← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
INSIDE HORMUZ CRISIS & TRUMP’S 15-POINT PEACE PLAN
01:13:02
Loading summary
Transcript62 lines
- [00:01]
A
Tax act is here anytime you want to easily file your taxes. Tax act is here for the early birds who like to knock them out as soon as the season opens and for the procrastinators who like to wait until the very last minute. Tax act is also here for the midlers who file right in the middle of tax season. No one ever talks about the Midlers. But TaxAct sees you and Taxact respects you. Taxact. Let's get them over with.
- [00:32]
B
Operation Epic Fury has been a showcase of American military dominance. Iran's air defenses have been turned to scrap. Their navy is on the ocean floor. Their IRGC command structure has been decapitated. So from a purely military standpoint, this has been a huge success. But Iran had a backup plan and it is working. They slammed shut the strait of Hormuz. 20% of the world's oil supply gone overnight. Energy prices are spiking and the global economy is rattled. Joining us today is Mike Baker. Now, Mike spent 17 years as a CIA covert operations officer, a premier specialist in counterterrorism, intelligence and Middle Eastern geopolitics. And he's going to help us break it all down. Here is the story behind the story on the Hormuz blockade and Trump's 15 point peace proposal. Let's get into it. Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. All right, guys, it's April 2026 and we're now roughly a month into the joint American and Israeli military campaign against Iran. And right now we're witnessing a dangerous high stakes stalemate. So militarily, the allied coalition has established absolute supremacy. Over the past few weeks, the US And Israeli stealth platforms have systematically dismantled Iran's integrated air defense system. We've basically turned their Russian made S300 and domestic Bavar 373 missile batteries into burning scrap. The skies are uncontested and the coalition then went to work on the sea. Right. So the Iranian conventional navy, along with the IRGC's fast attack swarm fleets are effectively neutralized. Their kilo class submarines are sunk at the pier in Bandar Abbas. And their coastal missile boats have been turned into artificial reefs. Precision bunker buster munitions have decapitated the IRGC's senior leadership and obliterated the command and control hubs that are directing proxy forces across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. American air power has comprehensively degraded Iran's conventional military machine. So from the sky, Operation Epic Fury is flawlessly executing its mission. But here's the catch. Economically, the war has the potential to bleed out of control. Iran has fully activated its asymmetric playbook. So they realize that they can't win a conventional firefight. And the regime has dug in and effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz. So they've traded their air defenses for a stranglehold on global shipping, which has triggered a massive spike in energy prices. And it's sending shockwaves through Wall Street, London and Tokyo. Now, the allied forces have the military advantage, but Tehran is betting that they can inflict enough economic pain to force the west to blink first. So maybe you're wondering, like I was with the most powerful military in the world, why doesn't the US Just simply sail in, take over the strait, and guarantee the free flow of oil? It sounds like a straightforward display of American naval supremacy. But with closer examination, military planners will tell you that a physical takeover of the Strait of Hormuz isn't just improbable, it is a strategic and economic trap. So first you gotta look at the map. The Strait of Hormuz is essentially a closed loop. There's one way in and there's one way out. And at its narrowest point, the water's just 21 nautical miles, which is about 24 statute miles. However, because of how shallow the water is and the need for regulated traffic, the actual navigable shipping lanes are about 2 miles wide in either direction. Now, when you look at the coastline that is Iran, it's not flat and sandy. This is the Zagros Mountain range. And it looks exactly as it sounds. So it's a jagged, elevated, incredibly rugged coastline that's heavily indented with caves and coves and hardened military bunkers. So in military terms here, Iran holds the ultimate high ground. And because the strait is so impossibly narrow, any ship that's transiting these waters is forced right up against the coastline, which traps it in a geographic kill zone. So because of this geography, the United States Navy loses almost all of its critical tactical advantage, which would be reaction time. We have no reaction time. If there's a threat that's launched from a hidden mountain cave, it doesn't have to travel far. So. So if an anti ship cruise missile or drone comes skimming low over the water, our most advanced naval defense systems, they have seconds to detect, track, and engage that target. Human operators can't physically react that fast. And even automated systems are gonna be pushed to their absolute breaking point when the enemy is launching from the frigging coastline. So picture this, right, you've got an American destroyer and it's transiting the strait, and suddenly 50 highly maneuverable, heavily armed, fast attack Boats swarm out of hidden coastal inlets, while simultaneously, midget submarines begin hunting beneath the surface. And then you've got the naval mines that are dumped directly into that narrow two mile shipping lane. But the most modern and terrifying threat is gonna be from the sky. So we're talking about swarms of loitering munitions. Suicide drones. And these drones, they're cheap, right? They can be launched by the dozens from the backs of regular commercial trucks that are hidden on the shore. And here's the brutal an incoming drone can cost about 20 grand. But the US standard missile fire to intercept that drone costs several million dollars. And furthermore, our ships only carry a finite number of interceptors in their tubes. So if the enemy launches 100 shib drones simultaneously and a destroyer only has 90 missiles ready to fire, 10 of those drones are going to get through. But let's assume the impossible. So let's assume that the US Navy flawlessly runs the gauntlet and defeats every threat and secures the water. We still lose. And here's why. Because the mission isn't to protect American warships. The mission is to protect commercial oil tankers. And these super tankers, they're massive, incredibly slow moving behemoths, and they possess zero onboard defenses. They've got no radar jamming equipment, no no automated Gatling guns, no ability to take evasive maneuvers. They're unarmored floating bombs. And the US Military can't physically attach a billion dollar destroyer to every single commercial vessel that's moving through the gulf. So all it would take is one cheap drone slipping through the net or one dumb mine striking a hole to blow a hole in a fully loaded super taker. And the result is, is instant. You got a catastrophic fire, an unprecedented environmental disaster, and a burning wreck that completely blocks a narrow two mile lane for everyone else for God knows how long. Which brings us to the ultimate reality of global trade. So the decision of whether the strait stays open doesn't