B (18:02)

Who was there on Saturday night, witnessed the heroes of Secret Service and showing

C (18:06)

how quickly Secret Service and law enforcement acted on our country's behalf. Really did a great job.

A (18:14)

They did exactly what they were trained to do.

C (18:16)

They, the fact that these guys performed

A (18:19)

so flawlessly last night because you saw law enforcement doing exactly what they're supposed to do. And Secret Service did a great job at evacuating the president and getting him back to the White House. Now they're right about the agents who are on site. Same with William McGurn, Wall Street Journal. He wrote this A5 headline, Hooray for the Secret Service President, Mrs. Trump and many others were kept safe. That's a success. Yes. They stopped one guy. The failure was in the planning. As I've laid out, no one was at that hotel that night. Could have said the security was great. No checking of id, no QR code on the tickets. And the security perimeter steps away from the ballroom. Here's one of the few people I've seen a security expert writing about and talking about what the real failure was. This is Patrick Brosnan, security expert. Here's what he wrote in the New York Post. Plainclothes and uniformed officers positioned strategically in the hidden hotel's lobby would have dropped him cold the shooter before he ever reached the checkpoint. Moreover, the magnetometer should have been mandatory at the host hotel's Connecticut Avenue entrance for the duration of the event. This 1007 room Hilton, potentially packed with 2000 or more guests and 2002500 attendees, required full choke and funnel screening, metal detectors, bag searches and ID checks for everyone, hotel guests included. Finally, even then, a second magnetometer checkpoint was essential outside the ballroom with armed officers at the escalator base staircases and throughout the lobby. Yet such basic layered security measures were ignored. This guy's absolutely right. For an event with the president, the vice president, the speaker of the House, members of the cabinet and a lot of civilians mingling around. There should have been security at the perimeter of the hotel and then more security inside the hotel. I am stunned. I was stunned before it happened and I talked about it. I brought my, my son to the hotel three hours before the event started. We were just walking around everywhere. You put on a tux and then just let you in. You shoot flash, you flash an image on the phone. No ID check, no bag check. After President Trump was, was almost killed twice. At a time when we're at war with the world's biggest exporter of terrorism at the time when the rhetoric in this country is so hot, it's amazing. And we are so fortunate that it was one guy and not seven. We are so fortunate that those agents did a great job. But how in this day and age the event could been set up that way, I will not understand it. And I've made a ton of calls about it to security experts and Secret Service types and people in the government. It is inexplicable and it cannot, it cannot happen again. Whether this dinner is rescheduled or not, we've got the Olympics, we've got, I mean the World cup. We've got celebration of 250th anniversary of the country. We have Republicans are having a convention this year. It all needs the resources required so that the agents themselves in the moment don't have to salvage what could have been a massacre. All right, that's my reported monologue. Let me know what you think. I'd love to know if you think that I'm overreacting to this or the security was just fine. Send me an email nextup halpern@gmail.com. not everybody agrees with me on this. I'd love to know what you think. Make sure also that you're a subscriber of True Nexter. Your subscriber on YouTube, your subscriber on, on the podcast platforms as well. Get all our bonus content. Get shows as soon as they drop on YouTube or YouTube.com@nextup Halperin and you can subscribe on all the podcast formats as well. Make sure you have automatic download set so you get every episode, every time and all the, all the bonus content that we post. Very grateful to you for being Nexters and being part of the program. We'll take a quick break now. When we come back, we'll talk about the latest on Iran with Dan senior host, the Call Me Back podcast. Dan Senor is next up. Did you know that high blood pressure is the number one risk factor for mortality, one in two adults has it. That means there's a 5050 chance. You are a walking time bomb. But here's the good news. You can take control of your blood pressure naturally without relying on Big Pharma. 120 Life is a blend of great testing super fruit juices that have been shown to help lower blood pressure. It's backed by hundreds of doctors and trusted by thousands of people who've seen measurable results. And here's the best part. It's completely risk free. Try 120 Life for two weeks and if you don't see a difference in your numbers, you get your money back. Go to 120-life.com, that's 120life.com and use the code NextUp to save 20% and get free shipping. This is serious. This is your life we're talking about. 120 life can help. All right, next up and joining me now, Dan Seynor. He's the host of the Call Me Back podcast and a longtime strategist on policy, politics, international relations, and someone with a clear head, which we need right now. Dan, what are your biggest worries right now about President Trump's intentions going forward?

C (23:32)

Intentions in the Middle east or just intentions generally?

A (23:34)

No, no, in the Middle East. We'll stick with the Middle east for now.

C (23:37)

I, I'm not panicked at all. I think there are many critics of what President Trump has been doing in Iran that are quick to say it's a disaster, It's a quagmire. It's a quagmire in the making. He has no way out, et cetera, et cetera. I'm just not there yet. I think it's early days. There's the sense that the pressure on him as we get closer and closer to the midterms will just narrow his options for what he does with Iran. And that will result in making a quick move that kind of tries to end things precipitously in a way that, you know, kind of squanders the strategic advantage that I think the US has gained since the war began. And, and that all our adversaries recognize that clock, that kind of race against time that the president is in. As we get closer and closer to the midterms, the most notable of which would be Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps recognizes that the president can't handle being, you know, stuck in this situation as we get closer and closer to the midterms, and he'll make decisions that he otherwise would not have made if he had more distance And I mean, I don't know what you think, Mark. I'm not so sure he's that panicked about the midterms. Number of folks I've spoken to, some who are concerned that he's not panicked about the midterms, others who are relieved that he's not panicked about the midterms, all basically agree that this idea that we're getting closer and closer to the midterms puts extraordinary pressure on her, on the president in terms of what he does now going forward in Iran. I'm just not so sure. I think he has the capacity to be much more patient here and gradually squeeze Iran and squeeze the regime in ways that I think are happening and they're not getting enough attention than I. Then I think the conventional wisdom is acknowledging and I think that I think the markets are an interesting reflection in that regard right now because all these, you know, horror stories that were that were forecasted as, you know, once we got into the war and then certainly over the last couple of weeks, there's certainly more volatility, but not the total chaos that was predicted.

