell tax. They don't give a shit about Trump's timeline. The Israelis certainly don't seem to care. And so this idea that he's in control of events is such a fiction. Like he has taken a war to, like this is not the assassin of Soleimani where you can calibrate or even the 12-day war. We, by going for a regime change, by killing the Supreme Leader, who's also the religious leader of Gia Islam, whatever you think of the guy and he was a creep. During Ramadan. Yeah, like the idea that you can like say this is a, you know, we had a 12-day war and it's a 19-day war this time. No, it's one big war. This is the same war as the 12-day war, too, by the way. Like, you don't have multiple wars in the same country within a year and get to call them different wars because you want to have shorter timelines. We are at war with Iran on an open-ended basis, even if we stop bombing in a couple weeks. Yeah, this is not terrorists where you can turn it off. Speaking of oil, I mean, over the weekend, the Israelis bombed 30 Iranian oil depots. I'm sure folks saw these images. There were massive fires right in Tehran. It created these like apocalyptic scenes of these massive black clouds. Like, it was dark during the day. And then you had literally had oil raining down on an entire city of 10 million people that could create health problems for generations. The Trump administration leaked to Axios that they were mad about these strikes that the Israelis did this, but like, it's not really clear to me if they were mad because this is oil that will be needed by the Iranian people or if Trump was just mad that it spooked the oil markets. The other kind of major escalatory development from over the weekend then was the targeting of desalination plants. So Iran accused the U.S. of hitting one of their water desalination plants. So in return, they targeted a desalination plant in Bahrain. And if that kind of like escalatory tit for attack continues, it could have devastating consequences because Bahrain is basically totally dependent on desalination for its fresh water. I think Israel gets 80% of its water from desalination quake. It's 90% of its supply. So I mean, that's people just like literally not being able to drink. They'll die. On Monday, as we mentioned, NATO defenses shot down a second missile from Iran over Turkey, U.S. diplomats were pulled from a consular facility in southern Turkey. So back to this thing being contained and then contained. And then finally, Ben, there's some data out today indicating that the UAE's missile defense systems might be degrading. On March 10, 25% of Iran's drones made it through the UAE's missile defense systems. The previous high was 10% on March 3. So it's like, it's not clear if the Iranians are learning or the UAE's like running out of missiles or if the radar is being gone or something is impacting it. There's also reports today that the U.S. is taking missile defense systems from Asia and redeploying them to the Middle East. So again, so much for dealing with the threat from China. Well, first of all, on the oil strikes, beyond the horrific scenes and potential horrific human cost of those strikes, what does that have to do with degrading the ballistic missiles? What does it have to do with degrading nuclear program? Don't tell me that this is about degrading and running capabilities. Israel is trying to destroy Iran. They're trying to destroy the Iranian regime. But they're also just, I mean, what is that? I mean, and so they're going to try to spin their victory as, you know, we took out this many ballistic missile sites. Well, then why are you bombing desolination plants? Why are you bombing energy infrastructure? Right? The U.S. is doing that, too, with the desolination plants. By the way, on the oil piece, you mentioned this early, but it bears repeating, and I have a sub-stack out on this, if you want to check out my sub-stack. Putin wins because energy prices are higher in Russia benefits from that. Putin wins because Trump even acknowledges and gave India a waiver to buy more Russian oil because they know that they can't get the energy from the Middle East. In the long run, Putin wins if other countries, including in Europe potentially, you're like, well, we can't rely on oil and gas from the Middle East, so maybe we have to go back to buying Russian. By the way, these are all these countries that shifted from Russian oil and gas to like Qatar, the energy. Now the Qatar shut down. And by the way, that takes a while to turn back on if you shut it down. This is not like a 12-day war kind of situation. Putin wins, by the way, because Ukraine has to send anti-drone technology and personnel down to the Middle East, which they're doing to help protect the Gulf States against Iranian drones. Putin is such a big winner of this war that he could have designed it in a laboratory. Now he's, of course, he's giving targeting to the reports that he's giving targeting to the Iranians to-- Steve Wickoff says that he's not and that we take them at their word. Is there more credulous idiot on the planet than that guy? No. You know, and so like the oil piece is a sign that this is not to spread ballistic missiles. It's also a huge boon to Putin. The desalination thing is existential to the Gulf. It's going to accelerate them thinking that the US cannot be relied on because they put our security in existential risk. Again, like even if he calls you end to the war tomorrow, the geopolitical cost of potentially endangering the whole global economy for an insane war, endangering the security of the Gulf States, they're going to look for their own nuclear weapons. They're going to look for their own security guarantee. Like across the board, they just so comprehensively didn't think through the consequences of this. Again, I can see it might serve Israel's interest to unleash this kind of violence in chaos in Iran, eliminate any potential competitor, have regional hegemony. By the way, the UAE, which had been Israel's biggest partner in that effort through the Abraham Accords is clearly being targeted more than the Gulf States by Iran for that. So the UAE didn't get security from the Abraham Accords. They got or from our bases. Yeah, or from our bases. And so this is going to reverberate for many years to come if it ended today, you know. And I think that is what is not being told to the American people by their political leaders sufficiently, that this has already been like a catastrophic decision. Yeah. And like Trump might say, well, you know, we've blown up the entire Iranian Navy. And maybe that's the case. But like, you don't need the naval ship to- Was that causing you a problem? I mean, that's a sample. We were, was it Iranian Navy causing you a problem? I live in LA. Was Iranian Navy going to come invade in California? No, they were not. And also, but like getting rid of the Iranian Navy doesn't mean they can't mind the straight-over moves. You do that with small boats. These little boats can carry like two to three mines. The Iranians are estimated to have a stockpile between 2000 and 6000 naval mines, which they bought from the Russians and the Chinese, by the way. And a friend of ours is an expert in this stuff pointed out that even if they have decided to do this, like whether or not they're successful, is a pretty clear indication that they are all in on this war. Yeah. And that they are not seeking peace. And we'll talk about the news. Well, and just real quick, the reason that they wouldn't do it, right, is because they sell their energy through their straights or for moves. But if Israel is bombing their oil facilities, they can't sell it anyway. Right. So in a way, you're lowering the price tag for them to sabotage the straight because they're just fucking over the Gulf States and not themselves because their shit is getting blown up anyway. Yes. U.S. voters abroad. Have you got your ballot yet? All states are now sending ballots to overseas voters. So if you want to vote this year, you should request your ballot right away. Go to vote from abroad.org and click Request My ballot. Questions? Don't delay. Vote from abroad.org. There's also been a leadership change. Remember early in the war, Israel killed the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hamane and an air strike. That was with U.S. intelligence to help that. Hamane, Ali Hamane was 86 years old. He was about to regime change himself or be a regime change by nature. But now thanks to Trump, internet Yahoo, his son, a younger, reportedly even more hard line figure is now in charge. This selection reportedly went against Ali Hamane's written will and desire because he did not want Iran to become a dynastic country again. That was part of what the 1979 revolution was all about. But 56 year old Mustafa Hamane was the RGC's choice to lead Iran because that's the best way to give the middle finger to Trump and Netanyahu and the military goons like the Mustafa. So here we are. We don't know much about Mustafa Hamane. He's been behind the scenes player in Iranian politics. A lot of Iranians have remarked that they've never heard him speak in public. There's not much of a public profile. But he does seem to have operated as kind of like a chief of staff maybe for his dad. Maybe he's like a liaison between his father's office at the military and the intelligence leaders. So we know that they like him. We know that the RGC goons reportedly wanted Mustafa to be selected. He doesn't have all the religious credentials that you are supposed to have for that job. But now he's in charge. He's the spiritual leader of the country, the Commander-in-Chief, and he's the final decider of all political decisions. And again, like time will tell. But it seems like he won't want to make nice with the US and Israel since so far in this war. The US and Israel have killed his father, his wife, his mother, and his son. So that doesn't seem like someone who will want to sue for peace. Of course, he may not last long in the job. The Israelis already tried to kill him. According to news reports, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump would be cool with killing him. But for now, at least he's the guy. Then thoughts on this new Supreme Leader of Rome. I think what I would say to people who sincerely want a better future for the running people, right? A lot of people in the diaspora, other people is that you would have had a better leadership transition if we had not bombed and killed the Supreme Leader. That regime was beginning to change. Not because it wanted to. It did not want to. But you saw Again, the Women Life Freedom Movement, it forced some societal changes. People were beginning, women were beginning to appear in public uncovered. There was a sense of prying something open that was closed. If in the normal course of events, which would not have been much longer, Hamine had died of natural causes, the ability to force his son on the country would have been, I think, much more difficult. There would be protests. There would be mass protests. There would be competing people. There would be processes that would have been under huge pressure because of the rally around the flag that happens, particularly among the IRGC and the hardliners in the country, when they're under attack, you have