actually get made at the Pentagon or even in Tehran. It's being made right now by executives in business suites in London. Commercial shipping runs entirely on maritime insurance. So if a vessel's hull and cargo aren't insured, it does not legally sail. Period. End of story. So if the US Military fired the first shot in an attempt to take over the strait, the entire region would instantly be classified as an active war zone and maritime insurance would evaporate overnight. Shipping companies could try to obtain a special war risk coverage, but just one look at a defenseless super tanker that's crawling through a drone infested two mile corridor is going to send premiums into the millions of dollars per voyage. It's just not viable. The math doesn't math. Ship owners will simply radio their captains and order them to drop anchor in the Arabian Sea. So you can see what a mess this is. By using military force to keep the strait open, the United States would instantly trigger the exact scenario it's trying to prevent, which is a total shutdown of global energy markets and a catastrophic economic crash. But what about air power? Surely the most advanced air force in the world, Stealth fighters, strategic bombers, round the clock surveillance drones, could simply bomb the threat into oblivion from above. The answer is still frustratingly no. And Iran has spent decades engineering exactly that frustration. So that truck problem I mentioned, that alone is pretty much unsolvable. Iran's coastal drone and missile launches, they don't require a military base or a fixed installation. They come from the backs of ordinary commercial trucks that can then go anywhere along hundreds of miles of rugged coastline. Even with 247 surveillance overhead, you just can't guarantee that you can locate and destroy every launcher before it fires. You'd have to be perfect every single time. And Iran only needs to get lucky once. So for heavier, more powerful weapons, Iran's gone underground. Literally. They've constructed vast networks of fortified tunnels and underground complexes that are buried beneath hundreds of feet of solid rock. This is what Iranian commanders openly call missile cities and standard aerial bombs. Well, they can crater the surface, but that accomplishes nothing. And of course, we do possess specialized bunker buster munitions that are capable of penetrating deep earth. But Iran has built so many of these dispersed underground facilities that destroying them all would be a long, grinding and inherently imperfect campaign. And here's the deeper problem that air power can't solve. Iran's coastal defense is deliberately decentralized. Missiles, drones, and fast boats are dispersed across hundreds of locations from mountain roads to fishing villages to civilian infrastructure. There is no single command center to destroy. There's no air based Runway to crater that would collapse the entire system. Local commanders are empowered to act independently. So bombing Tehran doesn't stop a truck on the coast from launching a drone an hour later. And finally, there's the grim arithmetic of attrition. So even if you destroy a launcher, Iran holds a solid stockpile of missiles and drones that they've built up over years of sanctioned Zera self sufficiency. You're not just going to destroy hardware. You're in a race to degrade their capacity faster than they can use it. And while tankers are trying to Transit, right now, today. This does not work. So an air campaign in this instance doesn't avoid the war, it just starts it from a different direction and still it ends in the same place. So ultimately, the only way to physically secure that narrow strip of water is to completely eliminate the threat from the shore. And this is why so many are saying that to actually take over the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be forced to launch a full scale land invasion of southern Iran to carve out a massive coastal buffer zone. Well, we now know that Iran is a mountainous nation of 92 million people. It's larger in land mass than France, Germany, the UK and Spain combined. It's almost the size of Alaska, it's twice the size of Texas. So the justifiable fear is that this could demand a brutal, protracted, trillion dollar ground war that would dwarf previous Middle Eastern conflicts. And nobody, and I mean nobody, wants this. Which brings us to Trump's 15 point peace plan for Iran, a quiet parallel effort that's been moving through the diplomatic corridors of Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. Right now in Islamabad, Pakistan, American emissary Steve Witkoff has delivered a blueprint for peace to the regime in Tehran, Iran. It's a sweeping 15 point proposal, a document that demands profound concessions from the Islamic Republic in exchange for economic survival. Because the fate of global markets and perhaps the lives of thousands are hanging in the balance, it's vital that we understand exactly what's in this document. So here's what the US Is asking of Iran. First, and most critically, the nuclear question. The proposal demands that Tehran permanently abandon any pursuit of a nuclear weapon or all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil must cease immediately. And furthermore, Iran must surrender its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which is around 450 kg, to the international Atomic Energy Agency. The fortified facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and the deeply buried bunkers at Fordow have to be dismantled. And in their place, the IAEA has to be granted full unrestricted and permanent access to verify compliance. Second, the dismantling of the proxy network. So we know for decades, Iran has fought its battles through a decentralized web of regional militias. Well, the American plan demands a complete secession of this strategy. So Tehran has to immediately cut off all funding, all arming and operational direction to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, et cetera. Third, the Strait of Hormuz. So, as mentioned, currently the Iranian military has placed a chokehold on this vital artery of global commerce, demanding extortion payments and Chinese yuan for safe passage. Well, the 15 point plan requires Iran to immediately reopen the Strait, restoring it as a free, unrestricted international maritime corridor. And fourth, the ballistic missile program. So the document insists that Iran severely curtail the production and range of its ballistic missiles, legally binding the nation to restrict any future use of these weapons strictly to self defense of its own borders. And if, and only if, the Iranian regime agrees to these terms, Washington has outlined a series of significant concessions. So the United States agreed that they would lift the crippling international sanctions that have suffocated the Iranian economy. And furthermore, America and and its allies would assist Iran in developing a strictly civilian nuclear energy program allowing for electricity generation. And this would happen at the Bushehr plants, provided the nuclear fuel is processed and stored outside of Iranian territory. Then you've got the arguably most controversial proposal, and this is the permanent removal of the diplomatic snapback mechanism. So for those of you who don't know what this is, the snapback is the West's ultimate veto proof weapon.
- [15:28]
A
Weapon.