A (26:04)

So I want to ask about Iran a second but first, let me ask about Israel, a country you know, well, if the, if there's a final agreement that involves the reliance on inspections to make sure that Iran doesn't begin to develop nuclear weapons, continue to develop nuclear weapons, if it involves inspections and some level of trust on the Iranians to get rid of the current enriched uranium and plutonium, is Israel okay with that? Is Israel okay with a plan that involves the cooperation of the Iranians and trust, or would that cause a division between the United States and Israel?

C (26:39)

I think Israel. So there are two things going on. One, whatever apprehension Israel has about the scenario that you just laid out, I don't think it will play out in public. So I do believe there's a world in which there may be disagreements that play out behind closed doors. But even still, I think Israel, while this, the scenario you just laid out is, is suboptimal, they could live to look, they could, they could learn to live with it so long as they continue to have the capacity and the optionality and the flexibility to, as they say is the term they use in the region, mow, continue to mow the lawn. So continue to engage in military kinetic operations that are not like big picture, lots of noise, lots of spectacle, but just engage in overt and covert military operations that continue to weaken the regime and keep the regime in check. I think one of the extraordinary gains from the last few weeks that really just, it kind of blows my mind that doesn't get more attention is because if, if you go back, say the 1990s and when the Clinton administration was trying to figure out how to deal with North Korea and deal with North Korea's nuclear program, what many worked in the Clinton administration and others will say is at some point, whatever options the United States had to deal to deal with North Korea and stop its nuclear program, at some point they lost their. The US Lost its optionality because North Korea had just built up a considerable conventional capability which posed a threat in all sorts of directions, not the least of which to South Korea. So North Korea could keep humming along and building its nuclear program behind the protection of its conventional program because few, including the US Were willing to take the risk of poking the bear when it had these conventional capabilities that it could unleash on its neighbor, which is one of our most important allies in the world, South Korea. So from Israel's perspective, if you look at what has been accomplished over the last seven plus weeks in terms of seriously, like knocking out the Iranian air Force, knocking what was left of the Iranian air Force, knocking out its navy, knocking out mo, A big chunk of its ballistic missile program, doing real damage to its defense industrial base to limit its ability to keep producing the conventional capabilities with that advance secured or that accomplishment secured, and there's still more work to be done there. I don't want to make it sound like it's totally done. It does give Israel more flexibility now in dealing with the Iranian, with the nuclear program, because the U.S. israel is not now in this race against time to deal with the nuclear program, because the nuclear program, whatever it exists, and even if Israel calculates that it can't trust Iran to comply with any deal that reaches with the U.S. israel knows that that program is not hiding behind a conventional capability anymore. It's got some element of a conventional capability, but nothing like it did before for February 28th. So now Israel just has a massive strategic advantage to go in if it feels like it needs to. So I don't think a deal between the regime and the US Is what Israel wants. I also think that as long as Israel knows that if it feels like the deal is not being complied with or Iran is, the regime is coloring outside the lines, Israel can take action. I think, like I said, Israel can. Can live to learn with it. Learn, sorry, could learn to live with it. And also keep in mind, Mark, we're heading into an election season in Israel. So I just think the appetite inside Israel or Peak kinetic activity over the next few months is low anyways.

A (30:23)

Yeah, well said. Israel has great intelligence capabilities and, and we've seen over the years they've done things to eliminate Iranian scientists, kill them and other things. Right now, one of the biggest challenges for the US is not really knowing what's going on on the ground in Iran. We heard, we heard some reports that, that there were. Israel had spies during the initial part of the war and that helped them target. Do we know how much Israel knows about what's going on in Iran?

C (30:58)