the most hardline possible succession, because that's what this is. It just puts the lie to the idea that bombing a country and assassinating its leader is a way to bring democracy to the country. It's a way to ensure that the people with the most guns in the country are the ones who choose the successor. Now, he may not last, he may be killed, but I think what we learn is, if he's killed, it'll be another IRGC-backed person, because they're the only people with power left. When you are under assault like this, the people with power in the country are the people who are armed, and the people who are armed are the IRGC. We can keep killing one another, I just think this is why, even in times when there were no laws of war, we didn't assassinate the leaders of countries. Again, that doesn't mean you like hominay, but we don't just get to go and choose that we assassinate the leaders of places we don't like. In part, because it ushers in a very dangerous new world where that may become normal, and some of you have more and more assassinations. Trump is reportedly very angry about the Iranians ploughing to assassinate him. They're going to be trying to kill a U.S. president for a long time, including after Donald Trump has started. And very senior generals, and people will work to this. They will do that. This is why you don't end the war in 12 days. They might try to assassinate the next U.S. president because of what Donald Trump did. The reality is that we've made this situation internal to Iran worse by bombing and killing them, but also by empowering the absolute most hardline people in the country. So that part is going good. The other thing that I imagine, like the actual national security experts, both in the U.S. and the Israeli government are probably the most worried about, is this 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium that is, we think is buried under a mountain at one or more sites, but we don't really know. And securing those materials will almost certainly require a sending in troops to get them. That's why I suspect Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out putting boots on the ground in Iran. Here's a couple of examples of him kind of dancing around this. What are the circumstances where you've sent in ground troops? How are you thinking about that? I don't even want to talk about it. I don't think it's an appropriate question, you know, I'm not going to answer it. Could there be possibly for a very good reason? I'd have to be very good reason. And I would say if we ever did that, they would be so decimated that they would be able to fight at the ground level. Do you need ground troops to secure the enriched uranium at the nuclear sites? We find out about that. We haven't talked about it, but it was a total obliteration, they haven't been able to get to it. And at some point, maybe we will, you know, that would be a great thing. We haven't, we haven't gone after it, but you know, something we could do later on. We wouldn't do it now, maybe we could do it later. Okay, so let's dig into what this kind of operation would look like, because I got very triggered over the weekend that I was reading this Axios report that said, the White House doesn't view a mission to secure Iran's nuclear materials as boots on the ground or an invasion, which is like insane on every level. This would be a good me wearing socks on that boot, yes, we're just torturing the English language here. This would be a major military operation that by any definition is men boots on the ground and an invasion. So there's been some good reporting on what this operation would look like. A lot of these plans existed when we were in government. We've talked to experts about them. So we got, we got a good window into this one. So long story short, like you were talking about sending hundreds of troops into Iran. You would need a specialized team to find secure and store the nuclear materials. That might be a, like a highly trained Delta Force team or a Navy SEAL team. And then on top of that, the Pentagon would almost certainly send the troops to secure a big perimeter around the sites where the guys are digging up this shit. You might have to send in like earth moving equipment and stuff, right, like specialized equipment. And I think that's why a lot of people's heads parked up last week when the Washington Post reported that the 82nd airborne was given a change in its planning, seemingly to be more ready to deploy because they do this kind of stuff like they go in behind enemy lines, they seize airports, they seize strategic areas. The Pentagon would also need to figure out how to get those materials out of Iran, hundreds of miles. That would either be by air or ground. You would need like missile defense, drone defense during the operation throughout. And so this would not be a small operation by any stretch of the imagination. I just like don't get why a news outlet would repeat this absurd spin that it wouldn't be boots on the ground. And then finally, Ben, earlier today, Tuesday, Richard Blumenthal, Senator Richard Blumenthal came out of an Iran briefing and said, quote, "We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran." He also added that Russia seems to be aiding our enemies, so he seems to be confirming that even though Steve Wyckoff doesn't think that's where they're going to get this. Yeah, it's good as well. He also said China might be aiding them too, so I guess we'll find out. But what do you think the odds are that there is this kind of like H.E.U. focused ground invasion? And how is leaving this material in Iran not like a red line for Netanyahu? There seems to be the thing he cared about most over the last three decades. There's something surreal about the fact that Trump has to simultaneously affirm his lie that he obliterated the Iran nuclear program while leaving open the door to the fact that we may have to do an incredibly complex and risky operation to actually clean up the fact that we didn't obliterate the Iran nuclear program. Because as many of us have been saying for 15 years, you can't bomb a nuclear program and obliterate. It's physically impossible. So that just shows you the kind of danger of having someone who's this dishonest making decisions because you can't really explain anything because he's trying to keep these competing narratives from bumping into each other. Look, yeah, we've been there, we've studied this, we've followed this because you can't bomb all of the nuclear program away. There has always been this idea that if you're truly going to try to like take out as much of the Iranian nuclear program as possible, by the way, you can't eliminate it entirely, they know how to do the nuclear fuel cycle. So you can't bomb like the knowledge that exists inside of Iran how to do this. But if you were to do this, you would need a very complex special forces operation with close air support and lots of personnel. I will tell you this, Tommy, too, that in some of the kind of wargaming on this and I'll say like even out of government, right? So this is not anything sensitive. You might want the element of surprise, pop up, here's the team to get these materials. This is the most telegraph punch possible. So I imagine that that will make it harder, wherever this is buried and whatever things that they've put in place to try to protect against this operation doesn't mean you couldn't do it, but it just being incredibly risky. And whether it's Israeli commanders or US commanders and special forces, joint US Israeli military operation, it's complex, it's risky, it introduces ground forces into Iran. Even if you get some of these materials, it still doesn't eliminate the nuclear program because again, they know how to do this. There are people inside of Iran, like not even Israel in the US can kill that fast. Who know how to do this? Just set some back. Completely. It sets them back. And we've told them that the only way you could ever survive is getting nuclear weapons. So I guarantee you, if we seize this, whatever we do, there's still going to be trying to build a nuclear weapon there, you know, on the back end of it. Yep. So here we are. The other kind of like invasion option that I think people are talking about and worried about is the US or Israel seizing a place called Carg Island, which is this little island is about 25 kilometers off the coast of Iran, which is a key transit point for the export of about 90 or 95 percent of Iran's oil. So that would be a way for the US or Israel to essentially take control of Iran's oil industry. It would again be very risky. You would be shot at. There's troops there. It would be a big, big deal. But that's the thing. I think nerds will tell you that like, Senkham has had that plan on the shelf for a long time. There's probably people in there who want to do it. But it's amazing. And we're back in the 19th century here. This is where we're at that we're just seeing. I saw some people in Fox who'd never heard of Carg Island, you know, we could go or like, oh, we're going to get the island and get the oil. Like we're back in the empire business. By the way, that would be the biggest terrorist target in the world if we were like, see some island and try to like run the Iranian oil industry from there. Like this is how we got an Islamic Republic of Iran in the first place. Because we overthrew a democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 because that leader was nationalizing the Iranian oil resources and lo and behold, you know, within 25 years we get the Islamic Republic. So the reason we've had an Islamic Republic in the first place is because we tried to do this. Disagree then. We are always the victims in these stories. You can't ever make us a protagonist. The one little bit of good news is that last week there were all these reports that the the U.S. was arming Kurdish militia forces, especially in Iraq and encouraging them to go into Iran and try to topple the government. Trump now says he doesn't want the Kurds to go into Iran. Hopefully, that's true when he's being honest, but like, I guess put a pin in that one. I always say about that. It seems pretty clear to me that at least the Iraqi Kurds said no because they were saying it very publicly. They were raising their hands. The people that are in the Kurdistan, regional government, and Iraq were like, we don't want any part of this war. So I don't necessarily give Trump credit for that. I actually think the Iraqi Kurds would be like, this had been insane thing for us to do. Yeah, I saw one of them was interviewed on Fox News and was just like, no, this is a really bad idea. I don't think this is worth doing. Also, I just one last thing, Ben. I mean, I just think it's very clear there's been a bunch of really good reporting now about the nuclear negotiations that took place between the Trump administration and the Iranian, specifically what Wikof and Kushner were doing. And it's just so clear to me now that Jared and Steve Wikof, like fundamentally, didn't understand the subject matter. Obviously, right? They're not nuclear experts. They're not scientists. They're not PhDs. But there was a there was a transcript of a call that those two Bozos did for press. And like, you can just tell, like they keep