- [15:28]
B
It guarantees that if Iran ever cheats on a nuclear agreement, the US can instantly force the United nations to slam crippling global sanctions back on Tehran's economy. And neither Russia or China can veto it. So by offering to remove this, Washington is assuring Tehran that sanctions won't automatically be reimposed on a whim. But it also means that America is trading away its best diplomatic leverage. So those are the terms that are laid upon the table in Islamabad. It's a stark choice between economic rehabilitation and military degradation. And this is the chasm between war and peace. Is it rapidly narrowing or is it growing rapidly? Well, President Trump says there's been major progress. However, the word from Tehran indicates that the regime has rejected the proposal, labeling it a maximalist demand for total surrender. And in turn, they've issued their own demands and they're insisting on absolute sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, financial reparations for the damage inflicted by the recent strikes, and a total withdrawal of American and Israeli forces before any ceasefire can begin. And then there's the ultimate plot twist. We're hearing through these back channels that Tehran doesn't want to talk to Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner anymore. And they blame Witkoff's team for the collapse of the nuclear talks right before the war started, citing a massive deficit of trust. And instead, this gets interesting. Iran is explicitly demanding to negotiate with Vice President J.D. vance, whom they perceive as being more inclined to wrap this foreign conflict up quickly. Well, with the lines drawn, the American media has gone into overdrive, spinning this 15 point plan in two completely different directions. So on the left, the establishment media is framing this as a desperate scramble by the administration to save a tanking global economy. They're hammering the hypocrisy of giving up the snapback mechanism, and they're arguing that we're surrendering our ultimate leverage to Tehran just to get them to the table. And they pointed the Strait of Hormuz blockade as proof that Iran actually holds the geoeconomic power and that our envoys are getting played by these intermediaries. Conversely, on the right, conservative media is treating this as a masterclass in peace through strength. So they're focusing on the severe demands that have been placed on Iran, like the total dismantling of their nuclear bunkers. And they're framing this not as a negotiation, but as terms of a surrender that's forced upon Tehran by the overwhelming success of Operation Epic Fury. And to them, the UN Snapback doesn't matter when you have bunker buster bombs. And they see this as a necessary showdown to stop China from using Iran to destroy the US Dollar. So is the left right that we're desperately surrendering our leverage, or is the right correct that we're forcing a total capitulation, or is it a combo of both? And what does it mean that Iran is trying to bypass Witkoff to get to the Vice President, and even more to the point, who's even negotiating on behalf of Iran? Well, to get to the bottom of all of this, today we're joined by one of my favorite analysts and a great friend of the show, Mike Baker. So Mike has spent 17 years as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. He's a premier specialist in global counterterrorism, intelligence and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He's uniquely qualified to give us a deep, factual analysis on the current war with Iran that is completely free from political opinions, media spin, or government agendas. Just the raw intelligence on what's actually happening. Here we go. I've been doing a little spring reset with my closet lately, focusing more on quality over quantity. I've been building a wardrobe of pieces that are well made, versatile, and easy to reach for every day. Which is why I keep coming back to quints. Their fabrics are elevated, the fits are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes beautiful, everyday pieces using premium materials like 100% European linen, organic cotton, and super soft denim with styles starting around 50 bucks. And their spring pieces are lightweight, breathable, effortless. The kind of things you can throw on and instantly look put together. And that same focus on materials carries over into their accessories. They've got leather bags which are made from 100% hand woven Italian leather and honestly look way more expensive than they actually are. And this is because Quince works directly with ethical factories to cut out the middleman. So you're paying for quality, not brand markup. So refresh your spring wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com Jillian for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. So go to q U-I-N-E.com Jillian for free shipping AND 365 day returns. Quints.com Jillian Hey, Bill O'Reilly here.
- [20:35]
A
Please check out my new interview series.
- [20:37]
B
We'll do it live.
- [20:39]
A
Each Thursday, I sit down with the most influential people in America. We're a no spin chat, no script.
- [20:47]
B
Anything could happen.
- [20:50]
A
You can find We'll do it live on Billorilly.com, youTube or wherever you download your podcast.
- [21:00]
B
The New York Post has been delivering impactful headlines for over two centuries. And every weekday morning, I'll bring them straight to you. I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Post, cast from Washington to Wall Street. If it matters to you, you'll hear it here. And it wouldn't be the Post without the stories other outlets like to ignore. So ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast, listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Mike, off the top, who would Trump even be talking with? I'm exceptionally confused because there are some reports that the IRGC is going rogue. Then there's like 88 clerics trying to decide if there's a new ayatollah. But then there's the ayatollah's gay son. But then there's the president who's in charge of Iran.
- [21:49]
A
Yeah, I had told us. Gay son. Yeah. Whom we haven't seen, who is, you know, doing his best impersonation of reigns at this point. Look, you're right to point out the confusion because that has been the concern for at least a couple of weeks, probably a little bit longer as to who actually is pulling the, the strings there in Iran. And, and that's important because you need to know who to talk to. Right. And who has the authority and the credibility. You know, you could probably find someone to, you know, talk with. But if they don't have the ability to complete a deal or negotiate on behalf of everyone else in that existing leadership, then you've got a problem. So the ADA clerics, you Referred to, that's what they call the assembly of Experts. Their job pretty much done was to nominate and announce a successor to the now dead former supreme leader. And so they chose his son, Mostaba, who in all, you know, other normal scenarios would never have been chosen. He wouldn't have been selected. But given the circumstances of this conflict in the war, I think he ended up getting that, that job. Now, no one's seen him. He hasn't made any public appearances, hasn't given any speeches. Anything that he said has been through written statement read by others. And now there's obviously been a lot of speculation about how badly injured he was in that strike that killed his father and other family members and a variety of others. So having said that, all reporting indicates that the irgc, the Revolutionary Guard Corp, has essentially been calling the shots since shortly after this, this conflict kicked off. And they've cemented their position at the top of the heap there in Iran. And that's important because the IRGC is, you know, it's a very hard line operation. Right. So ideally, the US Administration would be looking for somebody who they would consider a moderate. Now, moderate's a relative term in Iran, and it's been thrown about in the past with certain officials there and said, well, he's a moderate leader. It's all nonsense. You know, again, in our mind, our Western values, there's nothing moderate about somebody in a position of leadership in Iran. They got there because they were part of this brutal, repressive regime. So the person that he's likely talking to, and they've alluded to this in the past and they've mentioned the name several times, is a fellow named Muhammad Bakr Kaliblav. And now he's the speaker of the parliament in Iran. And he's a hardliner. He was with the Revolutionary Guard Corps. He was, he fought in the Iran Iraq war. He was a former chief of police, a mayor of Tehran. He was directly responsible and involved in the repression of student protests in the past. There's nothing moderate about him or reformist about him. So if, in fact that he is the individual that they are indeed negotiating with, if they imagine that he's a moderate, then they're, they're mistaken. But they're trying to find somebody because they want to declare victory and get out.
- [25:15]
B
Yep. Okay.
- [25:17]
A
That was a very long winded answer to your question.
- [25:20]
B
No. Well, it helps a ton because Trump is claiming as proof that he's getting somewhere, that he got, I think it was like eight boats, then two more boats of oil then something like they let 10 more boats go through. So it seems like there's up to 20 boats of oil. And it's like, see, they're trying to show us that they want peace. And I've got proof that whoever I'm talking to can be effective. Do you think that Trump is actually getting somewhere?