The Israelis claim they still have considerable intelligence inside Iran. But the big challenge now versus before the war is twofold. One, the leadership structure is, is completely fractured. So we know that. I think a lot of the intelligence on that comes from the Israelis. And it makes sense, right? I mean, you can just see the dysfunctionality playing out when the regime, quote, unquote, the regime is trying to make decisions about whether to go to Islamabad, whether not to go to Islamabad. When they go to Islamabad, what are they empowered? What's the negotiating team agreed or empowered to deal with? Who's actually in charge? I mean, Israeli intelligence, and this has been publicly reported, just basically is arguing that it's. There's a sense of that nobody's in charge. So let me, let me take a step back to, to give some context. If you think back about the two, perhaps the two most important decisions the regime has made as it relates to a foreign policy or national security issue for the regime, it was the two agreeing to the 2015 JCPOA. So there were endless negotiations. ARIF is negotiating with the P5 plus one. This is going on and on. There are ups and downs, but at some point it came to a head. And it came to a head when the Supreme Leader Khamenei said, we're doing this deal. I don't not. We can have a whole separate episode of what actually led to him doing that deal in 2015. But at some point it took his intervention to say, we're doing this deal. The other big decision in Iranian history or regime history Post 79 was 1988, when the Supreme Leader finally made the decision to end the Iran Iraq War, which imposed a huge toll on Iran in terms of casualties and Iranian society. And Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the Supreme Leader then, made the decision. And only he could have made that decision, saying, we're ending this war, which is very controversial at the time. So the question is how to end this war From Iran's perspective, who is that decision maker? There's. There's no Khamenei. There's Khamenei's son. We don't even know Khamenei's son is alive. If he is alive, we don't know what physical capacity he's into make decisions. And even if he's healthy and totally intact, the Iranian leadership understandably is so, from what we understand, freaked out about communicating electronically, telephonically, so that even when there is a discussion about, you know, hey, there's a US offer on the table, we need to get feedback from Tehran or whom on. On whether or not we should get on board with this. These messages are transmitted back through multiple couriers. And I mean, this is not seamless. This is not efficient. It could take days and days and days to even get a response. It actually reminds me of when the US through intermediaries, was trying to negotiate with Yehis Sinwar and Israel was during the first year, year and a half of the post October 7 war, where Dinwar was in some tunnel in Gaza. He was not communicating on phones or, you know, digital devices, electronic devices. And so everything, you know, message was sent to Cairo, which was then sent here. And then someone got to Gaza and then someone passed it on into the tunnels of Gaza and then they had to wait for the message to get back. So I think we're dealing with a lot of that. No one in charge. Even if someone is in charge, how. How do we actually communicate with that person? And then beneath the no one's in charge, if you assume no one's in charge, there are different organs and different constituencies within the Iranian leadership that are competing for power. So from what we understand is that the IRGC is not enthusiastic about some of these more political actors, like the speaker of the Parliament, the foreign minister trying to negotiate with the US and the IRGC is much more ideological and much more dug in. So you have a very chaotic, fractured leadership structure that again, even if they did not have an apocalyptic view of their future or messianic view of their future, which may. Which would probably limit their ability to negotiate to begin with. Even if you didn't have that, you have enormous dysfunction. And trying to map out how a negotiation can play out in that environment is pretty hard to visualize.

A (35:18)

Let's talk about that issue of what would pressure them. Given rationally, they have a rational reason to fight on. They have this messianic view. Four options. And you tell me which one you think is right and why One is Iran will only respond to come to the negotiating table. And give way to American demands with military pressure, they'll only respond to economic pressure. They'll only respond to a combination of military and economic, or they'll, they're, they're impervious and that, and that they're not going to respond unless they're decimated, unless they're destroyed, you know, basically into the regime change. Which of those four do you subscribe to?

C (36:00)

And I think, I think a blend of military and economic, because I think they're connected. I think the ability to have economic pressure is partly dependent on, on military activity. But there's another option that you haven't mentioned that I, that I think is

A (36:14)

the so called fifth option.

C (36:16)

Yes, the so called senor fifth option. It's an option I've heard from, from a couple of officials within the US Administration which is a, a crack in the military leadership of Iran where there's an opening made by, think of like the, the analogy I was given was like the equivalent of like, like a CC or a Mubarak type in Egypt. Not, not literally one of those guys, but someone who's, who's, who's, who's got like some, some moxie in, in the military leadership and is not as messianic as perhaps some of his peers and is, and is not, doesn't have like an apocalyptic view of, of the future of the Iranian regime and is willing to break. And that I think is based on people I'm talking to both in Washington and Jerusalem. That is, that is an option. And it makes sense by the way, if you, if you, again, none of us are in Trump's head, but it makes sense from his perspective that like by playing for time, he's waiting for there to, to be a crack in that regard where there's someone with serious credibility in the military leadership who's willing to make some kind of move. And that also could be a move in terms of dealing directly with United States and it could also be a move to create a break within the leadership in Iran. So I, you know, the, the assumption embedded in what you laid out is that the only world in which we have to deal with Iran and get some kind of resolution is an Iranian regime that remains, quote, unquote, intact. And I'm not sure, I guess that is the only option.

A (37:57)

Yeah. Are the people you're talking to, do they have specific person, a person or people in mind or they just kind of, in the abstract that's what they'd like?

C (38:05)

I don't know. They, they, they talk about it with some confidence And I don't know if that's, you know, wish casting or that they've actually identified someone and they're not, would be understandable that they are not sharing it with me because they don't want me sharing it with you. But, but I just, I'm struck by how many times that's come up.

A (38:28)

Well, let's play it out though. If there is such a person, and let's say it's, it's a combination of Colin Powell and Thomas Jefferson, like the perfect person to do this doesn't need to be that. But let's say, let's say it's, you know, somebody who, who could straddle leading the people of Iran with trust with the United States and Israel to be able to negotiate. Even then, isn't the Iran, the current leadership so diffuse? It's not like get rid of a Saddam Hussein and install this person. Like you'd have to move out a lot of people to have that person have any authority or command and control over the capacity to make changes. Right.

C (39:03)