mistating the name of the IAEA. Like they're getting basic facts wrong. And like, maybe, look, maybe Trump never wanted to cut a deal. And there was always going to be a war. But those idiots definitely didn't make it better. And it's kind of terrifying to think that they're handling Gaza negotiations around negotiations and Ukraine. Like no shit that nothing's going well. There are two scenarios. One is that the entire diplomatic effort both last summer and this time were a facade of deception operation so that we could bomb Iran. That is outrageous and dangerous thing to do because no one will ever trust US diplomacy again if, you know, if it's just meant to be a deception or sorry. They were sincerely negotiating. We make fun of these people. We have a laugh about them, particularly Jared because he's a moron who like was born with a winning lottery ticket and thinks that he like earned all that money. But the reality is sending two complete idiots into the most sensitive negotiations in the world over and over and over again is not just embarrassing. It is terrible for US interests. Like an American sometimes make this mistake, particularly right-wing Americans. They think other people are stupid. They're particularly brown people like the Iranians. These are very smart, sophisticated people. These are the Russians of the toughest negotiators in the world. They are eating these people for lunch every day and every negotiation. The Russians are. I mean, such that Steve Rickoff is reporting propaganda that Putin is somehow not doing things that he's clearly doing, right? Or that the Iranians aren't going to figure out that these guys aren't serious and so it's not worth coming back into talks with them. Trump would clearly like to be able to say we're back in the talks of Iran because he's dangled it a couple of times and the Iranians keep shooting it down. So this is this is this Jared Whitcoff show is is is is an abomination from a corruption standpoint but from a pure competence standpoint as well. Yes. And speaking of US credibility, Ben. So it's just like increasingly clear as you've mentioned that this airstrike on an Iranian school full of young schoolgirls that killed 168 children and 14 teachers was an airstrike conducted by the United States military. Iranian state media released footage that has been confirmed by major news organizations as authentic. It shows a US Tomahawk missile hitting a naval base that is directly adjacent to this girl school. There have also been a number of news reports that the Pentagon like has been doing internal investigations. They believe they were responsible for this strike. But Trump, of course, is refusing to take responsibility. He is instead trying to lie and spin his way through this one. So here's a couple examples of his shifting story on this. Did the United States bomb a girl's elementary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war in 175 people? Based on what I've seen that was done by Iran. Is that true? Mr. Hexat? It was Iran. You did that? We're certainly investigating. But the only side that targets the civilians is Iran. Umahawk missile likely destroyed that Iranian girl school. So will the Americans, will the US accept any responsibility? Well, I haven't seen it. And I will say that the Tomahawk, which is one of the most powerful weapons around is used by, you know, sold and used by other countries, you know that. And whether it's Iran, who also has some Tomahawk say wish they had more. You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a Tomahawk and bombed the tone elementary school on the first day of the war. But you're the only person in your government saying this, even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked standing over your shoulder on your plane on Saturday. Why are you the only person saying this? Because I just don't know enough about it. So like, we don't sell Iran Tomahawk missiles. That's crazy. Like, my understanding is that only the US, the UK and Australia currently have Tomahawk's deployed unless the Iranians broke into a British submarine, soul of Tomahawk and then dropped it on their own IRGC naval base slash girl school like the stories bullshit. So Trump just like he clearly thinks he could deflect and like wait for this story to go away, Ben. But like when you combine those lies with Pete Hegseth bragging about getting rid of like woke rules of engagement. Yeah. Um, it sends, it's hard to like think of a way to make the US military look worse than than that. And all of us, you and I paid for that bomb that killed those girls, right? We American taxpayers pay for this. Those girls are dead today because of decisions that Donald Trump made and because of the way in which, you know, we spend our tax dollars. And look, just to take a couple of these pieces, the investigations that are very thorough that are out there that this is our missile. I just point out a couple of things. The idea that these are these were the children of IRGC people that went to the school. So the idea that they got a top that's conspiracy theory that is all over the internet. The reason we have to dress this is because this is all over the internet. I assume these railways are super charged. Yeah. The bots are out there with this. I had a Ronnie and woman come up to me in LA. I was like hanging out with Lizette. Lovely woman. Couldn't have been nicer. But it was like spouting like insane made up propaganda about the war and be like, tell everyone that, you know, the Iranians like the war. I'm like, well, not the one's getting bombed that she was like, well, the IRGC is the one who bombed that school. It's like, man, that's not what happened. It was 100% off. If you think that, I feel sorry for you because you're unwilling to look like truth in the eye. And here's the other thing. We gave a lot of shit to the Biden administration during the Gaza war for defending the IDF, right? And every time there was some horrific incident in Gaza, which is very regular. Member was always, this is being investigated. Or this was the Hamas Pentagon, you know, every hospital had the Hamas Pentagon under it. There's a way in which we are becoming like that. Like the Trump response to this. And even the Hegsett response, which weirdly Hegsett is actually not going as far as Trump. He's more reasonable than Trump. Because the US military, I believe there are still some people with some honor. I mean, I mean this. I'm not trying to, I'm saying this as a compliment, who have some honor in that institution who are like, we do not lie about our mistakes. Most of the military is horrified that they did this. This is a massive intelligence fuck up. And I'm sure that people are like, just devastated. Devastated, but this is why you don't do what Biden and Trump both have done with the IDF, which is go along with this bullshit that every single child who's killed is like a Hamas terrorist or every single hospital that's blown up is a secret target, you know, or secret Hamas command center or every single one that you can't possibly defend. You just say we're investigating it, but we never get to the results of the investigation. And oh, by the way, it's Hamas's fault. We are now doing that about Iran. We're doing the same language. We're investigating it. We'll get back to you. But maybe they did it. They're the only ones who killed civilians, not us. Like, we cannot become and should not become that kind of country, but I fear that, you know, with Trump as president, like, that's where we're at, but that is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous place to be. Not alone because of what we saw already with these girls, which the whole war is not worth it. I rather have those kids back than all the missile launchers that we blown up. Like, that's why we have to be an anti-war party in this country because this stuff can happen. Let's talk more about how our tax dollars should be spent in the Democratic party because as listeners probably know, like last week, the House of Representatives voted down a bill to stop the war in Iran, not Trump would have vetoed it, but it was important symbolically. Four Democrats voted in favor of allowing Trump and Pete Hexeth to continue this regime change war of choice in Iran, which is just insane to me. But Politico reported that the next step in Congress will be the administration coming back to them to request an estimated $50 billion in additional funding for the war. That's on top of the nearly $1 trillion Pentagon budget for 2026. Over the weekend, CNN's Jake Tapper asked Senator Chris Murphy about this request. Let's play that exchange and then talk about it. The administration is reportedly weighing Congress to approve an additional $50 billion in funding for these operations. You have said you're a hell-no, not just a no on funding the war. We have seen this movie before. We know that that vote will be cast as, especially if you run for higher office, you voting against the troops. Come on. I mean, the American people don't want this war. They don't want this war. They have seen what happens when American troops go into places like Iraq, places like Afghanistan. Ultimately, we get a lot of people killed. We waste a lot of dollars. The one thing the American people are clear. clear about is that they do not want the United States dragged into another long-term war in the Middle East. If you support the troops, then you should be voting against funding this war so that we get our troops out of harm's way. Virtually nothing good happened from sending thousands of Americans to die inside Iraq in the 2000s. And if we don't learn that lesson, then shame on every single one of us. It's a good answer by Murphy there. So I teed off on this on Pots of America on Monday's Hall Be Quick, but I want to make sure that every Democrat listening understands that you cannot oppose the war and then vote for funding. That is not a position that exists in the real world. That's a thing people in Washington convinced themselves is rational and it's actually incoherent. Also, I just want them to understand that like opposing funding is the right thing to do strategically, morally, and politically. This is not 2004. Jake is wrong. We're not going to watch the same movie, like the Pentagon doesn't need more money to sustain operations. They have a trillion dollars. There are not guys sitting in Faluja waiting to get an MRAP that might not show up if you vote against the $77 billion or whatever the funding request was in 2004, like Trump could end this war tomorrow. He has basically declared victory a couple of times and suggested it might be over tomorrow. And I also voters will reward you. If you say, let's not spend $50 billion more bombing girls schools in Iran. Let's spend it on education, healthcare, literally anything else. That won't be the most popular thing you ever do as a lawmaker. Absolutely. And, first of all, you're right, that the Jake Tapper from 2002 doesn't need to conduct that interview. I mean, we have Barack Obama. The very first meeting I was in with him, the first time I met him was in 2007 when he decided to vote against the supplemental that funded the surge. And the argument that was cast at him was that he was voting against the troops. And lo and