- [25:49]
A
I think that they are, in fact, talking to individuals. I do think it's probably Kalibov, you know, primarily. I'm sure there's others who have been, you know, approached indirectly, probably not directly. The Pakistanis have been aggressively trying to position themselves as potential mediators here and hosting potential negotiations. But I'm sure there's been conversations going on. This is not the first conflict we've ever been involved with. And there is some truth to the fact that, you know, the, the existing leadership of Iran, it's still the Islamic Republic, right? It's still this. It's the same regime, just different faces, staffing positions. But they are, you know, they are at some point going to be very concerned about losing the ability to control their population, because at some point, you know, they may feel like, look, this is it. And now you. You again, as with everything, it's complicated. Right. I get why President Trump would be saying, if you don't do a deal, we're going to blow up your energy infrastructure. He actually also said, maybe the desalination plants, that's a bad idea. Don't deprive people of water. But going after all that energy infrastructure, yes, it strangles the existing regime's revenue stream, primarily, but then it also. What does it do to the people? The people are like, really? Now you've gone to this point, Is this what you meant when you said, help is on the way now you put us in complete blackout and we have nothing. And even if we were to be able to rise up somehow and reclaim our own country from this repressive regime, now we have nothing. Our energy infrastructure is destroyed. I don't know. I think there's. There's a lot of thought in the White House that they would really hate to go that route. So, again, I think that what they're looking to do is, you know, they can make a very good claim. Anybody on the left who says, you know, that this has been a disaster doesn't understand to the degree that we've destroyed the regime's military capabilities, not just now, but going forward in terms of their manufacturing facilities for munitions hardware, to keep their military going. So that's. That's a victory, Right? If the, if the left is just saying, well, look, you've got the straight of Hormuz and you don't have regime change. Okay, fine. But they have had a victory in the military side of things, and their ability to degrade that regime so badly that it's going to take years and years and years for them to rebuild.
- [28:38]
B
So Trump could technically just back out right now and say, look, I did what I wanted. There's no hope of a nuclear weapon. It'll take years. I'm just going to quietly exit and say, it's over. That is an option. And second, do you think these boats actually went through the strait? Because he's claiming, like, I got all these boats of oil. Is that, is there any chance that's not true?
- [29:05]
A
No, it's true. But, you know, again, like, with everything, it's always a little bit more layered. You know, those tankers, most of them were linked to Pakistan, and, you know, Pakistan has been like India and like China. They've still been on the receiving end of oil. It's not that nothing's been getting through the strait. Iranian oil has been moving through that strait, again, mostly to China and some to India and Pakistan. And so just the fact that tankers are moving through, doesn't you have to then look at, well, where is it moving through, too? And, and why. Right. It's not like anything associated with the west, you know, or, or, you know, the US Is getting through it. So this is, this is the problem.
- [29:48]
B
And you know what?
- [29:49]
A
I'll be honest with you. It's. It is a bit surprising in a way, and I think, I hope I'm reading this wrong, but to me, it was a bit surprising that the administration, the US Administration seemed a little surprised that it all came down to the straight and that oil prices were climbing up towards $116 a barrel and gas is over $4 a gallon now. The first time in four years, five years. And so, because it was always going to come down to the strait, because that's really the only leverage that the Iranian regime has to impact the international community. And so we, I'm sure that the Pentagon explained that to the White House repeatedly in terms of the scenarios that could develop once we started kicking some backside out there that this was going to happen. They've created chaos in the strait before. They've always threatened that they'll blockade the strait. So we knew this was going to happen. It does seem a little bit like we were reactive to it. Right. Rather than saying, okay, you're doing exactly what we expect you to do now, here is our step, here's what we're doing. Instead, we have seemed, and I think that's where the Democrats, that's where the left has kind of latched onto and said, oh look, it's chaos. Well, it's not really chaos, but I will say that, you know, could we have set the table better perhaps with our allies to get them on board early then? Yeah, we probably could have.
- [31:24]
B
That's my next question is now supposedly the Iranians are even charging these extortion fees to the Chinese. And I'm thinking, okay, well you're going to force. If that's the case, China's your ally. You're obviously right. If you're Iran, why are you putting them in that position? And it does seem a little bit like Trump is gonna let this pain point go on for a bit longer. Cuz he's like, well, we don't get our oil from the Strait of Hormuz. Having said that, though, we've all seen that it's a global economy with oil and the price goes up everywhere. But I wondered like, is he playing a little bit of chicken here, saying to our allies, I think it's gonna hurt you more than it's gonna hurt us. I'm betting you're going to get in the game. Or like, why is, why is Iran charging fees? When does anybody else get involved? I guess that's what I'm asking. Does anybody else get involved?
- [32:21]
A
Yeah, it's a really, it's, it's a really interesting question. Right? It's a very important question. I, I don't know that it's, I, I would want to see more corroborated information that, that definitively says the Iranians are charging the, the Chinese regime or Xi Jinping and the Communist Party for moving oil. You know, I think, I think that would be, that's a very interesting development, but I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate at this point because the Iranians really have very few friends and certainly the Chinese, you know, you never really want to say they're your friend. They're very opportunistic and they'll always do whatever is in their own best interest, which frankly, you know, every nation should do. But that's an interesting point as to when the allies and the Gulf states jump in. That's what I mean by setting the table. If we had approached them in early days and you know, you're not going to give them operational details about when you're going to, you know, get on target. But you, you have these quiet conversations with them and say, this is the way it's going to be. And by the way, undoubtedly, we're going to see the blockade or them attempt to. In the straight. Here's, you know, what we would propose. Here's why we, you know, we're asking for your support, by the way. We are degrading their military and, and minimizing the threat, and that benefits everyone. So how about a little assistance? But I think, you know, at this stage, President Trump is now talking about, well, maybe declare victory, you know, and not worry about whether the straits open or not and kind of throw it at the rest of the world and say, you know, we did our part, you do your part. That's problematic. Look, this, this idea of opening the strait through an escort system, through an international naval force that provides sea and air cover for tankers moving through the strait, that's a very complex thing. Could we do it? We could do it, but then for how long?
- [34:34]
B
Right, right. It's seemingly. It isn't even cost effective. I've learned that, like, a $20,000 drone can cost us up to a million dollars to blow up. It makes no sense. And I see that. But. So, Mike, what happens then? Cause, so you've got this peace plan in it. Is there any. Do you think there's any chance there's somebody in Iran that is like the person in Venezuela that goes, you know what? I think I am gonna play ball with the West. I'm not as ideological as I thought that I was. I don't mind sitting on top of this country comfortably and being the new leader and driving 15 Lamborghinis. Like, is there a corrupt person in there that takes the peace deal or are they just so ideologically captured there's no hope of that?