It depends. Obviously this is highly, highly speculative. You're dealing with such a chaotic environment there that like, you know, trying to figure out exactly how it would play out is, I mean, it's, I think, just hard for us to, to really see what's going on. But it depends on how much influence if that person is a serious player there who has real constituencies within their system, you know, and, and if, and if others in the kind of leadership class in Iran across the board and the kind of technocratic class in that, that's running Iran, if they start, are really feeling that there's no way out of this military and economic isolation and their, their economy is actually in freefall. Their economy is absolutely collapsing. Does some constituency or constituencies within the system say, you know, this guy's going to get us out of this? Let's follow him. I mean, that, that's the theory. So, so it's, it doesn't have to be. I mean, under your theory is like there are other very powerful centers and it's very, you know, it's hard to imagine one guy stepping up against these other very powerful power centers. Sure. Unless again, in such a chaotic environment, the problem is what in, in any one of these situations where you look, it's, it's not regime change what we're doing in Iran. And, and obviously the regime has not formally changed. There have been changes in the regime, but the regime has not formally changed and there's not real state collapse yet. And so, but, but you but there is a feeling that there is some kind of state collapse. There is some kind of, like, collapsing. Right. And I just think if you look at the history of our intelligence in any, every situation, like, being able to predict with any kind of precision how things will come together, when they will come together in this kind of environment, it's not to say it always ends badly or it always ends in a positive geopolitical situation for the US it's simply to say which direction it goes is very hard to predict the timing. I mean, the CIA, the intelligence community, thought that when Russia invaded Ukraine that Kiev would fall within 72 hours. In, in, in. When we, when the US went into Afghanistan, you know, the Taliban will never fall. You know, there's no, it's a, you know, I mean, I, I, the, you know, you know, the story with the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and get, getting the internal dynamics in these situations and really trying to game out exactly how to work, it's just very, it's very hard to play out, which is why I, I come back to my earlier point. It does feel like the President Trump is, is not rushing and not panicking. And I, I, this idea that he's just like, on this clock and he's got to move, and he's got to move. He's got to move. I, I mean, I don't see that. I mean, he's trying to negotiate. If it appears they can't negotiate, he's like, canceling the flight to Islamabad and basically saying, you know, my phone number and we can do this over the phone. Like, he's not. Which is interesting because when you talk to members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, they're not so thrilled with his patience.

A (42:07)

Right.

C (42:07)

But it's not clear that, that, that it's, that it's, that he's becoming impatient. Yeah.

A (42:13)

How worried are you if the President does break, end the ceasefire? How worried are you about some of these Iranian threats to destroy underground cables, communication cables, to destroy, you know, terrorist acts against mass casualties, civilian casualties, desalination plans? Is that in your view, bluster, or. That's a reality? In a, it was a threat.

C (42:37)

Those were real threats going into the war. I, I think that the, the US And Israel were, were very aware of those kinds of threats. Most, not all, most of what you just said, they were, they're aware of going in. And I, I think they went into the war recognizing that those were threats. Those were threats in the early weeks of the war. Those are threats today. I Think those threats today are not what they were in the early weeks of the war. Just because of the chaos within the Iranian leadership and the capabilities that we have degraded, we and the Israelis have degraded. I just think that those threats remain, but their ability to act on them or execute upon them have just been going down with time because the regime and their capabilities are weaker and weaker. I think one threat that, that nobody that I knew before the, you know, I heard from before the war anticipated was the speed and ease with which Iran would start attacking its golf neighbors, Qatar, the uae, Saudi, Bahrain, so Kuwait, So that, that was, you know, and so they could continue to do that. And that's a problem on the one hand. On the other hand, I think you're seeing changes in the region with regard to our relations with the Gulf, the Gulf's relations with Israel, Gulf countries, relations with Israel, as a result of the way Iran has behaved, that actually is going to, I think change the entire security architecture of the region has the potential to. For instance, I'll give you a very specific example. We were just learning now in the news that the US that Israel deployed the Iron Dome in the uae. So you had the Iron Dome, which for years and years and years has been protecting Israel and now it didn't exist in the uae, it's protecting the uae. Israeli military personnel are in the UAE operating Iron Dome. You have so, so just that notion that Israeli military personnel would be, you know, in country, on land, in an Arab nation, helping with the defense of that nation is to me is someone who's been following the Arab Israeli conflict for decades. Even post Abraham Accords. I never imagined that you have the Lebanese government negotiating directly with the Israeli government in the Oval Office with the President when there was a law on the books in Lebanon that precluded any Lebanese official from ever interacting with the government of Israel, let alone sitting there negotiating face to face with the government of Israel. Qatar, the Khalil Al Khayya who's the leader of Hamas, was just in Cairo to negotiate this disarmament deal and he was basically notified before he returned, left Egypt to return to Doha. He was told, don't come back, we've gotten rid of your headquarters. And it seems like Qatar is in the midst of kicking Hamas out of, out of the kind of safe haven it's had in Doha now. Why? Not because of their, of what Hamas did against Israel, but because Iran attacked Qatar. The Qatari leadership was shocked by it and was furious that Hamas would not condemn Iran's attacks unprovoked attacks against Qatar in the midst of this war, given how much water the Qatari leadership would say they were as much cover they've been giving for Hamas. So I just think you're just, you're seeing all these changes in the region right now and I'm not sure exactly where they'll go. But I can't imagine this is what Iran, you know, expected if it suddenly found itself in this kind of a war. Because I think these, these changes could have real legacy effects. So does it mean that Iran still doesn't still have cards to play? Of course it does. I think it's it, its options are narrowing and I think that the regional dynamics are changing quite a bit in a way that I think will just further isolate Iran. Yeah.

A (46:26)

And could, if the war ends well, could be consolidated and Abraham accords do type situation, which would be extraordinary. Dan Senor, like everyone I know, has a podcast, but Dan's is best in class, best in category. If you're interested in these issues, Dan's podcast is essential for you. It's called Call Me Back and it's available now wherever you get your podcasts. And he does regular episodes and special episodes. My two favorite categories. Dan, thank you. Always love having you on and thank you.

C (46:53)

Great to be with you, Mark.

A (46:54)

Grateful to you. All right, next up, I'm going to go deeper into the Iran war and the question of whether the clock is ticking in ways that will make people like Dan happy or whether this is a little more uncertain. Talk about Iran's capacity to go another few weeks or even months. That's next up. Are you being lied to? They tell you to defer paying your taxes by saving in a 401k or an IRA because you'll retire in a lower tax bracket. But if that were true, why are so many retirees now in the highest tax bracket of their lives? It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative that banks and Wall street desperately hope you never hear about. It gives you guaranteed predictable growth that doesn't go backward when the market drops. It can provide tax free retirement income under current tax law, putting you in control of your future tax rate. You also have control of your money. Access it when you need to with no government penalties or restrictions, and your money keeps growing even when you use it. You can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your money. Just go to bankonyourself.com mark and get your free report. That's bankonyourself.com mark bankonyourself.com

C (48:20)

Premier hosts on VRBO deliver quality vacation rental stays with fast responses and clear instructions.

