← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Why the Iran Conflict Is More Complicated Than It Looks, Plus: Jonathan Freedland on Diplomacy vs War and Ralph Reed on Charlie Kirk
01:09:47
Mark Halperin’s reported monologue breaks down the latest developments in the U.S. conflict with Iran, explaining why recent U.S. and Israel strikes are delivering meaningful tactical wins, while the broader strategy remains uncertain. He outlines what’s going well, what’s not, and why reopening the Strait of Hormuz is the single most critical factor in determining how this conflict unfolds, with major implications for the global economy and U.S. military strategy. Plus, Jonathan Freedland joins Mark to discuss how he became an expert on American politics from the U.K., and why so many in Britain misunderstand the United States, before making the case that diplomacy may have been a better path than war with Iran. And Dr. Ralph Reed reflects on Charlie Kirk’s legacy, explaining why he was a once-in-a-generation communicator and what his absence means for MAGA and the future of the conservative movement. ExpressVPN: Visit https://ExpressVPN.com/MARK to find out how you can get up to...
Loading summary
Transcript102 lines
- [00:02]
A
Pay around the corner and around the globe.
- [00:05]
B
Apple Pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you see the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple Pay button online and in apps, whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple Watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple way terms apply. Foreign.
- [00:30]
C
It's tax season and at Lifelock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com special offer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [01:03]
B
So much news. So much news. So much news. Welcome to NextUp. I'm Mark Halperin trying to track all the news. I'm the editor in chief of the live interactive video platform two Way and the host here to try to keep up with the news and help you guide through the chaos to figure out what's happening. Next up, very happy you're here. Very happy St Patrick's Day to you and yours. You've made the right call to spend a little bit of time with me here. We have two great guests who are gonna explain a lot to you. And my reported monologue on the status of the Iran conflict. First up, talk more after my monologue about Iran. Someone with a very strong perspective on America and on why he thinks the Iran crisis, the Iran conflict was a big mistake. The Guardians, Jonathan Friedland joins US from the UK and then Dr. Ralph Reed joins us. He's the founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Can talk to him about the absence of Charlie Kirk as well as run through some of the current politics in 2026. So Ralph Reed and Jonathan Friedland coming up. But first, my reported monologue on the status of the conflict with Iran. What is going well, what is not? My reported monologue is next going online without ExpressVPN. It's like printing your Social Security number right on your business card. You're just putting way too much personal information out there for bad actors to exploit using a vpn. It's essential when connecting to unencrypted networks in cafes or hotels or airports as your online data can be exposed to hackers who target passwords, bank logins, credit card details and more. ExpressVPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet with reliable coverage across all of your devices, say your laptop, your phone, your tablet or more. U.S. plans also include their Identity Defender. It's a new suite of tools to get your data removed from data brokers, alert you when your data appears on the dark web and ensures you against data theft for up to $1 million offered now at their lowest price ever planned, start at just $3.49 on a month. So secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com NextUp that's E X P R E S s v p n.com NextUp to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Again, it's expressvpn.com NextUp. All right. Now, my reported monologue. I spend a lot of time since the conflict with Iran started talking to government officials here and around the world, also business leaders who are very clued in to some of the elements there and people who are interested observers in all the affected countries. And good news and bad news continues to come through. So what I'm going to try to do today is to tell you what I think's going well in the conflict from the point of view of the United States, not the politics of it, but the substance. And what are the areas where there are some questions, either because they're going poorly or because we still don't know how it's going to come out. War is unpredictable, and this is an unpredictable situation. As I was preparing today to talk about this topic and doing my reporting last, reporting big news that's no doubt good for the United States and for Israel. Israel reporting that they killed two senior Iranian officials, including really the guy who's like kind of the top been the top strategist for the Iranians, Ali Larajani. That's good news to the United States. And Israel destabilizes what was already a destabilized regime. They also reportedly killed a guy who was one of the chief security officials, not fully confirmed as I'm talking to you now, but just the latest in what Israel and the US Say are senior leadership losses. There's no doubt that the United States and Israel have seriously degraded the brain of the Iranian regime as well as the military muscle. So this is a tactically impressive step, finding them and killing them. But strategically, this still remains complicated. So let's talk about it. What's going? Well, there's widespread reports Washington Post and elsewhere today saying that the Iranian leadership now is confused, it's paranoid, it's struggling to coordinate, running the government, running the military operation. And some Iranians are quietly cheering. Not a lot of reports. We thought there'd be more, frankly, coming out of Iran. But when people get to talk to folks in Iran about what's happening, the activists, the people most interested in trying to foster regime change, they're well aware of what's happening and pleased about it. Another thing that's going well is markets in the United States and around the world now. Gas prices are up, oil prices are up. And we've seen some days of the markets taking a hit in the United States and elsewhere, but not what it might be. You always have to imagine what it could be like. And in talking to people in the financial sector, what they say is there's some confidence in the part of the president. There's also a belief that this will be a short conflict. And some people like to talk about Taco, President Trump, you know, chickening out. But more they just believe this could be a short war, and that means they're looking for bargains. If the market takes a hit one day, a lot of people have confidence, as the Trump administration does, in the fundamentals of the economy. So all that's going well. Again, it's not perfect, but the president, when he makes the case that when the conflict ends and that it will end soon, that the economy could be very strong, particularly if there's access to the Iranian oil. There's some truth to that, at least potentially. Drones people have made a big deal about this being the first AI war, the first drone war on the Iranian side, but also on the US side. US superiority as a fighting force using drones is a massive, massive upside for the United States in this conflict, but also going forward, because other countries are aware now, the U.S. the U.S. advantage in nuclear weapons is really just kind of psychological and symbolic because there's no indication the US Would use nuclear weapons. The drones can be used with impunity. Also using drones, also having a great demonstration of technical competence are the Israelis. And the operational performance between the United States and Israel continues to just be extraordinary in finding targets and hitting them with minimal loss of life. Every American casualty, of course, is a tragedy, and we've seen people killed and people injured. But given the scale of this operation and the complexity, it's actually relatively low. How many people have died, how many people have been injured? That's also a positive. Another positive related to Israel is that Netanyahu And Trump have kept their disagreements at a public view. Now, make no mistake, there's some disagreements already. There's some more coming. But the fact that they've been able to keep hostilities and tensions there at a public view is a victory. And then finally maybe the biggest victory of all in some ways, if you think beyond the four corners of this conflict, Russia and China have largely stayed on the sidelines. They don't like the war, at least particularly the Chinese. But their US And Chinese delegations met very senior level. Scott Bessant for the United States in France, the president talked to Putin. Russia and China are not at the UN Making noise there reports that they're helping the Iranians, but they're not in this like a Cold war conflict using the Iranians as a proxy to defeat the United States. That is good news news. Now, there are a couple articles out that are getting really widely read in maybe what you consider unlikely places that make similar cases about the US Israeli campaign is already producing strategic gains and that regime change actually could be possible even though it hasn't been talked about much of late. First one is in the Atlantic magazine. They run articles that are sometimes not so favorable about President Trump to say the least. But they'll also run articles that they think represent the truth. And two guys, Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of something called the foundation for Defense of Democracies, a very prominent anti Iran hawk, and then Richard Goldberg, a