behold, if it wasn't for his office in the Iraq war, he never would have become President of the United States. This political thinking is so outdated that it's astonishing to me that it still gets currency in the kind of media framing around these issues. I also want to say you covered the argument well about the obvious political point that people don't want to be spending this money that this war is not popular. I also think that one of the things that drives people crazy about the Democratic Party is it seems like it's a party that has constantly got its finger in the wind and is trying to figure out what it stands for, what it actually believes, what will be the most politically fruitful argument. Are we tough? Are we tough? Yeah. Can I afford to piss off these donors? Look, if you vote for the funding of this war, you should be primeried. I don't want you in the Democratic Party. And I'm not trying to be obtuse or stubborn, but this is a threshold issue. I would like to have a big tent on this party. I think there should be people with different ideas of how to get health care, different ideas of taxation. To me, this is not a left center issue. This is a right and wrong issue. Morally, what do we stand for as Democrats? If you as a Democrat can't say that I'm against a war and I'm not going to fund a war that is being launched by an authoritarian president illegally with no rational basis that is explained to the American people that is already unleashed these consequences. If you can't stand against that, you don't stand for a fucking thing, okay? Everybody can see it. How is anybody going to trust you to fight for their health care if you're too afraid to cast a vote that someone might call you weak or some donor might call you in complain? So I'm sorry I got a little hot today. I came in hot. But I don't know what to say anymore, okay? It's an astounding lapse in judgment, I think, to trust Donald Trump and Pete Hexf to lead a regime change war of choice with Iran, along with Vivian Netanyahu. And we didn't put it on the run down today because it's just like, the things to be mad about are endless, but Trump wearing a hat to the dignified transfer ceremony really bothered me because I know you've been, I'm sure you've been to Dover, I've never went to Dover with President Obama, but I went to Walter Reed with President Obama in like 2000. So like 2009 or 2010 it was like me, Reggie, Matt Flavin in Obama, like in Marine One on the way there. And then I chilled out with the press while he went and that with wounded service members for like three, four hours, whatever it was. And then we all flew home together. And like my memory of flying there is talking and people like, it was fun, right? It was cool. And on the way back, it was like the heaviest situation I've ever been in. You could feel the weight of what Obama had just experienced on his shoulders and the devastation he'd seen in the families and the people's lives were just ruined. And he didn't say a fucking word, nor did anybody else. And just like to see Trump kind of winging it out there, doing press events, goofing around, like he's talking about the Iran War in front of like the Miami, inter Miami soccer team, cracking jokes about the renovations at the White House. He's just like a fundamental, the unserious person who is not conducting this war for a serious strategic reason. It's all about his politics. It's all about Lindsey Graham fluffing him ten times a day and like doing whatever Netanyahu tells me to do. It's a fucking embarrassment. So vote no. Yeah. And to your point, I mean, the guy is showing up at the dignified transfer of caskets of dead service members coming home because of decisions he's made. And he's wearing a USA hat that looks like the kind of thing that you could buy like a gas station rest stop, right, which no offense against those are great hats that but he's had stare. But the point is that were afraid of being called weak, were afraid of being called unsaid old man in a way. Were afraid of like there were against the troops. The guy against the troops is the one who's getting them killed. Yep. For no reason. Exactly. And he was showing up in a fucking baseball cap for a dignified transfer ceremony. Like this is not a hard argument to make. Very easy. I just couldn't agree more. Ben speaking of our feckless Congress as we did a minute ago. So November is going to be a huge election in a little side of Democrats are in control of the House. Maybe we can take back the Senate or Trump just maintains his iron grip on the trifecta. Winning the House is going to be the fastest way to put a real check on Trump's abuses of power and the Republicans enabling them. So we got to go on offense and try to win as many seats as possible. So folks here who listen to this show and listen to Pots of America are some of the most engaged people. There's volunteers. There's donors. There's candidates. There's people in grassroots organizations. And if you have not signed up yet for votes of America, please consider doing so because it will be the best way to find opportunities where you can spend your time and your money and your attention. And I promise we will make sure it's like money ball for politics that it will go a long way. So here's what we're asking folks to do. Go to voteofvotefamerica.com, sign up to be part of the work this year. Then send that link to five friends who you think might be interested to. That's all we're asking. We promise we won't spam you. We won't, you know, demand send you crazy texts. Are they me texted or like, "Ragel Mato's going crazy!" Hacking checked. Exactly. Nancy Pelosi. Yeah. Okay. I promise it will be worth your time. We'll send you good opportunities that actually matter. Votesafeamerica.com. Sign up. Be a part of this community. Be a part of the work this year. Get five friends to do it. Paid for by votesafeamerica. Learn more at votesafeamerica.com. This ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. U.S. voters abroad. Questions? Don't delay. Votefromabroad.org. Let's end this around section by talking about like Hasboa Lebanon and the fact that the country is once again getting hammered by the IDF. So the numbers are really grim then as you, as we mentioned at the top, like we're talking about nearly 500 people dead in Lebanon and nearly 700,000 people have been displaced. So, you know, Hasboa entered the conflict. It started firing rockets at Israel after the Supreme Leader was assassinated. The Israelis leapt on this opportunity to retaliate and just destroy them again. And like whatever was left of the 2024 ceasefire agreement is now just fully eviscerated. And the IDF has both been conducting massive airstrikes in southern Lebanon and the parts of the suburbs of Beirut. But also the IDF ground forces have pushed into southern Lebanon. This week, the French offered to like intervene and maybe support the Lebanese military, Emmanuel Macron, like I jumped into the fray here. I think the Israelis basically told him to fuck off. I can't tell if anything came about. You're not exactly showing a lot of strength on this around war in general. No, not much. I think my concern then though, if I were Lebanese official, like beyond the immediate security and threat to people's lives and the humanitarian situation and humanitarian crisis that could develop, if this many people are displaced for this long, like I would wonder if Israel is going to use this opportunity to just permanently capture parts of Lebanon while the world is kind of focused elsewhere. I think that's what's happening. I mean, I think that they want to permanently occupy if not end up annexing southern Lebanon. Some Israeli political leaders talk about that openly. They know that this is a chaotic and violent time in the region, so they can kind of ratchet it up in Lebanon without getting as much scrutiny. They have not announced kind of what their endgame is in Lebanon, other than just destroying things. They realize that these people have been through hell in Lebanon and 700,000 people People being told to evacuate is, I mean, just think about that, where are they supposed to go? Many of them are going to come back to homes that are destroyed and we've so thoroughly normalized that level of destruction with this idea that it's somehow about his blood. This is so far beyond his blood. This is like breaking Lebanon completely yet again. By the way, what always ends up happening, I'm not defending corrupt Lebanese politicians because they're plenty of those two, but like they'll palm Lebanon for, however long they bomb it and destroy all this stuff and displace people and then nine months and a big call, the politics and Lebanon are so dysfunctional. What the hell are these people supposed to do? Right. That's like a city the size of Denver just being pushed out of their homes in this place. Yeah. I mean, it's staggering. I guess we'll just keep an eye on it. I don't know. The world is just kind of-- And then you'll get these people who will be posting pictures from like 1984 of women in bathing suits in Beirut and be like, this is what it was like before his blow or something. No, this is what it was like before the place got bombed, however many times I've lost track of it. It's a nightmare. Okay. So a couple more things from us. While the world is focused on Iran, the U.S. military has been expanding its activities in South America, specifically the U.S. military is now conducting joint military operation against drug cartels in Ecuador. This is on top of the boat strikes off the coast of Ecuador and in the Caribbean. The New York Times reported that U.S. Special Forces are, quote, "advising and supporting Ecuadorian commandos who are hitting drug facilities." U.S. Southern command ban. I don't know if you saw that. They tweeted out this weird video. I saw that thing. The helicopter taking off, right? And then it was like a drone feed of like U.S. troops getting into the helicopter, but the way they filmed it, it made it look like there was about to be an air strike on our own helicopter. It was all very, very weird. And as we've discussed on the show before, Ecuador went from being one of the safest countries in Latin America to becoming one of the most dangerous and becoming a major transit point for cocaine coming out of Colombia and Peru, usually the Europe. There's also these Albanian gangs in Ecuador and there's sort of like facilitating those cocaine flows into Europe. In 2024, the president, Daniel and De Boa declared war on the gangs and on the cartels. That set in motion, this huge crackdown in a wave of violence does not solve the problem but has led to a lot of deaths and now apparently involved the U.S. military. Ben, I was just, you know, reading about this, sort of marveling at how little attention it's getting and then remembering back in 2018 when Trump said, quote, "We more and more are not wanting to be the policeman of the world." It feels like that's kind of. That's out the window. And again, another thing that we're doing with no public discussion. He clearly has this idea that there's this collection of right-wing leaders across Latin America, it's kind of his team. I think Kristi Nome is now, like, isn't she the envoy to the envoy of the shield of the