D (48:25)

Oh, I had a question. Our host replied, super quick premier move. Wish I had a premier group chat. They won't even write me back.

C (48:32)

Book a top rated stay with a premier host. If you know, give Herbo.

D (48:35)

Looking for the best place to shop this Mother's Day? Go with the brand. That makes it easy to send something thoughtful to everyone on your list. 1/800flowers.com right now at 1-800-FLowers. Order one dozen roses and get another dozen free. More flowers mean more smiles. All backed by the quality, attention to detail and trusted delivery experience that make 1-800-flowers my top choice to send something beautiful mom will love. Make Mom's Day at 1-800-FLowers.com sxm that's 1-800-FLowers. Com sxm

A (49:09)

all right, next up, the Iran war. We're at a stalemate. Still no sign of talks, no sign of a deal. And the big thing right now in my world is people I'm talking to are saying about the pressure on Iran, the economic pressure on Iran. The Secretary of the treasury, the president talks about this economic pressure and whether that can force Iran to make a deal. The Chinese economy is suffering. The world economy is suffering. The Iranian economy is suffering. And this issue is about oil. There's two things related to oil. One is the Iranians aren't able to sell oil. They need the money. But the other is this issue of they're running out of capacity to hold the oil. And the way oil production facilities work, a lot of them, you have to keep pumping. And if you stop pumping, the facility can break and be very hard to restart or impossible to restart. So we've been hearing about this for, since almost the beginning of the conflict. How are they going to pressure Iran? They're going to pressure them by keeping them from selling oil. And so they got to fill up every tanker and every, every, every storage facility they can. How long will it take for the Iran to reach the breaking point on this? This is a crazy thing. Just in this news cycle, just as I've been talking to people and asking them, reading other people's reporting, the president said over the weekend, we're three days away, three days away from Iran at the breakpoint. Well, that's not the consensus. Here's what the Wall Street Journal says in their story today. They say C6, they say in less than two weeks, Iran will be at the breakpoint. In less than two weeks, the unsoiled oil will be backed up. They'll have nowhere to put it. Bloomberg different estimate. C4Bloomberg says 22 days, their experts say, until the available storage fills up, but that Iran won't feel the pressure for three or four months, even with the capacity filled. Then New York Post C1 Their experts say, no, it's seven weeks, seven weeks before this comes to a head. And then the New York Times says, no, it's actually two more months. So it ranges from the president saying three days to Bloomberg saying maybe four months. Big difference, right? Big difference there. If this is what we're relying on, the United States is relying on to break the spirit of the Iranians. But here's the real reality from talking to folks, maybe none of this will break them. As Dan suggested, we're seeing through a Glass darkly here about what's going on in Iran. And I got a text this morning from someone, a very knowledgeable person, very close student of the Iran or the Iranian regime. And this is what this person said about Iran. And remember, this is a country that went west years fighting in a brutal battle with the Iraqis. This is a regime that is hell bent on destroying the United States, destroying Israel. It's a regime whose leadership, new leadership, is just determined to survive. Here's what this person said in their text to me. Pardon me for the profanity, C7 but the original message has profanity. I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll elide it. Talking about the Iranians and, and, and saying it's a joke to think whether it's three days or several months that the Iranians will give in. They said about the Iranians, they can hold off forever. They don't give an F. Their people can die. They can die. They don't give an F. That's the goddamn honest truth. And that's a challenge here. And we've seen this from the beginning. We're up against a foe who really doesn't care. They don't care if the economy's ruined. They don't care if they're bombed. They don't care if the strait is closed, blockaded. They really don't care the way a normal set of leaders would care. And that's the challenge for President Trump. That's why some people, despite what Dan said, some people are worried about Quagmire. They're worried that this is now unwinnable because these are people who will pretend to negotiate and won't really. These are people who will allow their country to go down the drain. They'll allow the bombing to start again. They are impervious to the normal motivations that you would think would happen. Have the existing inside leaders. We'll see.

B (53:22)

All right.

A (53:22)

We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, next up, Marissa, Melissa derosa is here. She's going to talk to us about the Democratic Party and where things stand now with the war, the midterms and everything else. After this quick break. Next up, Democratic strategist Melissa DeRosa. So think about the last 30 bucks you spent a streaming subscription. You don't even watch a lunch you've already forgotten. That's 30 bucks. That's gone forever. Acre Gold lets you turn that lost money into physical 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. Real gold in your hand at your house. And over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for the collectors out there, they just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection. Those are officially licensed by Mattel, strictly capped. And once they're gone, they're history. While you're checking them out, claim your free entry to the speed club sweepstakes. They're giving away a 1 gram hot wheels gold bar plus a massive grand prize, the 10 gram 24 karat Hot Wheels bar. Both come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. Start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com mark. That's getacregold.com mark. Subscribe today.

C (54:44)

Premier hosts on VRBO deliver quality vacation rental stays with fast responses and clear instructions so you don't have to worry about surprises.

D (54:52)

I asked our host a question about the house last night and he got back to me super quick.

C (54:57)

See, that's a premier host move right there.

D (54:59)

I'll wish I had a premiere groovy group chat. I asked them where we should have dinner last night and they left me on read. I know you saw it. It says it.

C (55:06)

Classic group chat move. Don't walk into a surprise. Book a top rated verbo. Stay with a premier host if you know you verbo.