former government official. Their case is that Iran's air defenses have been degraded, their missile force has been degraded. The leadership, of course, has been degraded. And their ability to fight back, both through their proxies in the region and through these missiles that they do have remaining seriously degraded and that this is phase one, weaken Iran's war capacity, then move on to phase two to try to undermine their police state. And some of that has begun as well, we're told in the reporting, knocking out the ability of the Iranian regime to suppress the people. That could lead to regime change. It's not a sure thing, but people who are impatient for regime change are for the president to talk more about it expected maybe that to happen in phase one, and it hasn't. But phase two is underway now. The Strait of Hormuz, of Hormuz, of course, is still a big issue. But people who believe this is going well think that over time that can be resolved, that the US can force Iran or negotiate with Iran to open it back up. And of course, they still need to deal with the nuclear sites. We'll talk about that in In a minute. The sustained pressure, though, is what these guys think is super important. The sustained pressure is working and it could conceivably lead to collapse. Now the other article also maybe in surprising places on the website of Al Jazeera in their opinion section. It's about a guy who's a veteran journalist and a senior policy fellow at the American University of Beirut. Rami Corey argues similarly that this early phase has substantially degraded Iran's capabilities and made it harder for them to fight back. That's a victory in and of itself. That's a big deal. He emphasizes, as the other authors do, that the air dominance and leadership decapitation have given the operation a sense of momentum. There are a lot of critics who suggest, oh, the war has failed, not going to achieve all the objectives. But the cumulative effect, he argues, is still unfolding, the proxy network weakening and Israel's done that by going into Lebanon has been effective. And part of why this operation took place was Iran was a bully in the neighborhood. Iran had all these proxies surrounding Israel. Some of that's been degraded previously in Gaza and elsewhere, but now more of it's being done and Iran's being cut off from their proxies. And this takes away a lot of the leverage that Iran had to terrorize people. So he argues that this campaign could really make the Middle east generally safer. You could see more momentum out of this in towards the second Abraham Accord. So read those two pieces if you want to hear really muscular, well reasoned arguments about why this is going well again in Al Jazeera and the Atlantic. Now, what are my sources say is not going as well? Well, Iran continues to be able to strike. Their capacities diminished, but they continue to strike Israel, they continue to strike other Gulf targets. And that's not great for the psychology of this and the practicality of it. And there's still vulnerable targets out there. We saw them hit ships, we saw them hit some financial centers, we saw them hit some aviation targets, some energy targets. That continues to be a problem. And the fact that the strait is closed, the biggest problem really right now, how that's going to get reopened, when that's going to get reopened. The president on Truth Social today saying all his attempts to get help from other countries not going to work. So that's a big problem. This conflict is not going to be resolved favorably for the United States until that figure it out. And Iran still has the asymmetrical advantage. They don't need to win. They don't need to kill as many Americans as Iranians are killed. They don't need to overthrow the American government. They just need to stretch this out and test the capacity of Donald Trump to go into this conflict on an extended basis. Right. The president's now talking about maybe another month of this. The Iranians can hear him say that he's under pressure to the markets and to the Congress and the public to say this won't be a long time. So if he says it's going to be 30 days, they say, okay, let's mark the 31st day on our calendar. Let's survive until then. The costs are mounting, right? How much the Congress is being going to be asked to spend on this, how this is hurting the economy, even though it's not devastating it yet on the shipping traffic, not just of energy and fertilizer, but other things through the strait. And it's possible that what this is leading to, you'll hear me talk to Jonathan Friedland about this, is to a more radical regime in Iran that if you can't eliminate them, you leave yourself with a set of government actors who can't afford to do anything but oppose the United States, The Gulf countries. Good news is they're not siding with Iran, but you could easily imagine them ending this conflict, feeling a little upset about, about the United States actions and Israel's actions. They, they've been exposed to retaliation now and, and changed places like Abu Dhabi, Dubai, that aren't used to being targeted the way they are. Some Trump allies are a little concerned and critics of the war that Iran now controls. The tempo of this Iran is, is in some ways more in control and to, to, to deal with things like opening the strait, to deal with things like the car island, we might have to put boots on the ground. And that would open up a big political problem for the President. The other big longer term conflict, short term, it's opening up the strait, my sources say, is the rich uranium. You're either going to have to negotiate an ironclad deal to get that removed and that's a complex process, or you have to somehow destroy it without creating an economic catastrophe. So that's a big one to watch. The President, I believe, is hoping, according to my sources, to so degrade the regime, to so intimidate them into surrender that they negotiate in good faith for once to figure out how to get that uranium out of there. Finally, the things we don't know, we don't know about Carg Island. The president says it was destroyed in terms of its infrastructure, but not the energy infrastructure. What's going to happen there. Israel going into Lebanon has definitely reduced Hezbollah's capacity, but opening up that front is a big unknown and something some in the American government aren't crazy about. There's also the US China relationship. What kind of impact is what's happening in Iran having on the relationship? What kind of impact is the relationship having on Iran? So far so good, but there are people worried about that. And then the president's under a lot of pressure domestically and he's usually pretty impervious to this, but neocons like at the Wall Street Journal editorial page don't want him to take the foot off the accelerator. Working with the Israelis, MAGA is restive and particularly if he starts to put army or other forces on the ground. And then finally the media, the media framing of this, the White House will tell you with some truth. A lot of truth is super negative and they're covering it the way they cover Donald Trump doing anything. And there's some in Trump's orbit who push back and think, well, this is great when we attack the media, it's going well, but it certainly frames how the public is experiencing the war. And they're seeing an emphasis more on the negative things I listed from my sources than the positive. So that's a snapshot of where we are now. This is a fast moving story and you'll never know exactly if everything I'm able to report is the full picture. You can bet that it's not complete, but I think that gives you a good sense of what's going well right now, what's going poorly, and where the big unknowns are. As always, I'd love to hear from you. Send me your emails, tell me your theories, tell me what you think I left off of any of my lists of good, bad or unknown. You can hit me up@nextup halpernmail.com Send me your thoughts on the war. Send them quick because it's fast moving. If you liked what you heard, be a good citizen and a good nexter and share the link with your friends. Want to grow the community we have here? And don't be the last person who knows when there's new content on my YouTube channel. Subscribe to the Next up channel. You'll get warnings about notifications of all the full episodes and bonus content there. Again, our YouTube channel is YouTube.com Next up Halperin. And of course you can listen to us as a podcast as well. Turn on the downloads. Whether you're on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts so you always get one tap away from the latest programs, Tuesdays and Thursdays and bonus content. All right, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to be joined by someone with very strong views on the Iran conflict and what Donald Trump and the Israelis have done. My friend, the Guardian columnist Jonathan Friedland, who also hosts the podcast Politics Weekly America, will join us to lay out his case against what Donald Trump has done. That's next up. Let me ask you something. Do you own physical gold? Most people don't. And given the current state of the world, this is worth thinking about. Acre Gold makes it simple. You pick a plan that fits your budget, make monthly payments, and when you've accumulated enough, they ship you a beautifully designed 24 karat Swiss gold bar. Gold is up 70% year over year, and central banks are still buying at record levels. Smart money has been moving into hard assets like gold for a reason. They've had subscribers stacking consistently now for six years because once you hold it in your hand, you'll understand the difference between owning something real versus a number on a screen. Right now, they're giving away over 18 grams of gold in their acre declassified sweepstakes. Enter for free and subscribe to gold@getacregold.com Mark Again, go to getacregold.com Mark it's tax season.