- [35:35]
A
Yeah, yeah, it's tough to. You can't put the, the experience from Venezuela and layer that on top of Iran and think you're going to get the same result. You just can't. It's not. There's no, there's no real comparisons there. And I think perhaps the US Administration was somewhat intoxicated with the experience from Venezuela, at least to date. Obviously, it's an ongoing experiment, but you can't do that. There's no defined, credible, identifiable opposition in, in Iran. You know, it's very interesting and not to bang on about this, but I find over the past couple of days, the White House has been working on a new narrative. Right. They're rolling it out and they've kind of put the memo out and said, and every administration does this, right? You get your talking points out there, everybody starts repeating it. The idea is we're working with a new regime. We're talking to a new regime, right? And. And, you know, we. We find them, you know, reasonable. And you think that's what the word they use. You think, it's not a new regime. This is the old regime. Still, the Islamic Republic get different faces. You know, deck chairs have been rearranged. But, and again, make no mistake, this is. I, I think in. In all the Gulf states, the players out there, a lot there's, you know, there's this fairly unanimous thought that the world and certainly that region would be far better off without the Iranian regime. And every US administration since 79 has just kicked this can down the road and, and refused to deal with it, thinking somebody else deal with it. We'll put together this. Some ridiculous, you know, agreement, which they never stick with. Right. There is no reason to have 60% enriched uranium if you are claiming that you have a civilian, peaceful nuclear program. Nothing over 5% makes sense. You don't need it. And yet they've been stockpiling it. Getting from 60% of weapons grade is the easy lift. So it's about time. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying it's far more complicated at times than I think the administration seems to be explaining.
- [37:52]
B
Right. You know, because as a layman, you look at this and you go, okay, these guys are monsters. They're Hitlerian. The Saudi crown prince likened the Ayatollah to Hitler, for goodness sake. So they're bad guys. I'm not worried about this whole leftist, hands off of Iran Western imperialism. That's absurd. These are bad guys. That's, of course, secondary is if the Iranian people could know freedom, that would be wonderful. Then it's like, well, the Israelis pulled all these strings. And I'm thinking, surely we're not that stupid. Obviously, it would help the Israelis. But I highly doubt that Trump is gonna risk basically his entire life doing this before the midterms to either have this catastrophic blunder that destroys his presidency, that loses the midterms, that gets him impeached, that could put him in jail. Like, he must clearly think that there is a real problem. The 60% uranium. That one to me is like, okay, you're right. Any normal, average person, based on hearing what you just said, goes, all right, that's a threat. Then you have that missile that traveled 4,000 kilometers that we didn't know they were capable of that. Went after a UK base and it's like, all right, wow. We didn't know they could do that. So the threat piece, I'm thinking it's a matter of time. Why do you want to wait until they're stronger? But where it becomes such a quagmire, and this is the part that I can definitely see the critics on the right and the left as you're talking about, is the straight. So knowing, right, at some point, someone's gotta deal with it. Okay, if we're gonna give it all of that. They're a threat, they're a problem. They're disrupting the peace across the Middle East. They're the number one funders of terror. I'm so on board just watching what has happened to the Iranian people. But now here we are, which is what everyone said was going to happen. That was a critic. So what does he do? I mean, we've sat here and we've analyzed, like, all right, military, not really an option. Ask the allies to jump in. They're not really jumping in. We've got this peace plan. We don't even really know who we're dealing with. And they're certainly not moderate. So honest to God, what do you think happens, given all of that?
- [40:08]
A
Yeah, it's, I mean, look, this is, this is the problem, right? You can't, you can drop all sorts of scenarios, but at some point you're, you don't have the only say in this. Right? There's other, like the, the problem with it straight is that it's not just us, Iran, right? It's, it's the shipping and insurance industries. And if they say it's not worth the risk, suddenly tankers aren't moving or they have to reroute and it's much more expensive. And suddenly global energy markets get, you know, sideways, and suddenly you're, you know, you're paying 200 bucks to fill up your truck. So, and that's politically untenable. So you, you have to. Again, I, I, I've got tremendous faith in, in the military leadership at the Pentagon, right, in terms of all those mid and senior level officers who came out of the, the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, right? And they've moved up and now they're in senior positions and they've had real world experience and they understand how complex things are and how layered things can be. And so I have to assume that there was a lot of thought put behind this. But the honest to God answer is there's no real good answers. Right? You Take the least bad scenario here in terms of what do you do with the straight to try to calm the energy markets if, if that's your goal, to ensure that, you know, you don't have an energy crisis in Europe or Asia or frankly in the US because again, everything's connected. You know, look, they're paying $10 a gallon in Europe or thereabouts. Imagine what that would look like here. Right? So it's, you know, I think that they've got the assault forces out there, a couple of marine expeditionary units, the 82nd Airborne elements, a lot of assets. So are they looking at various options? Seize some of the small islands that the Iranians use to help control the strait. But the strait's big, right. They've also shown their ability to create chaos in the Gulf. So it's not just the straight portion. And so what does that look like and how long do you do it for? Your top line, best result here would have been if the regime had toppled. Right. And I think that there was a lot of hope at the start of this that that would happen. But hope's a tough thing to pin a strategy on.
- [42:40]
B
Yep. Lululemon knows the two times you'll love your everyday pants the most are when they're brand new and when they're broken in. Lululemon's new Easy 5 pants are designed to let you enjoy both feelings at the very same time. Because Easy5 is the brand new pant that delivers a broken in feel from day one. Engineered with the structure you want and the touch of stretch you need, Easy five casually outperforms denim shop now in store or online athletic innovation for everyday life. Lululemon Quick break.
- [43:11]
A
One useful thing to share. I thought TikTok was just dances. Turns out it's where I learned how to save money, fix stuff, and get real tips. Short videos, real people. Download TikTok now.
- [43:26]
B
Okay, I see what you're saying.
- [43:27]
A
That's really cheery on my part.
- [43:28]
B
Presuming this is man, presuming that there is some negotiation, there's a lot of criticism with regard to removing this snapback, which I guess allowed us to put immediate sanctions back on Iran, we would be giving that up. What are your thoughts on that part? Should, should this peace plan go through? Does that make sense to you or is that dangerous?