D (55:14)

A text says you're on my mind. A bouquet from 1-800-Flowers says you're my everything. Heartfelt moments belong in the real world, not just your phone. For 50 years, 1-800-Flowers has helped millions of People make memories that'll last a lifetime with gifts they'll cherish forever, their expertly curated arrangements and gift baskets shipped nationwide with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. Don't wait for the next big moment. Make it when you visit 1-800-flowers.com sxm today, that's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm

A (55:48)

all right, next up, what's going on with the Democratic Party? With us, Melissa DeRosa, a longtime Democratic strategist and someone who, like Dan Cenor, sees things clearly. We like guests who see things clearly. Melissa, welcome. Thank you for being here.

B (56:00)

Thank you for having me.

A (56:02)

What's what are the big tensions right now within the Democratic Party, either personalities or issues or tactical or strategic? What would you say are the two or three biggest tensions in the party?

B (56:12)

Well, I would say all of the above. But, but clearly, it is the Tea Party moment that we're all living through right now where you see Bernie and Elizabeth, Elizabeth Warren and AOC trying to seize the moment that they've been waiting for, frankly, since 2016, to go from being sort of the side extreme part of the Democratic Party to becoming the overwhelming majority. And you see that playing out in this tension, particularly in the U.S. senate races in Maine and Michigan. And you see it in the tension with Chuck Schumer versus his colleagues. You know, you've been doing this longer than I have, but I can't remember a time when you had members of your own party within your own conference going out against you so openly in some of these open races, against the majority leader, against the minority leader, but the majority leader of your party. And so you're seeing that sort of spill out into the open. I would have said Israel, although now it feels feels like, you know, I'm in the minority on supporting Israel and on anti Semitism. When you see someone even like Rahm Emanuel moving to the position where he is. But I would say that right now it's, you know, the DSA versus mainstream Democrats, and it's it's playing out, and I think it's going to get ugly.

A (57:30)

Is that about policy? Is it about power, like personality, like what's the source of tension?

B (57:36)

It's power. It's policy. It's personality. And ultimately everything is about power in politics, right? People who don't have it want it. People who want it want to hold onto it for as long as they possibly can. But in terms of policy, it really is a fundamental divide, I think, between sort of where the Democratic Party always has been, which is the belief in opportunity and Putting, you know, the best feast has most mouths at the table and supporting a social safety net and supporting. And giving people a leg up so they have the opportunity to succeed versus the socialists to now it's not about means testing, and it really is about class warfare and tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich. The oligarchy, the patriarchy, and that we, you can't have anyone go up unless we tear other people down. And that is a fundamental disagreement, I think, within the party right now and how you handle this and what the role of government should be in the private sector, in the capitalist markets, and the manipulation of income and income inequality through government. So that's how I see it.

A (58:43)

Some of the big institutional parts of the Democratic Party don't seem to really have much of a position on this, at least not publicly expressed. I'm thinking of the labor unions. I'm thinking of the donor class. I'm thinking of the strategists. Are those parts of Democratic Party divided? Are they just bystanders? Like, where are they on deciding if the party's going to be the DSA party or the more moderate party?

B (59:08)

You know, I can't remember a time maybe when you go back to after Gore won but lost and then Kerry lost. I can't think of a time when the party has been where a power vacuum like this has existed and where it really truly does feel like that old saying, you know, where are my people going? I must know so I can lead them.

A (59:29)

Right?

B (59:30)

And that's what it feels like. The people that aren't speaking out are sort of hanging back, are putting their finger in the wind and seeing which way the wind blows. And, you know, I have obviously personal experience having dealt with this. In the New York City race, we had all the money. I helped on Governor Cuomo's mayoral race. We had all the money, we had all the institutional players, we had all the unions behind us, and we came up short. And you can debate all the reasons for why that is, but at the end of the day, that was the reality of what happened on the primary and election day. And so then you see a lot of those people sort of retreat back because they want to be with the winner. Because if they're with a winner and they're with the winner early, then they have more influence than what could ultimately be a winning administration. But what I think you've seen more and more, you know, let's use the unions for an example, is this detachment between the leadership and the actual membership. And I remember in 2016 after Hillary lost, meeting with a lot of the major labor leaders from around the country, we did a closed door dinner and we were talking about what they did in their aftermath assessment of what went wrong and how all of those unions, almost all of them, went with Hillary. But then when you looked at where their members went, their members broke with the leadership and they had voted for Trump. And so there's a fear, I think, from a lot of the top strategists, a lot of the donor types, a lot of the union leader types of sort of exposing themselves as being out of step with the people they purport to represent and also not being with the winner. And so that power vacuum is huge right now. And the person who's is really feeling his oats is Bernie Sanders and stepping into it and trying to claim the mantle. And you know, the real test is going to be what happens in these primaries, because at the end of day, the day winning a primary is fine, but winning in general is what it should be all about. So I think that the DSA would rather win the soul of the party and try to encroach further and further from being fringe to being the majority and lose in November, then potentially give up and continue to be viewed as extremists.

A (61:37)

Over the last, well said. Over the last few decades, when one party has been out of power in the White House and sometimes also Congress, the governors of that party have stepped up and they've been both cooperative with each other, but also competitive to say we should define the party, we should be dealing with the national media more, we should be speaking out more. And you've got a bunch of governors who may or may not run for president, Governor of Pennsylvania, governor of Michigan, governor of Illinois, governor of California, governor of Colorado, who, you know, they go on tv, they go to Washington occasionally. Are they, are they as do you know, are they working together to help define the party? Are they working together to make sure one of them becomes the presidential nominee, or are they really siloed off?