America? Absolutely, made up. Curious if that actually happens. Yeah. If she gets a plane to go down Ecuador. But the reality is, this idea where the U.S. becomes like the -- Right. Cory down Ecuador. Cory, I mean -- I think Lewandowski would last long down. Eric Prince could probably put him to work. Yeah. Eric Prince, I posed the Iran war. I think I saw him, quote it. He did. We're not banning, you know, and he opposed it. And part because this is the kind of war he wants to face. He's like, I want to be -- Yeah. I want to be inequitable. I want to be paid for this. But the reality is, we're just going to become the security force for every right-wing autocrat in Latin America. What's the goal here? What's the end state? If we lose personnel, then there are Americans going to know why they're there. You had Ricardo on, like, the way to deal with these drug cartels, first you have to go out of their money, because they're multi-billion dollar enterprises, and it's going to skipping right ahead to, like, some military operation for ambiguous purposes. So yeah, we are in this kind of slippery slope to being the kind of military force for the shield of the Americas, you know. And I just -- that's yet another thing. How much is this operation costing? Good question. Because they're not free, right? So yet another argument to make that -- that's not lowering prices. That's not doing anything to solve problems in Americans, actually. Because it's not even doing anything about the fentanyl problem, which is what Americans are most concerned about. It's just buttressing some right-wing autocrat, he tells Trump what he wants to hear. It's not great. Okay. Let's end this by talking about the recent election in Nepal. So this, ladies and gentlemen, is Nepal's next prime minister. Let's watch. I go hard like a blastest. It gets sharp fire. It's the glow just somewhere wet. Mixed. Get it. I'm a cement on the plastic. Full of wet tips. This is a dual-holicinet like a Baptist. Like a Baptist. You bitch got the Kailish, my dick is most stylish, you drip like me stylish, they're saying they fly, and got no miles, they're saying they fly, and fly in private, no Kailish, Jenner. And got no humor. Next time we show up, you get beat like a drummer. Give out their pipe, pipe like a plumber. I put you in drama. I shoot like I'm gunner. I mean -- Collab was all right, I'm done. I mean, Michael had a better time watching that. That guy's -- Yes. Bit of an alistrosho. I can finally. Okay, so that's a rapper. It's not bad. He's pretty good. Yeah. I know he's laying down the beats too. That's pretty good. That's Belendresha. A rapper, civil engineer, turned politician. People call him ballin. He's the former. He's ballin. He's ballin out there. Also, a pretty true cure has that same code, I don't know if he was lying here. Anyway, he's the former mayor of Kathmandu. There's still kind of ballots, but so far he's leading in what looks like a landslide election. This election is the result of these Gen Z lead protests from last year that brought down the former government. The protests kicked off. Where there's the social media ban that seemingly was just a cover to hide that the children of the elites were just like spending money in Paris and pissing away government money. But those protests exploded in size because of deep frustration about corruption and lack of economic opportunity because Nepal is a very young, highly educated population, but it also has a 21 percent youth unemployment rate. So there's a brain drain and a lot of people leaving to go work abroad. Nineteen people were killed during those initial protests last year because the government violently cracked down on them. Then 70 more on the unrest in chaos that followed. So that forced out the prime minister at the time. So ballin is part of the centrist party. He has campaigned on anti-corruption, on creating jobs. He says he's going to double per capita GDP to $3,000 within the next decade. Nepal is landlocked between India and China. They have very limited manufacturing. They rely on a lot of tourism to Mount Everest for their economy and its current GDP per capita is about $1,500, so delivering on that promise will be quite a challenge. But then thoughts on our new Gen Z wrapper king? Yeah, look, I can't really vowed for ballin. And I spent a bunch of time reading up on this because it's fascinating. We'll see how it goes. Here's the main thing that I think I take away from this that is hopeful. Many people across the world, particularly younger people, are absolutely fed up with the corruption and the rotten establishments that govern their lives. And I do think that there is a connection between the Zoran Mamdani campaign and what he did. Did you see the Hanna Spencer Green Party campaign in the UK? This is, I mean, if people haven't watched Hanna Spencer, she was a Green Party member with one of dialects recently. She's 34 years old. We had a very Zoran-esque kind of message in campaign. Get Morisko over there. Morisko over there and meet with some of those people. Moris is kicking the tires on taking over European politics. Morisko is a friend of ours who works for Zoran Mamdani, like a kind of young, brilliant, communication. Brilliant guy. Yeah. Absolutely. Good for him going over to Europe to meet some of these progressive parties because we need to trade best practices. My advice to Europeans, and I know we have a lot of European listeners, is to talk to Moriskats, right? Because it's not just about having clever social medias, about having a smart message. The ball and, you know, he capitalized in the fact that Gen Z, I don't think it's some irrational thing. Oh, we like the rapper. It's that they're so comprehensively fed up with their political establishment. That they kind of ousted them in this protest movement and they're like, you know what? Let's put this guy in charge because at least we know he's different, right? And at least we know he's not been tethered to the same corruption. At least we know he hasn't kind of taken money from the same crowd that's been around. And so I actually think the warning to politicians everywhere in the democratic world and the non-democratic world is that this is kind of what where people are at right now, particularly young people. And I actually think it's wrong to say that Gen Z, they're disengaged. They seem pretty fucking engaged in a lot of these places. They're pretty engaged over there. They're like some fires. Yeah, they're engaged. And they've been engaged. We've seen it in Africa. We've seen it in the Middle East. We've seen it in this country. We're seeing it in Europe. And if you, again, I'll just talk to the places where if you or a smart politician trying to appeal to young voters, you got to get to that mood, you know, that may be not the ball and video game show, but the anti-established mood of like, this is different. This is a clean break. This is a dip. This politics is going to look different. It's going to feel different. It's going to be funded differently because I think that is increasingly where the mood's going to go, given the direction of events in the world. Yeah. People don't like elites. That might seem in all the closet full of rap tapes. This is how I do hallucinate like a Baptist. That was a V-Tort joint. That was a ball and joint. He also dropped Kyle Genter's name. Whatever. I heard the callie Jenner in there. Yeah. There's a lot of training on trying to follow with the lyrics. Hey. Sounded good. There's more of a slant rhyme, which, you know, Bob Dylan would tell us. Yeah. It was an art form. Ballon seems to not do a lot of media too. Like, I was trying to, like, it didn't give a lot of interviews, let's just say. No. Like, it's a bit of a mystery. One name, Ballon, I think of the big baller brand. Yes. Yeah. But, well, I saw them, by the way, just to, you know, we, I heard you guys in PSA read the complaint about the video game message, but I also hate them expropriating, like I saw. I don't know, one of their Dan Skavino war porn posts said like if you don't know now, you know, like Biggie Small's RIP does not want you taking like his potentially best catchphrase from, you know, like the one of the greatest. Biggie was not a rep in the military industrial. Yeah, Biggie was not a police, you know, but said they don't know now, you know, give me a break. Shut up. Dan Skavino or whatever, like 23 year old white nationalist groipers like now become a war porn addict. What's funny is I think actually like they're trying to appeal to the kind of Nick Fuentes young, white, angry, like in sell crowd with this kind of content. And I think it's falling on its face hard because those guys actually listen to Fuentes, like Tucker Carlson, a bunch of right wingers who were opposed to the war in Iran before, and now we're opposed to it after and they seem consistent at least. And you know, Fox News might fall in mind, but like who cares what they say? Yeah, I will say I have some notes for the kind of anti-war maggot crowd, like in Tucker's among it, because I've, you know, I sample this to see where things are going. It is remarkable. They'd like say go to somehow like soft Trump. Yeah, like we should need to call this out. Like listen, I mean, actually don't listen. Like we'll listen to it for you. But like they didn't have a two hour conversation on like Tucker, Maggie Kelly and like you would think that this happened to Trump. Yeah, they'll blame like the undersecretary for something, something over the Pentagon. Or by the way, they'll blame Netanyahu. Like I blame Netanyahu, but that doesn't absolve Trump. I blame Netanyahu too, but I blame Trump for being too weak to stand up to Netanyahu. More than Netanyahu, like to be very clear. American president, he's more powerful. The American president, he made the decision. Every other American president in 21st century said no to this. So it just this all the more reason for Democrats to burrow out on this, because just because there's some anti-war mega influencers, they won't call out Trump and Americans are not stupid. They know that the Donald Trump either A shouldn't have done this, and B could have said no to BB Ninjas. Oh, Jesus. Okay. So Trump truth as we were recording, Ben. I'm pleased to report that within the last few hours we have hit and completely destroyed 10 inactive mind-laying boats and/or ships with more to follow. I'm not really sure what that means or does exactly. That means he's trying to tell the markets and the oil futures to not price in a mining of the Straits of Hormuz. It's Google price. Because all he cares about is that. Now it's up at 87.71. So you don't really want the crude oil futures to rip like Bitcoin. You know what I mean? I just, yeah, and you also want like and not to get too heavy here. But like I'd kind of like a Commander-in-Chief who cares more about the lives of US service members and Iranian school children, then he cares about tomorrow's oil futures, which is clearly the only thing that can get his fat ass, you know, in gear to like truth social something. Until Lizzie Graham gets them on the phone, gets me a hot and bothered again for another regime change. Okay, I think that's it for us for this week. Anything else pissing you off? Should we wrap up