- [19:10]
C
And at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money in refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [19:39]
B
Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.
- [19:49]
D
This is very strange, Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com
- [19:57]
B
all right, next up and joining me now, someone with a different view than some in the United States, but not all on what's happening in Iraq. Jonathan Friedland. He's the Guardian columnist, host of what I'm Told to say is an acclaimed Podcast, Politics Weekly America. New episodes drop every Friday on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your fine podcast. First of all, who's Jonathan Welcome. Who's acclaimed your podcast?
- [20:23]
D
Well, you just did, I think, even though you were pains to attribute it to others. But no, we have a loyal following inside the United States and actually around the world. So yeah, I think the acclaim is, is legit. I think you're well sourced on that.
- [20:37]
B
Yeah. Now you one reason I love you, besides the fact that I love you, is you understand the United States, which not every British reporter does and columnist does. Where did you learn to understand the United States so well?
- [20:51]
D
Well, I think you and I crossed paths back in the 1990s. I was a reporter, sort of baby cover reporter for the initially for the Washington post in the 1992 campaign. Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, George H.W. bush, that campaign. I was on the road, on the buses on Air Force One, et cetera, covering that campaign and then got so sort of hooked on the story that I then persuaded the the Guardian newspaper to and the BBC actually in combination to make me the Washington correspondent. So I did that for just over four years in the mid-90s. And then ever since I've made it my business to come back every election cycle, every presidential, every midterms, I'm there on the road usually. And I've maintained, you know, my interest in it and covering it, albeit now from here, what with this podcast where I speak to, you know, American journalists, political strategists, players, week in, week out for this podcast.
- [21:46]
B
And what you've done is what I've tried to do, which is use elections not as just a spectacle but as a prism to try to understand the United States. So what are some things you think a lot of people in England don't understand about the United States that you do in terms of our culture, our politics? Trump?
- [22:05]
D
Well, that's a really interesting question. I always felt that one huge thing that is missed out is this huge just swathe of American terrain that isn't New York, Washington, Los Angeles or at a push Florida, meaning those are the places Brits tend to go to. And the idea I used to make sure as a correspondent that I would spend a huge amount of time in Iowa, in a small town in Normal, Illinois, in Kansas, or these places that just, I mean you talk about those flyover country, these are places that were don't fly at all country to non Americans. Nobody would ever make it to those places. And there was no feel for small town America. I think the other thing that was hugely missed was the embedded nature of American democracy at the lowest possible level. I mean, I would make a point of writing about school board elections and, you know, county board of supervisors and just explaining to Brits that really every position, position that in British life would be appointed, you know, police chief was subject to election. That there was democracy was encoded into American life from top to bottom. And I would even notice it as a reporter still to this day, if you try and do a vox pop meaning like a street interview in Britain, your average person will just run a mile. They won't want to talk to you. And if they do, they will be faltering and often, you know, hesitant, not really particularly eloquent. You can stop any random American on any random street and they will be up to speed with the politics and fluent about voicing their own opinion because they are taught from birth. I would say that they are co owners of the United States, it's their country, we the people, and that therefore they are responsible for it. And they take that responsibility quite seriously. I was always very struck by Americans who would talk about presidential elections as if they were job interviews, that they were hiring a CEO who they could then fire. Brits tended then, I think maybe a tiny bit more now not to feel they had that degree of agency or power, partly because this country's historically is. Was structured as a monarchy. It's very, very different.
- [24:22]
B
One more predicate laying and question and then to Iran, explain as best you can why Donald Trump won in 2024, not in 2016, but why did he win in 2024.
- [24:36]
D
I think he won in 2024 because people thought the economy was in the tank or very underperforming. And they thought he was. Say what you like about Donald Trump, the economy was okay. And still people saw him as capable on the economy. I think they believed he would bring down prices and he would do it pretty quickly. I think they saw his opponent, Kamala Harris, as culturally outside the mainstream. The San Francisco liberal thing. I think there is still enough sexism in American life, but, you know, not only American life that still hesitates about a woman president. I think given the history of the country, a black woman as president was, was always going to be a big ask and I think was tainted by association with an administration that was blamed for the poor functioning of the economy and for a whole battery of problems and the sort of low energy quality of Biden rubbed off on her and she didn't have long enough to turn it around. So I think all of those Things. And I think there was a sense that Donald Trump, you know, yeah, he talks crazy stuff on the stump, but he won't do anything crazy when he's president. It will just be lots of tweets, because that's what it was last time. So I think they were underprepared, many Americans, for what Trump 2 pointed O has actually entailed.
- [25:58]
B
So in your very good list of reasons, all of which I agree played a role, you didn't include anything about a backlash against either how Trump was treated in terms of prosecutions or by the media. And you didn't include things like areas in which the Democratic Party was perceived as being too liberal, too woke, too far to the left. Do you think those two things played a role at all?
- [26:22]
D
Yes, they did. It's fair for you to bring those up. I mean, I remember my own reaction when I heard on a radio spot, I think it was while on the road for the 2024 election, that ad that said, you know, Kamala, she's for they them, President Trump's for you. And I remember almost gasping, thinking, that is such an effective piece of political communication that will cut through. I thought to myself, and it's certainly right that he was able to to put his finger on the sort of vibe shift we people called it. But, you know, the excesses of that period, many of which were not actually attributable to the Democratic Party, capital D, capital P, or to the Biden administration, just things that had happened in American life. And so the they them line was very powerful because it went to something cultural that people would have known just from their own workplace or from emails they'd got. And it sort of managed to tie her to a cultural shift that look many millions of Americans welcome, but many millions of Americans feel really uncomfortable with. And it managed to ride that wave and distill it in a very powerful way. And, you know, I was certainly at one of those rallies in Salem, Virginia. I remember where Donald Trump brought on stage girls from a girls swimming team who had stood firm against competing against trans girls or biological males in their team. And, you know, it cut through with that crowd, no doubt about it. But still think front and center were those other things, starting with the economy.