B (62:19)

Well, I mean, I'll tell you from firsthand experience, having worked for the governor of the state of New York for a long time and during a critical period, the only time I can truly remember the governors working together, the Democratic governors working together, was during COVID when you saw blocks of governors work together. It was the height of an emergency situation. There was no national leadership. And you saw them acting together as a block for public policy. Good. But absent that, you cannot understate the real competitive nature between these guys. And there is no, oh, let's all get in the room and figure out what's best for the party. Because they all think they are what's best for the party. And so I don't, you know, look, I'm not in it the same way I used to be anymore, but I don't sense from the people I talk to that are in those offices and from my own personal experience that there's any coordination going on about, you know, what we should be doing to define the party and beat back Trump. I think it's every man for himself.

A (63:17)

Yeah, that's my sense as well. I talked earlier in the show about, about the finger pointing left and the right over rhetoric and violence. And your party talks a lot about the president's rhetoric, talks a lot about January 6th. And what I've urged everybody to do is try to have sympathy for the other side's grievances. What appreciation do you think there is in the Democratic Party for the fact that Charlie Kirk was killed, the fact that three people at least have tried to kill Donald Trump? Is there appreciation for that? And they pretend there isn't, or they're just so indignant about Donald Trump, they don't appreciate the gravity of that. How would you characterize what your party thinks about that? For real?

B (64:00)

I don't think that they spend a whole lot of time thinking about that. And I think that that's the problem because everyone, what happened Saturday night would happen with Charlie Kirk immediately in the immediate aftermath. I thought Trump had sort of a nice call for unity and his tone was correct on Saturday evening in the White House briefing room. But then five minutes later, everyone's back to their corners and everyone's being defensive and everyone's blaming each other and, and you lose the human element of what actually is going on. And we are, I think, in a sort of frog and boiling water situation right now as a country. And we're going to look back on this period of time and say, I can't believe we lived through that. I mean, when you think about the fact that in 250 years in America, there's been four assassinations of presidents, successful assassination of presidents, and there have been three attempts on Donald Trump's life in the last 10 years. That is a crazy statistic. And like school shootings, it's becoming normalized to the point where things that are happening that should stop a civilized society in its tracks barely registers, and it all just becomes about this and this. And, you know, look, I, I argue on, for, for both sides. I argue for civility. I worked in government. I had a security detail because at a point in 2020, I was getting death threats, legitimate death threats, from somebody with a criminal record. And I had a security detail, and it was really scary. And I am very close with the governor's three daughters whose grandfather, RFK, was assassinated while he was running for president. And you all, I wasn't there Saturday night. I was supposed to be there, and I canceled my trip last minute. But all of you, yourself included, included, Mark, we're in a hotel where Ronald Reagan. There was an attempted assassination. And the fact that someone was able to get that close only shows, I think, sort of our arrogance and how little we've learned and where we are. But I just wish that everybody would stop saying our side has it worse. It's your fault, it's your fault. And understand we're here and how do we sort of unwind it? Because when you looked at that, when you look at that Gallup poll that came out, I think it was Gallup yesterday, 30% of 18 to 29 year olds saying political violence is justified. A third of 18 to 29 year olds saying that is a scary statistic. And that's something we as a society, left, right and center, are going to have to face and deal with and try to unwind.

A (66:36)

So if, if Chuck Schumer or the governor of Pennsylvania, if somebody said, you know, I heard Melissa and I agree, we need to understand our own side and take accountability. What would, what would a Democrat in that situation say about this, the shooting by this guy, alleged shooter, who seems to be a pretty partisan Democrat, who doesn't like Donald Trump and Donald Trump's policies? What would the right thing to say about this beat if you wanted to take accountability for the party and bring the country together?

B (67:08)

Well, look, I don't think that the actions of one person are. I don't think you can blame Hakeem Jeffries rhetoric for the actions of this person in California. But I think that leadership has to start somewhere and it has to be sustained because we all have this 30 seconds after something happens where we all say we need to bring the temperature down. We need to all understand that words have consequences and we all have to be better. And then seven seconds later, the president is on truth social saying horrific things. And then you have Gavin Newsom handing out knee pads to world leaders in Europe and Davos and sort of the race to the bottom just resumes. And so I would say that somebody, I wish there was an adult that said it starts with Me, no matter what the other side says or does, I'm not going to conduct myself that way. I call on my colleagues to uphold this pledge of basic respect and decorum in public discourse and understanding that, you know, we need to lead by example and start to get some of the cursing out of the tweets, the threats, the we're going to fight you into all of this. Like that language needs to be deleted from our leaders and our political consultants vocabulary on Twitter and in real life. And unfortunately, I just don't see that happening.

A (68:29)

Right. So again, President Trump's language and some of the things he's said and done are, are, are the responsibility of their side. Is it just a matter if, again, if a Democrat wanted to really be accountable and understanding of the grievances of the right about this stuff, is it just a matter of not saying, you know, we need to target them, you know, it's time, their time is up. Is it just a matter of not saying those things or the more fundamental things Democrats could do? To the extent that there's a culture in which this shooter marinated, is there other things except just changing that language, is that it? Or there are other things?