- [43:58]
A
Well, if we had really verified information about the state of their nuclear program, and we have much better insight into their. The degradation of their missile program. But part of this is, you know, it comes down to what does victory look like, Right? I guess if the, if the metrics at the outset, if we had explained to the American people and the EU and others that here's what we're doing, we're engaged in this because we believe that the nuclear program tied to that ballistic missile program is a threat to global peace and stability. That's why we're going to deal with it now after all those years of nobody else dealing with it, you know, and people will say, well, what about the jcpoa, the, you know, the nuclear deal that, that Obama had signed and that Trump stepped out of? We didn't have verification on that. So you say trust but verify, but we didn't have the ability to verify their sites because the Iranians insisted that some of their sites wouldn't be inspected. And so that I set that aside, that's just ridiculous. And I don't trust anything that this Iranian regime would say, the previous one or what exists now. So, but you have to, you have to look at what's the end game, right? So now if the regime is not going to go away, if they're so resilient that after all of this they're still in place, you then you can't be in an endless conflict. So therefore your option is to cut a deal. You have to find the right people. They are trying to do that, I think. And you have to describe victory as kicking the can much further down the road than any other administration. Kick that can. Right, because you've destroyed manufacturing facilities, so much of their missile stockpiles and launchers that, you know, in the past, you know, you do, you, you do a strike, you take out a few facilities, maybe you felt like, okay, well, we've degraded their ability somewhat, but this has really done it. So, okay, fine, that's your victory. Now you got to cut a deal that finds a way to get the straight open so that the shipping and insurance industries, you know, get back to business and they feel like, you know, you, you got an acceptable risk. And that means that the Iranian regime that still exists that you're trying to do a deal with, they're smart enough to know now they've got that leverage. We're going to demand some concessions in order to essentially not hold the rest of the world or try to extort the rest of the world for safe passage through the strait. That's the thing, right? So, wow. I think the only way you get to a. Yeah, I mean, again, the only way you get to long term stability in the straight is if you have a different mindset within that regime. And so far we're just not necessarily seeing it. Maybe there's going to something happen. Never say never. Maybe they're talking to some people who can deliver that. And you do get sort of a happy day and a much better future for the people of Iran and, and for the region. Right. The Saudis, others would be overjoyed if that would happen. But it doesn't seem that way right now.
- [47:22]
B
Like they, the Saudis hate Iran and yet they've done nothing like, oh, we support it, but they've done nothing to be helpful.
- [47:34]
A
Yeah.
- [47:34]
B
Why?
- [47:37]
A
Yeah, part of it is, I don't want to say it's political, but part of it is in the sense that, yeah, they got a lot of population that would not be happy if they suddenly are fully on board and joining the offensive with the Israelis in the U.S. right. They've got to worry about their own internal politics and stability. And that's, that's what's, I'm not saying I would love to see them get on board. I'd love to see the Qataris, the UAE and all the others just jump in and dogpile the Iranians. But they got to worry about their own positions in their countries. And there's a lot of folks that, look, there's a lot of folks in Iran that support the fundamentalists in the, in the Islam. You know, there's sort of this regime, you know, there's a lot more that don't, but there's still that element of the population. And so it's, you know, it's like everything else in this world, it's messier than we imagine.
- [48:31]
B
Your skin care might just be more toxic than your food. And just like choosing healthy food, we need to be more careful about what we put on, on our body. So I become hyper aware of every product I use, reading labels, researching ingredients and realizing just how many toxic chemicals we let into our daily routine. Check the label on your moisturizer, it reads like a lab report. So swap that toxic moisturizer for cow guys. Tallow balm. This is a natural hydrating balm with ingredients you can actually pronounce. It's safe and it's more effective than conventional alcohol or water based lotions and your skin will glow. Talobalm has been used for generations before Big Pharma ruined skincare. You can use it as a lotion on your hands, your arms, your legs, your face, your lips. You can use it for eczema, you can use it for psoriasis. Dry skin, normal skin, just as an everyday moisturizer. Plus it's American made and it's rancher owned in Texas. It's the best tallow bomb you can find. So search up cowguys.com to get your tallow bomb and get a mini tallo bomb free. No special code needed. You get three to four months of moisturizer for only $34. Guys, search cowguys.com to grab free Taliban with your order. Yep. Okay, what is going to happen with all these proxies? Because now the Houthis are getting in the mix. The Hezbollah in Lebanon has been in the mix, but who could even be funding them? Iran has no money. There's nothing to give these organizations. Now, these terror proxies, what's going to happen with the Hamas and the Hezbollah and the Houthis, how are they going to continue to function without this constant flow of cash?
- [50:15]
A
Well, they. Eventually they won't. They wouldn't be able to. Right. So which is another distinct benefit. If the regime had changed and their mindset had changed and they suddenly wanted to, you know, be part of the normal international community, those groups have been left with what they have on hand. Right, Meaning their inventory. So whatever Hezbollah has on hand, then that's what they would have. And they wouldn't have the continued funding and resourcing and, and, and, and support of the Iranian regime. The same with Houthis and, and, and the Hamas. So, yeah, you know, that's. They've got a problem. Which is why, you know, Hezbollah, you know, is dragging Lebanon back into another conflict. You know, much to the chagrin of the Lebanese government and a lot of the Lebanese population, which does not want to get involved in yet another war. Lebanon is a fantastic place. Lebanese people are wonderful. And they have been put out time and time again by Hezbollah. So, yeah, you pointed to a really important part here. And so again, you know, have you degraded the Iranian regime's ability to project power through these proxies? Well, yes, you certainly have. So is that another part of this? Let's call it a victory and move on. But, you know, I guarantee you, if that same mindset exists within the Islamic Republic that is remaining and you don't get a sea change there, then they will eventually reconstitute their proxy network because that same group will still have the same mindset.
- [51:51]
B
Then the question becomes, is there any chance we put boots on the ground? And even if we did, it seems pointless. Like you're sending kids into a Buzzsaw. There's like 92 million people. The place is double the size of Texas, as much as people are going, well, see, they had to put boots on the ground and now they're going to. I'm thinking, even if he did, it doesn't seem like it would help at all.
- [52:17]
A
Yeah, you have to separate from could they do it? They could do it, you know, could they seize Carg Island? Yeah. Could they see small islands, you know, that the Iran uses? They'll control the straight. Sure, they could do that. Could they, you know, do an assault to acquire and move out the enriched uranium? That's a complicated old thing. It's not some, you know, beach book or, you know, summer blockbuster film adventure. Right. That's, you know, it's, is it, is it operationally possible? Well, sure, but again, the military is very good at risk versus gain calculations. And I suspect they look at that and go, yeah, that's a, that's a tough hump right there. So, you know, are they going to put boots on the ground? Well, they certainly have set the table for that as an option. You don't move out the sort of assets that we've done unless you, you know, feel like there's a good possibility that you may have to use them. It's like putting two carrier groups out there before this conflict started or relocating, you know, 90 or 100 tankers for refueling purposes. So that's, it does seem like they've obviously thought through these options. I got a lot of confidence in those officers there in the Pentagon and in our intel community that helps them. But this is a very, this has always been a very heavy intelligence lift. We've always relied very heavily on our liaison partners, not just the Israelis, but Gulf State partners. So, you know, and if you do that, you have to assume that you're giving up on the midterms, like you pointed out earlier. Yeah. Because politically it just seems untenable. Yeah. And so doing that, I think at that point you have to assume, okay, well, we're pushing the chips all in. We know we're going to lose the midterms. I'm not saying I want, I don't want them to lose the midterms. Right. I'm the centrist Republican, you know, I, I, so I would prefer to see the Republicans hold the House, but I don't see how they do that if they, if they suddenly are in a ground operation, which people by definition will look at whether it's true or not and say, well, that's a long term conflict now. So, and that if you think, if you think all of this leading up to this is, you know, spooked the markets and created increased prices in, in the markets, and, you know, wait till you've got boots on the ground and see what that does to the market. So I think they'll do everything possible to avoid it, I guess, is the short answer in a long winded statement. But, okay, you know, as. Again, I, I'm not sure that they. I'm not sure that they see a lot of other options at this point, again, other than perhaps declaring victory and leaving the straight as it is and saying it'll sort itself out somehow.