our next episode? I will say, the only thing pissing me off is that I had two of my best friends come into town. I got banger tickets to the Nick's Lakers game on Sunday and the Nick's Clippers game last night. Got to both games half-narrally and in the two games, the Nick's led once by a single point and just fucking mailed it in. I'm sorry, man. Except for Kat, except for my guy Carl and Thinny Towns, he showed up. The rest of these guys, not much. I bet they love him, but they just didn't show up for me. I bet when you're playing a Wayne LA. It seemed like, so this Saturday, we were taking a new- Is this Saturday game? So we at 12.30pm, 12.30pm, 12.30pm. So we're in the Uber over because we're going to like pound some beers at the game. So responsibly took an Uber. And I said to these guys, I was like, hey, I'm worried that our guys were out last night. You know, like, it's L.A., we got OG, we got Josh Harb, we got these guys. Maybe they wanted it to go out. And like, no, no, no, the our guys are serious. Our guys look like they went out for a night. I think a lot of players go out every single night. If you're young and rich and a great athlete, you're probably having a good time. Let me just say that Nick's did not come out of the, you know, blocks run at a full speed on Saturday at 12.30pm. No, Luca looked like he was hungover but Luca always looks like he's kind of hungry. He does look like he's hungover and they just matter a little bit hungry. CNN headline, US Intelligence Community ramps up warnings of possible retaliatory tax by a run. That's great of cyber attacks. I don't know, everything's really great. So yeah, I came and kind of hissed off today. Sorry about that. It's hard to be light about a war though. It's not fun. It is not fun. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. But when you come back, you're in here at my interview with my car outlets. We're going to talk about the Pentagon fighting with AI companies, drones, new drone technology that will help us take out Iranian drones. It's we're getting from the Ukrainian. So very important conversation about the future of warfare and technology. So stick around for that. US voters abroad. Go to votefromabra.org and click Request My ballot. Questions? Don't delay votefromabra.org. I am very excited to welcome back. Today's guest to the show. He's a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And then from 2022 to 2024, he served as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities. My Coro, it's great to see you again. Thanks so much for having me. You know, not like anything's going on in the world. Yes, slow week. Also, it's very funny. We booked you twice and you've been on vacation twice. So I love to just ruin whatever you're doing in your real life. But given all the fighting between the Pentagon and these AI companies, and then what's happening in Iran, it seemed like an amazing time to get you back on the show. So before we get to this big fight between the Defense Department and Enthropic and AI Company, I was just hoping you could understand how AI is being used in warfare. Because we've now seen reports that AI was used in the operation to get Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. There's lots of reports that AI is being used in the Iran operations, including Claude, Anthropics Model. The reports that the Israelis were using AI with targeting both in Gaza and now again with Iran. What does that mean in practice to the best? You can kind of help us get it. Yeah, absolutely. So when you think about the integration of AI into warfare, you separated into three buckets in your mind. The first are the kinds of uses of AI that any company might do. Think like HR, payroll, processing, basic logistics, like that kind of thing. And the Pentagon should be full speed ahead at that. Although, frankly, that has taken a lot of time to get moving as well. The second bucket is in what's called intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. So that is all the data and information that say the American military gets about the world. Whether from satellites, whether from human intelligence sources, whether from truth social, or X, or whatever your poison might be. And you're trying to aggregate that all together to separate the signal from the noise. The third, and this is both where the current operational context discussion is, and where the dispute between an anthropic and the Pentagon goes, is closer to the battlefield. And those are essentially AI decision support systems that help commanders in theory make better decisions about how to use force within operations. And then autonomous weapon systems that can involve AI actually on the edge, selecting and engaging targets. And it's that third category where people have really raised lots of questions about how much that integration is happening today in the Iran context, how much you happen to the Maduro operation, and then where it may go from there. So I can imagine a scenario where over Iran, the US and Israel have so many satellites or drones or things bringing in imagery that it's almost impossible to monitor them all in real time. And you could imagine an AI that's trained to notice the second that a shape that looks like an Iranian ballistic missile launcher shows up on the screen, and then you immediately move to target that. It's like that the kind of thing we're talking about. And maybe that data is cross-checked with some other sickened thing that's happened. Like it's just, I think it's hard for people to understand like the volume of data that's coming in to through intelligence channels and how quickly we need to move to kind of act on it. So there's two different categories in which I put some of the things that we have heard about in the Iran context. The first is this, that AI decision support category I mentioned before, and that is often using a platform built by the tech company Palantir called Meevin Smart System. And what that's doing is aggregating all this data together to try to give advice to the US combatant commander in the, in central command. So the head of the US military in the Middle East who has, and there are all these processes for how the Pentagon selects targets, makes decisions to engage them, legal reviews, checks, etc, etc, etc. there's lots of really fantastical descriptions, you know, out there. But Imagine what Maven essentially does is kind of the way a paralegal would support a lawyer, where they're doing all of this research and analysis to simplify all of these sort of different tasks, all of the sort of staff work that would normally happen on the battlefield. Now, it's still the lawyer that goes to court and argues and still the lawyer that takes responsibility, but that paralegal or team of paralegals or whatever is doing a ton of the back office work to sort of queue things up. That's the way that Maven essentially works in the way that Claude that is integrated into Maven to as one of many different tools to simplify those data processing tasks even more. So that's category one and then category two is more like that missile defense scenario that you're talking about. We're frankly, you don't need large language models, like you don't need Claude to do this, but like good old fashioned computer vision sort of algorithms can do this sort of thing, and that's just about detecting launches and then moving systems in position to shoot them down, which say like Israel's iron dome, for example, has proven to be exceptional at and the Patriot missile defense system for the United States is much more expensive, but also very good at it. Got it. Okay, so we've talked on this show about this dispute between this AI company and Thoropik and the Pentagon. The gist for those who haven't followed this is that Thoropik's model Claude was at the time the only AI model cleared for use on the Pentagon's classified systems. The department wanted Claude to sign a contract that allowed them quote all lawful uses of the model, but in Thoropik said no, we have some red lines and they don't want Claude used for NASA surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous weapons yet because they say the software is not ready yet. The two sides couldn't come to an agreement. That led a bunch of people the Pentagon to absolutely flip out on Twitter a couple of weekends ago and then Hegseth, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense declared in Thoropik a quote supply chain risk. That is a designation normally reserved for companies like Huawei, which has ties with the Chinese military. Mike, what do you think happened here? Can you explain the impact of a supply chain risk designation on a company like in Thoropik, or I just noticed as his file suit? Yeah, that's not like the least surprising thing this week. I think this to me is a dispute about vibes and personalities masquerading as a policy dispute. What I mean by that is in Thoropik, as you said, was the first company in the door to work with the Pentagon in a classified environment. There were no things that in Thoropik was doing with the Pentagon that either were either sidehead objections. Furthermore, there were no asks of the Pentagon of in Thoropik for the future that in Thoropik had an issue with. Essentially, what happened is after the Maduro operation, it sounds like somebody from in Thoropik called somebody from Palantir. Remember I said that the way that Claude is implemented operationally for the military right now is through this Palantir platform called Maven Smart System. So someone from in Thoropik calls somebody from Palantir up to be like, hey, did they use Claude in the Maduro operation and that they even asked the question. Apparently, like really set off alarm bells at the Pentagon and they were essentially to really simplify a bunch of things. They're like, why are these woke tumors asking all of these questions? This seems problematic and the dispute really escalates from that given the fact that there's no disagreement between the company and the Pentagon about any current use cases and the Pentagon is using Claude in Iran as has been like widely reported in the media calling them a supply chain risk, calling in Thoropik as a supply chain risk like Huawei means that the parts of any company that work with the federal government say like the part of Microsoft that works with the government, the part of Google that works with the government, etc. Isn't allowed to use Claude. So any company that part of the company that works with the government, it's now illegal in theory for them to you to them to work with Anthropik or in certainly to use Anthropik's technology directly. I mean, that seems like a big big deal for Anthropik right going forward. I mean, that could kill off a lot of contracts for them, no? I mean, it could be worse, I guess. I mean, they could have made it so that it was illegal to do business with Anthropik at all in that the say the say the part of Microsoft that doesn't work with the federal government still could work with Anthropik and so don't get me wrong. This is a big hit to Anthropik and this is a bad move in my view from a sort of free market kind of perspective because it means that the sort of best technology in the world from an American company is no