B (69:05)

Well, I think that there are things that go beyond party lines that need to happen. I think that TikTok, I think Twitter, I think that social media in general, and we see this, there are studies on this, the algorithm rewards content that evokes strong emotions. That's why everything you see makes you angry, hateful, or it's like a puppy saving a baby. Right? It's like those are the two things that come up in everybody's feeds. And I think that we as a government have a responsibility, understanding the First Amendment, of course, to regulate some of this and to kick people off platforms and to have real rules about what can be on. I mean, at this point, it's the wild, wild West. And I'm not saying that we should be, you know, Obviously after, in 2020, Twitter kicked off Trump, Facebook kicked off Trump, and then there was this feeling of this one side ism, the liberal, you know, liberals who are running social media were taking over social media and who are they to decide what opinions should be voiced? However, I think that there's almost no standard about violent language, about violence in general, about calls to violence and those things. There need to be guardrails, and then those guardrails have to be strictly introduced, forced. And again, when you look at that, those numbers of the 18 to 29 year olds, what really scares me about that is that's this generation. Like, I'm 43 years old. Facebook didn't exist until my senior year of college. Like, I grew up my whole life, my whole, you know, teens in college without the burden of social media. And I think I'm better off for it, frankly. And I feel sorry for these other generations, for your son, for my nieces and nephew, who live a very different world with social media. But when you look at that and the stark differences within those age ranges, I think that that aligns perfectly with this generation that is growing up on smartphones, constantly looking at screens, with TikTok and with Instagram and with Twitter, with algorithms that promote stoke violence, hate, anger. And I think you can't ignore the. That it's. That it has something to do with it. And we've dehumanized people to the point where a school shooting happens and people don't blink. President United States, third assassination attempt Saturday night. Hey, honey, did you see what just happened? Oh, I'll look at it in the morning, roll over and go to sleep. That's a. That's a bad place for a society to be.

A (71:34)

Amen. All right, we'll close. Just a few. 2028, my favorite game. I'll name two people. You tell me who's more likely to be the nominee.

B (71:41)

Okay, Ready?

A (71:43)

Bernie or aoc.

B (71:44)

Aoc.

A (71:46)

Newsome or Shapiro? Shapiro, Buttigieg or Harris?

B (71:52)

Buttigieg.

A (71:55)

Shapiro or Harris?

B (72:00)

Harris.

A (72:02)

Harris. Who's more likely than Harris?

B (72:08)

God willing, she just doesn't run.

A (72:10)

But if she runs, you think she's the most likely now?

B (72:12)

Well, it's still so early, and obviously all the polling I think, you know, is more representative of. She has a residual goodwill from a subset of the party from the last time around, but you can't deny that she starts there. So the question is, who can leapfrog over that? How do you drive that number down? And at this point, I continue to be underwhelmed by. By the crop of talent, both the left and the right.

A (72:36)

Yeah. Will Barack Obama endorse a candidate?

B (72:41)

I don't think so. I mean, Barack Obama is sending funny messages these days. You know, I frankly would like to see him get off the stage. He, I think, has been very little help since he left office. I think he and his wife cashed in, which is their right. You know, they sacrificed their lives to public, public service. Then they went and made a boatload of money on podcasts and books and all kinds of things, bought big houses in Martha's Vineyard. And fine, that's great, but I don't think they did a whole hell of a lot to support the party from the time he left office. And I don't know if it was Gaspard or who it was who thought to themselves, you know what we should do? Let's send Barack Obama in to normalize the fringe. DSA Mayor OF New York City but if that's the kind of advice that he's giving and if he thinks the Democratic Party would be better off tilting so far to the left that we become the maga's answer on the other side, then I don't want his involvement in the party anymore.

A (73:37)

Yeah. So you're surprised he came and did a photo op with Mayor Mondame or not surprised, but disappointed?

B (73:42)

Well, I just feel like it was a normalization of a guy who shouldn't be normalized. And I also think that Democrats sitting around doing press conferences with Mamdomi, pretending that we have universal, that he has achieved universal childcare in New York, when in fact, number one, the promise he extracted from Hochul, which hasn't even been passed the legislature hasn't even voted on the budget is for 2000 seats for 2K in the fall. That's not universal childcare. It's not universal anything. And I think everyone from Elizabeth Warren to AOC to Bernie Sanders trying to save, celebrate this as if it's a massive accomplishment. Guess what, guys? People aren't stupid. And come the fall when somebody says, oh, I'd like to take advantage of this free child care I keep hearing about on TikTok and President Obama was promoting all these things and then there is no free child care. All it does is stoke cynicism in an already cynical public that government is bullshit. If I'm allowed to use that language on your show, yeah, sure. And doesn't actually deliver. And it's all smoke and mirrors in one big vanity exercise. So I just think that in this moment where there is a huge war between the far left and the center, that I would like that for more moderate voices who actually understand how government works, to sit this one out rather than do what one of your former aides asks you to do and help normalize the fringe.

A (75:08)

I keep trying to get on the free buses here and everybody I know,

B (75:12)

I don't know,

A (75:14)

it's all going to be done by the end of his second.

B (75:15)

I'm waiting for free rent personally, you know. Yeah.

A (75:19)

Melissa DeRosa, Democratic strategist. Love having you on. Thank you for being here. You can follow Melissa pretty much everywhere on social media, but she's got X Game. Melissa, thank you.

B (75:28)

Thank you, Mark.

A (75:29)

All right, that's it for today's program. Back on Thursday, a brand new episode with special thanks, of course, to Melissa and to Dan for being here and all you nexters for being part of it. Subscribe to us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast so you always know what's coming. Next up. See you Thursday.

D (75:48)

What would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.

A (75:54)

Another pina colada?

C (75:55)

Yes, please.

D (75:56)

Open a new retail location with 36% more square feet.

C (75:59)

Fantastic.

D (76:00)

Hire 36% more help.

C (76:02)

You're hired. And you're hired.

D (76:04)

Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other e commerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to Shopify today@shopify.com setup and get a $1 trial. Shopify.com setup why have we asked our contractor we found on Angie.com to be our kid's legal guardian? Because he took such good care when redoing our basement that we knew we could trust him to care for our kids.

C (76:26)

We only met a month ago.

A (76:27)

Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.