- [55:13]
B
Okay. Why do you think there's this rumor that whoever is negotiating with the US Wants to talk to Vance? They don't want to talk to Witkoff, they don't want to talk to Kushner. Rubio is not in the mix at all. Is that because people think he's hawkish? Like, if this is true, why J.D. vance?
- [55:35]
A
Yeah, that's a really interesting question. Right. And a kind of an unusual move. Unless they're, you know, their strategy is to create some level of confusion within the administration, to act as if they've got this favored talking point. And then, I. I don't know. Right. I mean, Witkoff and Kushner, they've been traveling all over the world. At times, it seems like they're the only two envoys we have. I always thought we had more envoys sitting somewhere in an envoy waiting room, but Wyckoff and Kushner have just been doing everything right, you know, so I, I don't know what the point of that is. I, I do think maybe they feel like Rubio is a little too hawkish, and so, you know, they don't want him sitting across from them, but it's. It's hard to say. Who knows? Maybe there were some previous discussions involving Witkoff and Kushner during other conversations through mediators in the past, in the recent past, leading up to this conflict that, that they didn't like or didn't want to repeat. So it's. It's kind of hard to say. I would just be speculating all over the map on that one at this point.
- [56:47]
B
Let's just say we get somewhere on the PC deal. We are jointly controlling the street. Iran agrees. They're not gonna fund their terror proxies. Reza Pahlavi is sitting there tapping people to work in this new Iranian government. Is this guy smoking crack? I'm like, bro, I think we're such a long way away from that, but let's say it works. It works. We get some Sort of a peace deal. There's a reasonable regime in place. What does that look like? What does an Iran look like? What does that look like for the Middle East? What does that look like for the world? How does that restructure the map with China and Russia in a year's time? What does this utopia look like?
- [57:31]
A
Look, that's, that's a great thing, right? If they're willing to work as part of an international community of nations, right, and provide for a better life for all those Iranians, then that's, that's tremendous, right? From China's perspective, it's less tremendous. You know, they've been enjoying, you know, healthy discounts on oil for quite some time. And for Russia, right. Doesn't bode well because Putin is, you know, four years into his invasion of Ukraine and has been very heavily reliant on the, on the Iranians in terms of hardware, particularly on the, on the drone side. So, you know, it's, it would be. And the Gulf states would look at it and go, yes, you know, maybe we can actually get some long term peace and stability and prosperity in here without having to worry about, you know, this, this cancer. This Iranian regime that just refuses to go away and has repressed its people so brutally. Anybody who can, anybody who can look at this and somehow make some bizarre, twisted argument for the Islamic Republic, for the Iranian regime after having witnessed what they did just recently, you know, they deny it, Mike.
- [58:50]
B
They deny it. Surely you've seen it. They're like, oh, I'd like to see the numbers on the thousands that are slaughtered. And I'm thinking, well, how many is too many for you? I'm just curious for you to deem that this regime is, is evil. Is it 3,000. Are 3,000 dead Iranians enough for you? Or that's the part that you lose me completely? Or the ones that are like, well, that 19 year old wrestler that got killed, well, he killed a couple of policemen. Well, first of all, they extracted that confession from him while he was being tortured. And second of all, if he did such a thing, I would imagine it's because they're out on the streets slaughtering Iranians. What about Masamini in 2022 whose hair was showing through her hijab and was beaten to death. What about that? Like, that's the part that the leftists. I'm like, all right, you guys are. You guys are gone. You are.
- [59:47]
A
Yeah, I'm sorry. They're the same people.
- [59:49]
B
I was just gonna say swallowed everything
- [59:53]
A
the Hamas health ministry said and Every time the, the, you know, the health ministry, which is a Hamas operation, you know, would put out numbers, you know, about the numbers of deceased. Now, look, Gaza's tragedy all the way around, no doubt about it. But, but, you know, they had no problem believing those numbers, and yet they have a hard time somehow believing the Iranians would. Would, you know, slaughter thousands of their own citizens just in order to maintain their kung fu, like, grip on power. So I don't understand the mindset either.
- [60:26]
B
I don't either. I can't wrap my head around it, and I actually find it repulsive. But, you know, when I hear someone like Matt Walsh who's like, see, I told you this was a bad idea. Now that I understand, because he's going, okay, we're in a, you know, we're in this quagmire now with the straight, and what are we gonna do? And it's gonna cost the midterms. And that wasn't worth it. And he made a good case. I understood his case from the beginning. I didn't know if he was going to be right. But Matt Walsh and other conservatives who are afraid of this going sideways, that was a fair assessment from Go. I was more kind of on the Michael Knowles of. I can see how this goes both ways. I'm gonna sit this one out, and I'm still gonna sit it out. I still wanna see where it goes. But I definitely appreciate why the very serious concern and how nuanced it is. What I would say. Mike, listen, if you, you're sitting with the president right now, what do you tell him to do?
- [61:22]
A
Well, first of all, I'd say, you know, how accurate is our intelligence on the, on how badly we've degraded their military capabilities? I mean that. But if I'm sitting with the president, theoretically, I'd already have that information in my pocket. You know what I would say, what else can we do to get the Gulf State partners involved? What else is there that we can do to get them fully on board as partners in this effort? I don't know that I could. And then I would, you know, you'd also say, okay, and if you're talking to the president, theoretically, you'd have some insight into who they are actually talking to. So then you can make an assessment there as to whether that's going to go anywhere or not. If all we're doing is talking to Kalibov again, he's, you know, he's. He's dressed up right? You know, he's kind of. He, he kind of takes that that he's got that look, you know, oh, look, he's. He's just sophisticated enough just, you know, that we could pretend, you know, diplomats love to do this. He's someone we could talk to. Right? Okay, fine. You want to convince yourself of that, go ahead and do it. But he's a wolf in sheep's clothes if you know, and. And so, you know, you're gonna be ending, but you have to find somebody again at some point. You have to be talking to somebody. So I think they're doing the right thing by trying that they've got to find some ability to be talking to somebody. It's just the way it works. And, you know, then I don't think you can cut a deal and. And just walk away from the straight the way that it is. Right? Because, you know, it's sort of like that old saying, you know, you broke it, you pay for it. Look, we kind of went in. We've, you know, we've broken it. Not to say it didn't deserve break and deserved a lot of breaking, but, you know, we also need to figure out what else can we do now to try to get the straight back on track? So I don't have a good answer. I wouldn't, you know, I probably wouldn't put myself in position of sitting there with the President because ultimately I'd look at him and go, hey, good luck. And I see the Lincoln Bedroom, you know, Take some White House swag home with me. You know, I didn't give you any good ideas, but how about that anyway?