longer going to be available either to the Pentagon in that like they gave a six month time frame for this to sort of happen and with other and for contractors who also are seeking to like work with the Pentagon like for more I said that is a win for China and a loss for in a loss for America and problematic from a free market perspective. I mean, just from the Anthropik perspective, do you understand why they would maybe have some questions? I mean, like this sort of like all lawful uses provision, what federal laws are there regulating AI use right now, right? Like isn't that part of the problem that the federal government is completely asleep at the switch when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence and then you have all these, you know, nerds out there telling us that this could be more powerful than the atomic bomb. I mean, like I don't understand what these companies are doing in practice and or the technology itself, but like the combination of those two things controlled by Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump like doesn't make me feel great. Totally fair. I just to be perfectly honest comparing AI to the atomic bomb is vaguely triggering and so I'm going to leave that one aside for them for the but the I think that the what this really reflects in some ways is a breakdown in trust between Anthropik and the Pentagon and that the Pentagon didn't trust that Anthropik would be there to re to Anthropik would be there for important national security use cases and Anthropik didn't trust that the government would use their technology responsibly. I will say I think I think one can have some sympathy for the Pentagon actually on parts on parts of this or like I certainly would have when I when I worked there at least and here's why when Lockheed sells like an F 35 or a missile to the Pentagon it's not like Lockheed gets to say like hey you could use this against like Cuba but like don't use it against Iran or or something or you know like or something like that the these these companies like sell a product to the Pentagon and the Pentagon then uses it the way that it the way that it sees fit. I think Anthropik is thinking about this more like terms of service in a software contract which is a thing in contracts with the Pentagon and they think that the and they think that once they sell that they have the right to tell the Pentagon like hey we want to sign a contract for you know like X set of use cases but not Y set of use cases and Anthropik has even said we will work with you on on like a something like how to make LLM ready for fully autonomous weapon systems but the but I think that it is not true to say that there's no law or policy that governs these topics and there's two layers of this one that has nothing to do with artificial intelligence so there's federal law and international treaties that require the U.S. to use force in ways that comply with international humanitarian law using things like you're ignoring left and right right but like but like but like those are bombing the fuck out of boats in the Caribbean like on the regular it's just no violation of international law yeah no argument absolutely no argument okay I just mean that in theory when it comes to like AI like the way that that boils down is essentially all uses for any use of force whether it's a bow and arrow a radar guided missile or an autonomous weapon system there has to be human responsibility and accountability for the use of force like for example in that like first boat operation back in September that was really I mean not that they're not all controversial but in the first one that got like got a lot of public attention you know attention focused on the specific military commander that authorized the second strike like there's always responsibility a human responsibility and that is true even in the case for an autonomous weapon system and that has nothing to do with any policies surrounding AI in particular it is also true that there is not law governing the Pentagon's use of AI for the most part well there is policy like the office that I used to work for in the Pentagon wrote the Pentagon's policy on autonomy and weapon systems it's called DOD directive 3,000.09 and more people have probably downloaded and read that directive and became experts on it in the last like two or three weeks then probably read it since it was like re-released in January 2023 and the and that does sort of set out pretty clear guidelines at least on the autonomous weapon system side for when it is that you could use them it's not law and andthropic did have questions I get yeah I mean I hear you on the compare like look if I were a combat and commander the idea of calling over to a tech company to say hey can we do this thing it you're right on some level it's untenable and unworkable on your Lockheed comparison I mean this is very imperfect I do think like Lockheed probably sells the US military F-35s assuming they will not be used to bomb Boston right and it's sort of like a bit of what it throttpix getting at I like to think so I like to think so you would like to think so not necessarily bomb Americans well like but so let's get at this other piece of this because then a competitor to Anthropic open AI they sweep in they ink a deal with the Pentagon to replace Anthropic you wrote in your financial times piece where you also got into these sort of bigger picture philosophical questions that they got 99% of the deal Anthropic wanted what does that mean in practice and what's the 1% that they didn't get and how relevant is it sure >> Sure, I think it's really interesting that OpenAI has gotten so much heat for this. I think that it's a timing question in some ways as much as it is a substance question. So like here's why. The OpenAI deal says that their technology can only be used through the cloud. It couldn't be used on the edge. And so you couldn't put an OpenAI model, say like into a weapon system directly and use it. If you were, now you could in theory then put an open, I guess in theory, put an OpenAI model in the cloud and have it be like directing a weapon to the target. But if you did that, it wouldn't be an autonomous weapon system. The thing that makes it an autonomous weapon system unless it's human supervised is that there is no data link. And that's because autonomous weapon systems are designed for say, I don't know, like a war in the Indo-Pacific where you might not have access to satellites and all of that data. And you want the weapon system to keep operating. And so if OpenAI's technology can only be used in the cloud and not on the edge, then actually it means that the autonomous weapon system without human supervision that their model simply can't wouldn't work for. On the surveillance side, it sounds like that I'm personally a little less expert and there do seem to be concerns that the technology, that the sort of deal that OpenAI side might not be quite as restrictive as what Anthropic wanted. But some of this, to the kind of like the back and forth, we are having about international law and about the Pentagon sort of in general. At some point, if you do business with the Pentagon, the business of the Pentagon is war. And if you don't trust that the Pentagon will follow its own rules, sort of, or laws, then you shouldn't, then it's like a tough look then to do business with the Pentagon and perhaps one shouldn't. - Yeah, I know, I think that's sort of a very real part of this that's getting less attention, which is like if Anthropic has, I don't know, if they're so concerned about how the Pentagon might use the models and maybe they shouldn't do business with the Pentagon period. Look, I think the reason OpenAI got so much blowback is because Sam Altman looked like a total scumbag and he swept in at the last moment and swept up a contract from his competitor and he's seen as someone who has been willing to kiss Trump's ass more than any other AI CEO and therefore he made a deal that it seems like Anthropic didn't want. It's also my understanding that maybe Anthropic was looking for their concerns to be handled in the contract where OpenAI is now saying, actually we're just gonna kind of like hard code the restrictions into the model and I think experts will then point out well then you can update the model down the road and maybe we'd probably never know about it, right? - Not wrong. You saw, I mean, I think that that's in some ways because there is no, if what you are worried about is that the Pentagon's going to misuse your technology. There's like two scenarios for misuse. One is that your technology would actually be very good at the thing that the Pentagon wants to do. In which case, there's actually, there's probably very little you could put in a contract that would stop them from doing it if they wish to violate the law. The second, and this is actually why I am personally less concerned on the autonomous weapon system side, is that the Pentagon could attempt to violate your contract but the, if like your correct that your technology isn't like ready to do the thing, that will come out in the Pentagon's own testing and evaluation process. Like the worst thing, like the last thing you would use in LLM4, like a large language model that like Claude or Czech GPT or something like that, is to put into an autonomous weapon system. If you want to build an autonomous weapon system, you should do that with a bespoke algorithm trained on a data set of very specific things like say Russian tanks or Chinese fighters or something like that. The idea that you would take a large language model trained on the slap of the internet and like plug it into a missile and like send that missile off. Like what are we even doing here? And I feel like either the Pentagon's testing and evaluation process should clearly reveal that, like, or we've got like bigger problems that have nothing to do with AI. - Yeah, that's where like sometimes I've just confused about this fight, like the mass surveillance piece of this really worries me because one, major limiting factor when you talk about, you know, preventing the mass surveillance of an entire population, let's say all Americans, was that it was prohibitively difficult to work with that much data. And I think AI has fundamentally changed that. But I guess my concern then would be about more about like contracts with the NSA or the CIA or other intelligence community components than the Pentagon. I was wondering what your read was on that kind of piece of this fight. - Yeah, I'm super worried about mass surveillance in the context of AI technology and the way that it could help de-identify a bunch of data that like law says that the, you're not supposed to have on the American people. I'm not worried about the Pentagon is the locus of the American mass surveillance state. I would be like much more worried maybe about like other departments and agencies that are in the news sometimes. And the, and so like I, and I think the, and I think the reaction of the Pentagon is telling in this context in that on the mass surveillance side, you can know, I mean to whatever extent one, like use them as credible like on this, and you know, like my literal trouble for different people, the like the Pentagon on the mass surveillance side is essentially like, how could you ever say that? Like we would never do that. That violates the fourth amendment. And I suspect that they probably genuinely think that. 