- [28:00]
B
All right, this is all lay a predicate for the Iran conversation. And forgive those of you who aren't familiar with Jonathan's point of view, a sense of things. Little known fact, the friendship between myself and Jonathan is actually the basis for the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. And I was Surprised in reading your most recent column about the Iran war conflict, how vociferously opposed you are to it. In my monologue earlier, I talked about some things are going well, some less well. But let me start this way, because, you know, you say it's not going to achieve regime change, it's not going to make Iran less of a threat. That's a summary of your comment. I recommend it to everybody because it's, as most of your stuff is, all your stuff, very well reasoned. But what was the alternative if there's a shared view that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, terror networks, be a threat to the region, and, and that it's got to happen somehow. If President Trump had said to stop me, I'm going to do this unless you stop me, but I still need to achieve these goals shared by the United Kingdom, shared by the Saudis. What was the alternative to the way this has been pursued, in your view?
- [29:12]
D
Well, we have, first of all, that there was an ongoing diplomatic effort. The Omani foreign minister, maybe you take that with skepticism. He was convinced he'd made a breakthrough on the question of enriching enrichment of uranium. He flew straight away to Washington to press that case, and he was convinced that with a bit more time that he was going to get there. There's no doubt all serious analysts of Iran will tell you there were divisions in that regime and there were some factions who wanted to cut a deal and some who didn't. Now, artful, agile, nimble diplomacy knows how to boost the faction who want to make a deal and diminish or shrink the faction that are hardline and stubborn. That's what sophisticated diplomacy will entail. But let's say that isn't your taste and you think you want a more muscular approach. That approach had already and was already being tried in the form of attacks on Iran's proxies. And Israel had done a pretty effective job of reducing Hezbollah's arsenal. Hamas, obviously, is still there in Gaza, but they weren't the fight force they had been before. You could say that actually, in terms of Iran's ability to hit back, it was held in check. Just two facts I would mention. The first one is anybody who looked at the chessboard beforehand, and I don't say this with some kind of hindsight, this is what people were saying to me in conversation before it happened, that Iran held this huge asymmetric weapon in the form of the Strait of Hormuz, that even if you were to whack their arsenal and hit their weapons you were going to leave them in control of this massive weapon that can hold the entire global economy to ransom. The trick is to reduce the incentive for them to use it. The problem with launching a war of regime change and saying from the outset that's what you want to do, is they then have no incentive to cut any deal. You then make it do or die for them. You make it existential. And so sure enough, within two weeks, they've reached for that massive asymmetric weapon. So I think there was a sort of, there was some containment going on. I agree. It wasn't giving you the sugar rush of seeing Khamenei's head on a spike. The Supreme Leader wasn't dead, but it was, you know, containing, reducing, potentially getting another nuclear deal. And I know people, a lot of them laugh at the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama brokered, but I recommend a lot of people dig out this. There's an extraordinary graphic prepared by the Financial Times which shows the production of fissile material and centrifuges in Iran over the last 15 years or so. The graph suddenly stops between 2015 and 2018. No production in the years of the Iran nuclear deal. They just stopped producing them. And after the 12 day war last June, the graph goes through the roof. Iran suddenly started producing them all over again. So we incentivized effectively the hardliners and May and made it much, much more difficult for those who were looking to cut a deal.
- [32:23]
B
Well, connect up your first and last points. First you said some people credit that the negotiations were going well. And then, and then, and then you say, well, the deal, a model for some about, particularly for Obama loving Brits of how to deal with this was another deal. The data that would go into that Financial Times chart would be dependent on having an accurate view of what the Iranians have been doing. And I don't think based on what this administration feels that that's accurate. In other words, they believe the Iranians tricking the international inspectors, as they've done in the past documented, were still producing nuclear material, including at one facility that they claimed was only for medical research and producing medical isotopes. So I don't, I don't feel comfortable saying that we know for a fact that, that the Iranian attempts to build a bomb ended under the Obama deal. I just don't think we know, but I'd be skeptical. And the American negotiators were skeptical, despite what the Omani diplomat said, that the Iranians were dealing in good faith. And even a nuclear deal, even if you assume it's enforced and enforceable. They still have ballistic missile capability. There's still an existential threat to Israel. They still are the greatest sponsor of terrorism around the world, and they're still run, running a repressive regime that are killing their own citizens and keeping people from having real lives. So I add all that up and I go to your second point. I can't explain the failure to prepare for the control of the Strait. That makes no sense. There was obviously disgust, but it's prima facie it's not true when they say, well, we knew all about this and we were prepared because now they're still days later scrambling to try to deal with it. So I agree with you on that point, but I just go back to, to the original thing. No one likes war. No one wants to see a failure of regime change. No one wants to. No one can explain how you get the nuclear material out. But the alternative is more years of a repressive and dangerous regime run by fanatics. So again, I'm just trying to figure out if there's any, you have any openness, let's say it ends well. For instance, I asked Democratic that you, you sound like you could be the third senator from Connecticut with your position on, on the war, on the conflict. Let's say they, they open the strait, they get the nuclear material out. Let's say they negotiate a deal with Iran that maybe doesn't change the regime, but puts more moderate people in place. That's not some fantasy world that could happen. Would you then say, well, I misjudged the capacity of this, or would you still oppose it because you thought the means were not right, not moral, or not the right way for international behavior to be conducted?