- [63:46]
B
Okay. Oh, geez. Is there anything that I should have asked you that I didn't? Any blindsight, any angle of this that I could possibly be missing to share with people that they can integrate into their opinion on this matter for now.
- [64:02]
A
But I think as far as what people should be looking at, don't take your eye off the ball in Ukraine and Russia because we tend to get very sort of blindsided. Okay, we're going to deal with this problem. We're going to deal with that problem. We're coming into spring and summer fighting season, and that sad, grinding invasion of by Putin is still going on. So, you know, there's other things happening in the world. You know, don't disappear down a rabbit hole. This on I would, I tell my folks all the time is, you know, you got to multitask. So, you know, keep having all the plates spinning. You know, Iran obviously is. Is front and center, but there's other issues in the world right now. And, yeah, I The fascinating to me is this relationship between Russia and China and Iran. And there's no doubt that they've been providing Iran with targeting data and insight and expertise in terms of, particularly the Russians in terms of drone warfare based on Putin's invasion over the past four years and what they've learned from that. So when you see, you know, some strikes that the Iranians are able to make and you say, well, how, how is that possible? You know, how do they, you know, suddenly have three accurate strikes on the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi? You know, it's, it's evidence that they're getting better targeting data. And that's, that's primarily from the Russians. The White House doesn't want to talk about that. And I get it, because that just complicates an already more complicated or, you know, currently complicated situation. But it is an interesting aspect of this and one worth at least understanding or paying attention to.
- [65:50]
B
One more question, because you brought up China and Russia on one hand, it would seem like the bigger picture is China and Russia like, okay, China, that's it, you're getting this 80% of your oil from Iran and we're taking over the Strait. There's no more of you buying this in the US Yuan, your currency, we're going back to the petrodollar and, you know, checkmate, or check rather, at least, cuz all this other stuff between Venezuela, the Canal, Greenland, it does seem like China is omnipresent in all of these decisions. On the other hand, though, people are going, this is China's dream. This is everything they wanted. We're distracted, we're wasting money. We're, you know, we're losing missiles and weapons by the day, which makes no sense to me. I mean, surely our military industrial complex is thrilled to be making new bombs and new weapons at, you know, the fastest pace possible. That part I don't really understand. Is China happy or unhappy, Mike, about this, or does that remind you?
- [66:52]
A
Well, I mean, you kind of brought a lot in there. You looked at Venezuela and you look at, you know, China's efforts over the years to try to develop relations there for their resources. And so that's been a blow that certainly put them on the back foot. Iran, you know, would do the same. Again, they've benefited from discounted oil. And so you could argue that whether it was intentional or not, whether there was a grand strategy behind things that was focused on China, certainly appears to be working that way. So now, again, because everything's complicated and there's always lots of layers China also looks at this and goes, oh, is that how the world works? So, you know, they've had their eyes on Taiwan. We moved on Venezuela, we moved on Iran. You know, Cuba is. Is, you know, certainly on shaky turf. So, you know, the, you know, the complication there is, how does Xi Jinping and China process all of that in terms of their intent to bring Taiwan back into the, into the fold? That's. That's an issue. But yeah, it's. I. It all comes back to that same thing. The world is a very interconnected place. Nothing happens in a bubble. And so I'm always. I, I have a lot of friends who are very, you know, they're libertarians, very smart, some who are kind of isolationists, I guess, if you wanted to call it that. Very, but. And very clever people, very successful people. And I understand what they're. What they're thinking or why they like that concept and those ideas. But my experience, having spent the vast majority of my life overseas, is the world is too goddamn interconnected. And you, you can't just draw the curtains around and say, well, we're just focused on the U.S. you know, because, you know, nothing impacts us that, you know, I just don't get that mindset. It doesn't seem like it'd be a lovely world if that was the case. I have never seen that to be the world we live in.
- [68:57]
B
Well, if friggin. If Iran had been able to put missiles in Venezuela, I mean, I think that would have been a huge problem. I see everything you're saying, you've said to me before, you're like, well, Jillian, someone's going to act. Do you want it to be us, or do you want it to be them? And when them is Russia and China, I prefer it to be us. That has made perfect sense to me, and I think about it all the time when I'm looking at these situations. Mike, I cannot thank you enough for coming on and breaking this down with me. Where can everybody get the President's Daily Brief? Everything. Mike Baker, to stay on top of this information in a way that isn't so tribal and biased.
- [69:36]
A
Yeah, well, thank you for mentioning the pdb, the President's Daily Brief. Oh, he's about to go into his marketing spiel. It's. It's on all the podcast platforms. Just go to Spotify or Apple or wherever you do your podcast. It's President's Daily Brief. We. We do a morning and an afternoon. Just quick hit. 20 minutes in the morning, 10 minutes in the afternoon. We cover the Key things that are happening in the world. We try to keep opinion out of it. It's just, here's what's happening. You go ahead and think about it, however you want to think about it. We're just going to tell you what's going on. You can find it on YouTube. You just go to YouTube and it's presidencedaily brief. And, yeah, that's kind of where we're at, but it's been a really good experience. I never imagined I'd be hosting a podcast, but we have great people that work behind it. Terrific folks who do all the heavy lifting. And I'm like that monkey with the symbols that just kind of goes like this.
- [70:33]
B
And I got these 17 years in counterterrorism. Nothing like an online course, I'm sure.
- [70:45]
A
The agency. Online,
- [70:48]
B
Yeah. I got my CAA diploma online. I cannot thank you enough. You're fantastic. I. You know, I am sure I will be calling on you again very soon, and I hope you grant me me the time. Thank you.
- [71:04]
A
No, I love our conversations. I love these conversations. She asked great questions and, you know, you give me enough time to ramble, so. No, I always love it. So anytime you call, I'm picking up the phone.
- [71:16]
B
Thank you, brother. I appreciate you. I love the President's Daily Brief, and I look forward to talking soon, hopefully under slightly happier circumstances.
- [71:23]
A
Let's hope so. Yeah. Yeah, we could use a little calm right now.
- [71:27]
B
Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please, like, comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.