'Cause again, I think other departments and agencies are a higher risk or maybe like an in between like the NSA. I guess if you really wanted to worry, but the man does the NSA have rules. The, the, if it wears their response to the autonomous weapon side, it's like, well, we totally wouldn't do that now. Like we agree with you, the tech isn't ready, but it might be at some point. Right. And inthropics like, yeah, that's why we want to work with you on that. Like, why are you kicking us out? Yeah, it's all, yeah, it just feels like the, the Pentagon, the Trump administration, they have one speed, which is to punch back as hard as humanly possible. And in, in so doing, escalated this fight. Yeah, I mean, look, this is like, the hexath Pentagon is on full send all the time. Like no matter what. Yep. And in that case, like this is like, going back to what I said before, that this is like really about vibes and personalities, which I think are, at least to me, like our discussion in some ways has illustrated the, you know, in that kind of like breakdown and trust. Like, how do you crawl down from here there? How do you climb down from here then? In some ways, if like, if we're talking about a Pentagon, that literally will never admit that it's wrong about anything. Yeah. And it's like rage tweeting at 5 p.m. or like 10 p.m. on a Friday night for no reason about this issue. Last sort of topic I want to talk about is, a lot of experts are very concerned about US weapons stockpiles. In particular, interceptor munitions that are being used in the Patriot missile systems and other systems to defend from Iranian missiles and drones. And then also some offensive US missile systems that you can get into. That is a problem in the near term with the war in Iran, especially for some of these Gulf states, which news reports are like within a week of running out of some of these interceptors. But more broadly, for our readiness as a country to fight the next war, especially at one with China, how worried are you about these stockpiles? And what do you make of these efforts to use new drones developed by the Ukrainians to defend from these Iranian drones, which have been used by Russia as a solve or a fix? Oh, what a short question. The, I mean, like call back to the last time I was on. I talked about how we are in the age of precise mass in war, where advances in AI and autonomy and commercial manufacturing and the fact that precision guidance is now a 50 year old technology. It means everyone can now access precision strength. And now we see that on display in Iran sort of every day when Iran fires these Shaheed 136 weapons, you know, like the Shaheed 136 is arguably the best precise mass system in the world. It can go like 1,500 to 2,000 kilometers. It can carry a, you know, 50 to 150 kilogram warhead. And unless you shoot it down, it gently depending on build quality will like hit the thing that it's aimed at. They can produce that for an average of $35,000. A Patriot missile costs about $4 million each. So now we're using like two Patriot missiles to shoot down a Shaheed and like we're trying to be better about that with a bunch of different kinds of things. And like the unit cost for say like Israel's Iron Dome is a little bit, is a little bit lower. But because Iran has thousands of these Shaheeds and it's just firing them off, everybody in the region with Patriot missile interceptors is now, is now using them. And so the US is in a position where and Iran is starting to target the radars that try to track those, that we use to ensure those missiles hit their target, which would mean if those get really damaged, you would need to fire even more to intercept a single thing. And add all of that up. And the US is running short missile defense interceptors, especially for the Indo-Pacific. But even in the context of the Middle East, if the US wants to sort of re-up the stockpiles of all of the Gulf states that have had our back in the context of this conflict, and so guess what? In some ways like China wins again. And while you focused more on the missile defense question, I'll note that the US has produced about the like, premier US cruise missile for like both of our professional lives has been called the Tomahawk missile. The US has produced about like 9,000 plus of them like over that time period there. If you look at like inventory based on uses over time for tirements, tests, et cetera, the US inventory might be like around 3,000 or even below. Frankly, at this point in decreasing rapidly, given the hundreds that the US has already used against Iran. And so we are running out of weapons. And in this age of precise mass, like that's a big problem, which is why the US needs to be producing itself then a lot more of these. low-cost weapons, our own precise mass systems, like the Lucas, which the U.S. debuted against Iran for the first time, and it's actually reverse engineered from an Iranian weapon, so a little bit of ironing there. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, when you say low-cost weapons, you don't mean that the T-lams are the Tomahawks, do you mean these new modern drones? No, like the Lucas system essentially is the U.S. equivalent of the Shaheed, so the Lucas system costs the U.S., like $35 to $50,000 a pop, which is really different than a Tomahawk missile that costs about $2 million each on average, and because you can produce them with commercial manufacturing, like the Lucas, that the Lucas arounds that the U.S. is using in the Middle East, were produced by like Spectra Warps, like a tiny company in Scottsdale with like 13 employees, not like Raytheon or Lockheed, shows that you could really scale production of these kinds of things in a way that would give, you know, future American leaders like a lot more, like, depth, and a lot more, and a lot more options. And so on the Ukrainian front, I mean, the Ukrainians have been dealing with the Iranians provided Russia with the Shaheed drones, and now, you know, the Ukrainians will have swarms of them, fired at Ukrainian cities, you know, maybe dozens, maybe even hundreds of them at a time. And so one option they have evolved to deal with that threat is low-cost drones of their own, which basically are, like, hunt these drones. Can you talk about that technology, how effective it is, and how quickly we might be able to put that to use in this conflict with Iran, if at all? Yeah, absolutely. Like, you think about, like, if we have currently been using, you know, four million dollar interceptors to shoot down, like, not just Shaheeds, but things that are slightly more expensive, but still maybe, like, like, a running ballistic missiles that might be, say, I don't know, like, half a million dollars each, or something like that, the, the, you need something cheaper then. Otherwise, the cost curve just isn't in your favor. And you've got a couple of options if you want the cost curve to be really low. The first, and this has been, like, the dream of the 1980s, like on repeat, is lasers. Like, you could use directed energy, microwave weapons, things like that, where the cost per shot is super low, and now you've got options to try to take down these systems, like Israel used Iron Beam, which is their short-range laser defense system. I think maybe for the first time, operationally, in the context of this. Re-reasonally, right? Yeah. Yeah, this particular conflict with Iran, your other option is to try to come up with a really low-cost interceptor. And there are a bunch of different companies that have been working on this, including, you know, companies like Andrewl, some of the new defense tech companies in the, in the United States. But like, like you said, look, the Ukrainians live this every day, and no one is more incentivized to do it. And so the Ukrainians have these sort of hit a bullet with a bullet, really inexpensive, like, $1,000 to $10,000 a piece defense systems. They have a bunch of different kinds of them. And, you know, it looks like the U.S. is now importing a bunch of them, because the U.S. actually purchased some of them from Ukraine to test them out and see how they work. And so those that the U.S. purchased are now heading to the Middle East. But now there's a prospect that the U.S. will get even more from Ukraine and that Ukrainian trainers are going to come help those people. And that's actually really promising. But again, remember, I said like China's the winner and all of this up before. It's hard to see, I mean, unless this makes the Trump administration feel really favorable toward Ukraine and then re-up them from a weapons perspective, the like, Patriot missile interceptor inventory going way down around the world is really bad for Ukraine, who needs more of those interceptors for when their inexpensive solutions fail to protect them from not like the Russian Shaheed variant necessarily, but say, like, Russian hypersonics and Russian ballistic missiles that they also fire at Ukraine on a regular basis. Well, yeah, no, I'm glad we kicked off this Iran war to just inject more chaos in dysfunction and horror into the world. It feels like that's what we're missing. It was just another theater of war, you know, we really needed this right now. We're off to a great start in 2026. What can I say? Being a great start, bomb in eight countries in 15 or 16 months, President Trump, the president of peace, the fee for peace prize winner. I can come back when Q was next, you know, listen, there might have been a deal cut. Hopefully, maybe that won't happen, but I know we've got to get Lindsey Graham off TV. He's talking about invading literally everything. My core was to thank you so much for doing the show. Really appreciate it. You've made us a lot smarter on this topic and many other things. We appreciate your time. Thanks for having me. Thanks again to my core. What's for doing the show? And I'll see you guys next week unless we record something sooner. You never know. It's not possible. Potsy of the world is a crooked media production. Our senior producer is Alonam and Koski. Our producer is Michael Goldspin. Our associate producer is Anisha Banerjee. We get production support from Saul Rubin, our executive producers, our Meetan Meetor, and Ben Rhodes. The show is engineered, mixed and edited by Jordan Cantor, audio support by Kyle Seglund and Charlotte Landis. Thank you to our digital team Ben Hefko, Mia Kelman, William Jones, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Peter and Hill is our senior vice president of Do's and Politics. If you want to listen to Potsy of the World, add free and get access to exclusive podcasts. Go to Crooked.com/Friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substac, YouTube, or Apple podcasts. Don't forget to follow us at CrookedMedia on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers, and other community events. Please subscribe to Potsy of the World on YouTube for access to full episode, bonus content, and much more. And if you're opinionated like us, leave a review. Our production staff is proudly unionized by the writers' guild of America East.