- [35:21]
D
Well, I think the, look interesting question. I think the international, you know, the means is a real question about, but it's not sacrosanct to me. I mean, I think I was one of those people in the, in, in the 90s and early naughts who did think that the notion of a responsibility to protect was real. And the idea that a notion of international law that says state sovereignty is inviolable, which translates as dictators have the right to kill their own people. Well, I don't think that's a sacred principle. So I'm not completely close to this idea, but I do know and just we've all learned what happened In Iraq in 2003, what happened in Libya in 2011, is, this is extremely difficult. You have to approach this task humbly and with enormous preparation and tremendous Care so that you create, you strengthen those people who might be able to effect change on the ground and you weaken those who would thwart it. It seems to me that to blunder in with no plan isn't just a sort of side operational question. It actually goes to almost the morality of it, because this is so delicate. 90 million people in Iran depending on this working. You owe it to them to approach this with seriousness, with preparation, with care. If you are going in there, winging it on the hoof, ad libbing, day by day, changing the goals, one minute it's regime change, then it's unconditional surrender, then it's negotiation, then it's going to end. When I feel it in my bones, if you have prepared no allies and no alliances, then you are not serious about this task. And instead you are, as I wrote in the piece, you're walking towards a tinderbox that's drenched in gasoline with a lit match. I'm not saying that such a task is impossible and no one should ever try that. But if you are going to approach that tinderbox drenched in gasoline with a lit match, you do it gingerly, carefully, with support, with preparation. Now, you think about, you know, George H.W. bush, who I mentioned just before five months passed between the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, laying the ground militarily, but also diplomatically, making sure there were allies there, making sure that, you know, in effect, militarily, nothing could go wrong. There were no surprises. This seems to me to be as if this was almost, almost just dreamt up on a whim. The military have done their bit of it well, but you had to prepare for week two and week three. And to fail to do that is actually to not just discredit the goal of regime change, but to leave the people you claim to be helping in an even worse position. So just as one example, Donald Trump has issued those pleas to members of the Iranian security forces. Lay down your arms. Question to whom? Who are they meant to lay down their arms to? There is no organized force. There's no opposition. So either you do this thing properly and with seriousness, in which case maybe I would, you know, take your point and be open to support it. But you, what you do not do is treat this like some kind of game. And I am, you know, it's not a side point. I'm sickened by those war propaganda memes and videos that treat this literally, as if it's an amusement. This is the fate of 90 million people that are riding on this who were looking up at the Skies hoping at one point for deliverance in the form of Western bombs, who instead are seeing places killed and seeing their own tormentors, the Iranian regime, dig in and be held stronger. So I think it's, you know, you want me to, in a way, support an operation that isn't there, which is a careful, methodical, well thought through plan. This isn't that.
- [39:12]
B
Yeah, I wish we had two more hours because I listened so closely what you just said and I agree with so much of it. But there's a couple things I don't agree with necessarily. You know, I've talked on this program and I flip flopped in the space of two days about whether Donald Trump's shifting rhetoric is a positive or negative. I thought before, in the beginning it was fine because it just, it puts out a buffet of options and you may not get regime change, but talk about it and then if it's not seem like it's in the cards, immediately pull back. Now, I tend to agree with you that, that this requires constancy and seriousness, but on this issue of, of no plan, I feel it's pretty clear what he's going for. He's going to, at a minimum, with the Israelis, minimize their ability to be a naval threat, a missile threat, a nuclear threat and a terror threat. And if in addition to that we can have access to their oil, and if, in addition to that we can foster regime change, great. But those would be nice to have, but those aren't essential for this to be a success. And if what Israel and the United States achieve, something that's never been achieved, we've given the Iranian people a chance to rise up, maybe, maybe the US could do more, but then you're headed towards quagmire. We've given them the best chance they've had. We've eliminated their command and control and we've undermined their credibility. Still difficult, but that's a nice to have, great to have. What's clear is if it ended today, assuming the strait was open, which I think it could be, we've degraded their capacities more than they've ever been degraded. And that means the neighborhood, not just Israel, but the Gulf states, the Saudis, and everybody else who doesn't want them to be super powerful, they've achieved a benefit from that.
- [41:06]
D
No, well, it doesn't look like that. And the reason why I say it doesn't look like that is because I think that when you draw up the balance sheet at the end of this, yes, it's true, they've lost a whole lot of hardware and kit, that's true. But do they look like a more powerful player on the chessboard? Is there deterrent power actually asserted? Because we've seen they can exert a chokehold over the entire global economy. I mean, the Strait of Hormuz, it was always a sort of abstract because people thought it was like almost a nuclear button they would never dare push. Well, now we can see they can. And when they do, the oil price surges globally. Inflation goes up globally. Ships cannot be insured. World trade, not just in oil, actually, there's huge numbers of goods that go through there. And Iran suddenly, seems to me, is a country that you could almost have a few dinghies and a couple of limpet mines, nothing else, and they still have a massive, mighty deterrent in their hands. It's almost an economic nuke that has been advertised by these three weeks. You add into that the notion that the moderate, such as they were, and these of terms are relative, have taken a, a defeat here and the hardliners are going to be absolutely in charge when they argue we obviously have to have a nuclear weapon. Look at North Korea. No one bombs them. We need that nuclear weapon. We've advanced that cause through this war. And then finally it's the, you know, the notion that there was nothing else that could be done. I just think you'd have 30,000 people on the streets. You had an economy that is just on its last legs. Is it, you know, isn't it perhaps the case that with more pressure, more thought through pressure on this regime? Yes. With threats. Yes. Even with actually limited military action to degrade the military capability you've talked about in a way, like the June war of last year. Could that not have left the regime on its knees? Whereas instead what you have is a situation where you could have a broken regime who have nothing to lose, nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose and with this enormous weapon in their hands in the form of, of an economic stranglehold over the world economy. So I don't look at any ledger at the moment and say, okay, it's not everything, but it's pretty good. I think you could potentially have said that in June of last year. I don't think you can say it now. And I also do think there's this, you know, legitimacy point, which is Israel and the US in the eyes of that region and in the world have, you know, have, have made themselves seem like an unreliable bet for a lot of those. The UAE has a huge amount of ordinance dropped on it. Punished in a way for its close ties to the US and to Israel. When all this is settled, do they sit down and think, you know, maybe actually it makes more sense for us to be with China than to be in these Abraham Accords with Israel and with the US I think you could see a lot of reassessment because the United States has shown itself to be in some ways a dangerous friend to have. And, you know, and that would go for Israel, too.
- [44:21]
B
Yeah. Normally when I talk to Jonathan, I say, oh, you're right. In this case, I'll say, you might be right, but you might not. And we'll. We'll see. Jonathan, very grateful to you. The podcast drops every Friday again. It's called Politics Weekly America. How often do you colonize?
- [44:34]
D
Also once a week every Friday. So that drops online on Friday afternoon your time or Friday, you know, lunchtime your time, really. And so those two, you know, the column is very often about the US this week, about the Middle east and so on. So, yeah, if people want to turn to that, just Jonathan Friedland at the Guardian, they'll find it.
- [44:53]
B
And you're a great novelist as well. Do you have anything coming out soon?
- [44:56]
D
Well, the last two books I've done have been nonfiction and a book called the Traitor Circle, which is a true story, remarkable true story of a group of very elite Germans who were anti Nazi in during the war. They gathered together in secret. They one day gathered for a secret tea party. It was disguised as they thought they were among their own. What they did not know is that someone sitting around that table with them they thought was a kindred spirit was instead about to betray all the rest to the Gestapo. Wholly true story. I framed it like a whodunit, but it's really about resistance. Who stands up to tyranny when it comes and who does not. It's called the Traitor's Circle.
- [45:36]
B
And the best narrative nonfiction reads like a novel, as that does. Jonathan, thank you. Jonathan Friedland, grateful to you from the Guardian. Thank you for joining. Great to see you, my friend.
- [45:45]
D
Good to be with you.
- [45:46]
B
All right, next up, doctors in the house. Next up with Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Ralph Reed is next up. Did you know that high blood pressure is the number one risk factor for mortality? One in two adults has it and that means there's a 50, 50 chance you're 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 tasting 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 is the very best part. It's completely risk free. Try 120Life for two weeks and if you don't see a difference in your numbers, you get your money back. Go to 120life.com again, that's 120life.com and use the code NextUp to save 20% and get free shipping. This is a serious business, folks. This is your life we're talking about. 120 life can help.
- [46:48]
C
It's tax season and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [47:18]
B
Why have we asked our contractor we found on Angie.com to be our kid's legal guardian?
- [47:22]
D
Because he took such good care when
- [47:23]
B
redoing our basement that we knew we could trust him to care for our kids.
- [47:27]
D
We only met a month ago, Angie, the one you trust. Define the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com
- [47:35]
B
all right, next up and joining me now, Dr. Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Someone with an extraordinary role in public life and the conservative movement in the Republican Party for many decades. It's hard to be at the level Ralph has been for as long as he's been. And grateful to have you here, Mr. Chairman.
- [47:55]
A
Thank you very much, Mark. Good to be with you.
- [47:58]
B
I know I'm not the only one who says this to you, but it's clear that part of the fact that you had all this longevity is you still look like you're in your 20s, which is quite a feat because you're a great. You're a grandfather, right?
- [48:09]
A
I am indeed. I have a fourth on the way.
- [48:12]
B
Yeah. I would still card you if I had a tavern. There's so much I want to talk to you about. I just want. I just want to start with Charlie Kirk, someone who was a guest on this show and appeared on and such an important force. How do you evaluate what his absence from the national town square means for maga, for the conservative movement. How is that being felt, in your view?
- [48:36]
A
Well, there aren't a lot of people who are irreplaceable, but Charlie, you know, falls in that category. I got to know Charlie as he was coming up. You know, he was a young buck who used to bring young people and college students to Faith and Freedom's policy conference. He was also doing that at cpac. So I don't know how old he would have been at that time. Maybe, you know, 18, 19, 20. And he was a great talent, had a great intellect, he was a great organizer. And he's not replaceable. You know, it's like losing a Rush Limbaugh. You know, maybe five years into his syndication, we'll never know what Charlie could have accomplished. But the good news is he had it. He made a huge impact while he was with us. It's a terrible tragedy and a terrible loss that he's no longer with us. And, you know, there are people like that Mark that are just once in a generation talents, and he would. He was one of those.
- [49:40]
B
So I accept your premise. It's the premise of my question. But what's something specific? You say he's not replaceable. What's a place, tangibly, where you see his absence? For instance, he worked on voter registration and voter turnout. Is he not replaceable on that? Where do you see it? What's an example where you see and feel his absence?
- [49:58]
A
I would say it's less the aspects of the ground game to which he contributed mightily, and more his talents and abilities as a communicator and a persuader and a motivator and a mobilizer. You know, he. He punched above his weight. In other words, it wasn't just Turning Point. It was the podcast, it was the radio show, it was his campus appearances. And he increased the intensity and excitement of our folks. And that's an intangible, Mark. It's not like you can sit there and go, number of doors knocked or number of students recruited. It's not a data point. It's an intangible. And I live in the Atlanta area, and one of the last times that I was with Charlie was backstage at a Turning Point event that they did in Duluth, which is where I used to live. I used to live right around the corner from the arena where he was doing this event. And I had come in with President Trump and his team, and we were arriving at the venue, and I. I've been in that arena Many times, Mark, for concerts and, you know, things, you know, that were entertainment events, and he filled that arena. And he was also an extraordinary networker. You know, he knew everybody. He was very responsive. I think the last communication I had with him was probably a couple of weeks before he was assassinated. And I texted him and thanked him for taking the courageous stand that he had against reclassifying marijuana under federal law. And he was, he was courageous, he was fearless, and he was right about 99% of the time. You know, he. He sometimes took a while to get there. But, like, his stand on cannabis was an example that did not resonate well, necessarily with every element of his audience. So I'm going to miss him, and I don't expect to again. There are some talents that are just once in a generation, and he was one of those.
- [52:30]
B
Yeah, well said. Everything he said. And I just want to raise one more thing about Charlie and then we'll move on. Where I see his absence right now is in the extraordinary vitriol that's occurring within MAGA and within the conservative movement amongst people you and I both know, your friends, people I cover. I mean, we could spend an hour listing them all, but online and on podcasts and in real life, there's. And marijuana is a good example, cannabis is a good example that divides maga. The president's not with where you say Charlie was. There's all these substantive disagreements on Israel, on Iran, on, on, on immigration. And Charlie had the ability to talk to everybody and, and try to keep everybody from recognizing that being unified was better than being divided. That in his view, the enemy was the Democrats, not the fellow conservatives. And, and, and I can't help but think that the explosion of conflict is in part because he's not on the exchange. He's not calling people and saying, hey, hey, let's see if we can't keep this a little bit more within the family. Do you agree with that premise?
- [53:45]
A
I don't know, because it's, It's a counterfactual meaning. You know, we're, we're speculating about what it would be like if he were here.
- [53:54]
B
Yeah.
- [53:54]
A
And I don't know. I, I tend to think that a couple of things. Number one, these kinds of robust disagreements among family are not a. Necessarily, they don't have to be a sign of weakness. They can be a sign of strength that we, we have these disagreements. We've had them in the past, and until they're resolved, you talk those things through. And so, and eventually somebody wins and somebody loses. But Whether it's the life issue or the tariff issue. Remember, Mark, in an earlier time that you covered and that I was a part of when we were going into 94 in the Gingrich revolution, we were having to graft in the Perot movement, which was a bit of a precursor to the MAGA movement. It was populist in style. It was anti establishment and ideology. He was also for tariffs, term limits, balanced budgets. There was a particular, for lack of a better term, sort of populist Perot agenda. And remember when we went into the mid-90s, if we were going to win, we had to graph them in. And not everybody agreed with us. We had good friends of ours that were against elements of those philosophical or legislative items. And I think that's kind of what MAGA has been. But remember that in the end, and this is what, as a strategist, I try and keep my, my eye on this ball, that you don't focus on the sturm and drag of the short term disagreements. You focus on the fact that you're practicing the politics of addition and you're growing a movement. And one of the benefits that I have from having been a part of this for as long as I have and being part of the Reagan movement and so forth, is I look at what we have now and I wouldn't trade it for what we had 30 years ago or 40 years ago for all the money in the world. So, yes, when you pour, to use a biblical analogy, when you pour new wine into old wine skins, they, they tend to rattle, but they don't have to break.
- [56:16]
B
Yeah, well said. You talked about populism and outsiderness. And one of the things I so respect about you is you have, through association with the establishment wing of the party, which you spent a lot of your career with, you've always understood the populist wing of the party. You've always understood the outsider sensibility. And you think of people like Mitt Romney or Karl Rove or Mitch McConnell. These people, if you flash them up on a screen at a MAGA event, would be booed in most cases. And yet they're huge. You know, Mitch McConnell is responsible for all, you know, in part for all these conservative judges who are on the bench now and justices. And so I want to ask you about the current state of the establishment versus populism through the prism of the governor's race in your state. Are you supporting one of the Republicans in that primary?
- [57:12]
A
No. I got a lot of friends running for governor. I figured I'm for my Friends.
- [57:16]
B
All right, so the president supports the lieutenant governor, Bert Jones. And normally in a Republican primary these days, there's one dispositive variable who's the president endorsed. But here's this guy who most people in politics had never heard of 20 minutes ago. Rick Jackson, healthcare executive, has gotten in the race. He spent a lot of money and the polls show now that he's either ahead or even money matters a lot. But what is it about Rick Jackson's message that has allowed him to go from nowhere to now being in contention to be the governor of Georgia?
- [57:49]
A
Well, I'll just give you my opinion and it's just mine. But I, and I've shared this with all the candidates. They're all friends of mine and in some cases friends of decades. Chris Carr, who you didn't mention the attorney general I, I've known since he was Johnny Isaacson's campaign manager, you know, when Johnny was elected in 04. And I've been involved in Georgia politics. I'm not even going to say how long Mark, because it's embarrassing. So they're all friends and I've told them what I'm getting ready to tell you the reason why there was such a huge undecided in this race, even with Burke being lieutenant governor and even with Trump endorsing it. You know, you could debate which poll was reliable, but it was between 30 and 45% of the race of the electorate. The primary electorate was undecided or kind of floating among candidates. And Rick kind of jumped into that, not like a big fish in a small pond, but with his financial resources like a whale in a bathtub about and the hunger that he's tapped into is a desire for a candidate and a governor who will be a champion and a fighter for conservative values and for conservative policy that will transform our state the way similar governors that a series of governors in Florida, kind of a crown of it being DeSantis. But as you know, it goes all the way back to Jeb.
- [59:33]
B
Yeah.
- [59:34]
A
Mitch Daniels in, in Indiana in an earlier time, Abbott and a now very conservative legislature in Texas, not just passing incremental school choice or incremental welfare reform or incremental pro life legislation, but transformative legislation, elimination or phasing out of the income tax. True tort reform, universal school choice, protection of every innocent human being in that state at every stage of pregnancy and at every stage of life. And once you do that, you know, you look at Tennessee, you know, look, look at how many people are fleeing other states and going to Tennessee. Look how many people are going to Florida and Texas. Mark, in Georgia, we only got a little bit of that because we haven't yet hung a banner of such bold colors rather than pale pastels to quote Ronald Reagan, that the entire country goes, oh, I get it. If I want to be free and I want to grow a business and I want to go to the school of my choice, and I want to live in a state where my values are not only not denigrated, but they're honored and celebrated, I want to go to Georgia. Now, personally, I think most of the candidates share those values. But what the voters are hungering for and what the activists and the grassroots are hungering for is I want to be a state that lots of other people around the country want to move to because of those things that I referred to.
- [61:17]
B
And are people more likely to trust someone who espouses those points of view? Because, as you suggest, most of the candidates in this race are. Who's not a career politician?
- [61:27]
A
Well, I think there's a bit of, you know, Trump envy out there. You know, the idea is, you know, look, we can, we can continue to elect for another decade or two candidates wearing blue suits and red ties who say all the right things and have good voting records, but for some reason, we never quite get what they promise us. So they, they. They sort of promise us all this stuff in the environment of the campaign, and, and then when we go to them, when it's time to deliver, it's like, well, you know, I've got this issue with this constituency, or I, I can't tick off the teachers union before my reelection. So the theory is you elect an outsider and they're willing to go in and break the furniture. Now, I think the challenge for Bert and for other candidates, and again, they're all friends and good friends, is you just need to make that case. And I think it's going to be good for the party. I think this is ultimately going to be healthy. I know Bert doesn't necessarily feel that way because now he's in a real dog fight. But remember, Mark, we have a runoff. So unless you get 50% plus one on primary day, you're going to a runoff anyway. So that's where we're heading. And one last thing that I want to say, just as a point of personal privilege, all these things that I've talked about are not a reflection on those who have fought for us. I mean, you look at Governor Brian Kemp. He passed election integrity legislation. He cut the income tax, he signed the heartbeat Bill protecting every unborn child, once a heartbeat could be, you know, could be discerned. And he's, he's been the most conservative governor we've ever had. I think he's done a fabulous job. But I think what that did in a counterintuitive way was it raised expectations even higher, if that makes any sense.
- [63:36]
B
Yeah, I mean, I was, I was going to be too polite to raise that with you, but, but I, I know his record and I know you, you think well of him. And yet as you pointed out, people don't think of Georgia as their first place to go yet over Florida, over Tennessee, when they're looking for a place that says the Governor DeSantis, say the free state of Florida.
- [63:56]
A
Right, right.
- [63:56]
B
So, so, and, and, and I would just say Governor Camp for all his achievements. And, and he's a very politically sophisticated guy. As you know. He's an establishment figure. Right. Because he's been in office now for a while. So that's why I still think Jackson, part of why I think he's doing well is people say the bar is raised. Now we need a real outsider. We need a Trump like figure rather than elevating a lieutenant governor. Maybe a business person who's talking like an outsider would be more in line with what people are looking for with that raised bar. Last topic I want to cover. I'm in the midst of doing reporting on this battle for the Senate majority and I know you follow it closely and I'll do my reporting with you right here in front of everybody. I think this narrative, and you see it on the betting markets and you see it in the punditry that Democrats have an increasingly good chance, maybe even a base case chance to take the majority. I think if you go race by race, it's just not true. I think everything has to go right for the Democrats and that includes holding three seats that they currently have a Democrat in. So let me ask you about those three seats. Just tell me who you favor in the race and if you want to give me a sentence or two about why, that'd be great. Michigan, it's an open seat. Democrat have a three way primary. Mike Rogers, pretty strong candidate, although not the best fundraiser. Who do you favor in that race? Blue state, you favor Democrat or Republican? Not knowing, we don't know who the Democratic nominee is going to be.
- [65:24]
A
Well, you know, obviously Mike is a friend and I supported him the last time he ran and we expect to be there for him again. I think it's going to be a very competitive Race. I don't want to overstate it, but Michigan is clearly trending our way.
- [65:38]
B
Yeah.
- [65:39]
A
And it's, it's changing. And part of that is, you know, the auto workers, and I'm not necessarily saying the leadership, but the grassroots, Mike's going to run a great campaign and we got a real shot there.
- [65:51]
B
All right, so I'm going to interpret that to mean you favor the Democrats have a better chance, but don't count Mike Rogers out at all. Is that fair?
- [65:58]
A
I think it's going to be highly competitive and will be a one point race. And I think Mike's got a very good chance to win.
- [66:04]
B
Okay, how about your state of Georgia, where Jon Ossoff I think is running a spectacular campaign and you've got a three way primary on your side. Who do you favor in that race?
- [66:14]
A
Well, you know, I think we have a very good chance of picking that up. It's the best single pickup opportunity in the country for Republicans. But again, you know, as with the 2020 races where we came up short and then Herschel Walker's campaign in 22, when it comes where we came up short, you know, we need everything to go right. We've got to execute on the ground. And if past his prologue, Mark Ossof is going to raise almost unlimited money. Yeah, I mean, almost unlimited money.
- [66:49]
B
So, so, so in that race, who do you make the favorite?
- [66:53]
A
You know, I think you would have to say the incumbent is the favorite on paper, but I think once we have a nominee and once we unite, if we have enough money, again, highly competitive, almost a jump ball, one point race.
- [67:09]
B
Okay. Under underappreciated is New Hampshire. It's an open seat. And Republicans, you guys are almost certainly going to nominate John Sununu, who's won statewide New Hampshire before.
- [67:19]
A
Yeah.
- [67:20]
B
Who do you make the favorite in that race?
- [67:22]
A
I make Sununu the favorite in that race. I think he's going to win that seat.
- [67:26]
B
And so I need you to amend because now it seems like you're saying that's actually a more likely pickup than Georgia where there is an incumbent.
- [67:34]
A
Well, I, I, I just think, think, you know, again, it's, it's hard to make a prediction this far out when we don't even have a nominee. Yeah, we don't know how the Iran war is going to go, but I, I like our chances in all of those races. And, and to your point, on the broader map, I, look, I've been through too many cycles where for us to lose the Senate, we needed quite literally everything to go wrong.
- [68:01]
B
Yep.
- [68:02]
A
And everything went wrong.
- [68:03]
B
Yes, sir. That's, that's, that's their hope.
- [68:06]
A
I'm thinking of 2006. So I'm not overconfident, but if we do our job, you know, we should be able to hold the Senate and I think, you know, even stay at 53. I think we could do that.
- [68:18]
B
Yeah. And again, folks, I'll say I'm gonna have a whole monologue about this coming up, but those are three Democratic held seats where Ralph's analysis is exactly right. Democrats could lose them all. Even in a good year for Democrats, Republicans could win all those races. If things go well now, then there's three seats held by Republicans the Democrats are counting on. And I will say none of these are sure things. North Carolina, Maine, and Ohio, Democrat Democrats must win those six if they're going to win the majority. They must win all six. If Republicans win a single one of those six, just one, they'll keep the majority. So here's my question to you. We don't have time to talk about Ohio and Maine and North Carolina. Big debate amongst my sources in both parties about what the fourth one is. Right. So Democrats would have to win all six of the ones we discussed, plus one more to get the majority. And the three leading prospects would be Iowa, Texas, and Alaska. Now, we don't know the nominees in Iowa and Texas, and that could make a big difference. But based on where we are today, and I know it's early, and you want to put me out of business by saying I can't talk about this stuff till after Labor Day, which of the three do you think is the most likely Democrats to get their fourth pickup to get the majority?
- [69:34]
A
Oh, gosh, Mark.
- [69:35]
B
Iowa, Iowa, Texas, or Alaska?
- [69:38]
A
Honestly, I don't think any of them are likely. But if you were to put a gun to my head and said which one would be most likely, I would say, again, I'm not in the prediction business. Strategist.
- [69:50]
B
I'm not a yes, sir.
- [69:52]
A
But if, if Ken Paxton were to win that nomination and, and maybe, maybe Mark, I could make an argument if Cornyn is the nominee either way, but especially Ken, and they're both friends, and I'm neutral on that one, too. If he's the nominee, that's going to be a Beto Cruz 2018 race. I mean, that's going to be a very close race. It'll be very competitive, very hard fought.
- [70:16]
B
Yeah. All right. So you make Texas the most likely of the fourth seat the Democrats would need.
- [70:22]
A
I would turn a Screw on it and say not the most likely, but the probably the most vulnerable.
- [70:28]
B
Yeah. Okay. Finally, most likely Republican presidential nominee in 28 is J.D. vance. Second is Marco Rubio, who is third. Who's the third most likely the Republican nominee today for president this early? Yeah.
- [70:44]
A
And at this point, it's just kind of a board game.
- [70:47]
B
Yeah.
- [70:47]
A
Ted Cruz.
- [70:48]
B
That's what we do here, board games. I knew you were going to say Ted Cruz. Yeah. And I'm going to let you go. Wouldn't you? Tell me who's fourth? Oh, boy.
- [70:58]
A
Now you got me. I don't. I don't know. It could. It could be somebody who surprises us.
- [71:07]
B
Yeah.
- [71:08]
A
Does DeSantis run? Does by then my former governor, Brian Kemp run? Do other senators run? I would think so.
- [71:19]
B
How about Glenn Young? Will you put Glenn Youngkin on the fantasy list as well?
- [71:23]
A
I think he's one of the most attractive candidates I've seen in my career. I don't know what he's going to do, but he's an extraordinarily attractive candidate.
- [71:32]
B
Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Grandpa, thank you for making time. I want to have you on regularly if that's okay with your schedule. We thanks Ralph Reed for being here and. And look forward to having him come back. Ralph, thank you.
- [71:45]
A
Thank you, Mark.
- [71:46]
B
All right. Also thanks to Jonathan Friedland for being here and we'll be back on Thursday with a brand new episode. As always, don't forget to share every episode, whether it's on YouTube or as a podcast with everybody you know. Extend, expand the network of Nexters. And if you're on YouTube and that's where you take the show in, please make sure you like and subscribe. And same with the podcast. We want to spread the word. So thank you for that and I'll see you on Thursday and make sure you come back so you always know what's coming. Next up, why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.
- [72:28]
D
This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.
- [72:33]
C
imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected and each one more
- [72:39]
B
expensive and more complicated than the last. That can be pretty stressful.
- [72:44]
C
Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o d o o dot com.