A (3:25)

Foreign.

B (3:30)

Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business takes everything you've got. And a lot of the tools out there that are supposed to make your life easier just aren't great at talking to each other. And that means you end up having to toggle between a dozen different apps and services just to keep the lights on. Enough of that. Now there's Odoo, the all in one fully integrated platform that actually might help you get it all done. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you try Odoo for free@odoo.com that's O D O O.com

A (4:04)

Adobe Acrobat, your new foundation. Use PDF spaces to generate a presentation. Grab your docs, your permits, your moves, AI levels of your pitch. Gets it in a groove. Choose a template with your timeless cool. Come on now, let's flex those tools. Draft design, deliver it, sing AI builds the deck so you can build that thing. Do that, do that, do that with Acrobat. Learn more@adobe.com do that with Acrobat. Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up and audit dread. It's time for Vanta. Vanta automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clearer visibility, faster deals, zero chaos. Call it compliance or call it compliance. Get it. Join the 15,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to vanta.com calm it is over.

B (5:07)

Senator Mark Warner, thanks for coming on on.

A (5:10)

Thank you, Kara. Thanks for having me on I'm thrilled.

B (5:12)

I always love talking to you. Before we start, I want to reiterate that we're taping this conversation late Wednesday evening and some things may be outdated by the time listeners hear this. So we're going to dive in based on we know right now the Trump administration has offered a lot of explanations for the war. You've said, and many people have said there's no evidence of an imminent threat. So what is your best explanation for why Trump got the US into this war?

A (5:36)

Well, I think Marco Rubio kind of acknowledged that Israel had decided it was time to strike. And they figured if Israel struck, Iran would strike back against us as well. But if we're the senior partner in that relationship, this was a war of choice. There was no imminent threat. There was actually no imminent threat even to Israel over the longer time horizon. With the ballistic missile threat, it would go up. But as you said, you know, there are four different reasons that I've counted that the president said was our goal. The first one was, you know, regime change, obviously, the new supreme leader, since we killed his dad, his wife and his child, I don't think and is normally viewed as much more hardline than even his father. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, short of either boots on the ground or a major uprising of the people. Secondly, you know, let's go after the nuclear capabilities that was supposed to be totally destroyed, obliterated nine months ago. And, you know, you think again, there's been admission that getting the enriched uranium out would require troops on the ground. And, you know, it is buried and still secure. So we're not going to get that on ballistic missiles. We have made progress. But even the most optimistic in our briefings are not saying they've we've gotten rid of all of their or even the vast majority of their ballistic capability. And then the fourth they added recently was like, let's get rid of the Iranian navy and we've sunk some ships. But the ability of the Iranians to use these speedboats, which are literally small and they have hundreds of them, to plant, you know, mines in the Straits of Hormuz, which they've already done. We haven't really been able to take care of that capacity.

B (7:21)

And along with drones.

A (7:22)

Yeah. And then let's just remember as well, Iran still has drone capacity. I sure as hell wish we had taken Zelensky's Ukrainian offer because clearly we've not built into our military infrastructure ability to use what Ukraine has already done the best in the World, you know, let's spend a few thousand dollars taking down a $50,000 Iranian drone rather than a couple million dollars. Iran has really not told the Houthis to go full on, which would open up almost another front. And a lot of the Shia militia groups have taken some actions. What we're seeing is in the public reporting even today that, you know, the embassy at Baghdad and others are like starting to say be on guard because of the Shia militia come. So they gotta vote in this. So none of these goals have been met and I don't see a timeline for doing this.

B (8:17)

So you noted Rubio's point was that Israel was gonna strike. So what should Americans make of the fact that Israel is in some ways dictating American involvement here? As you suspect, like you mentioned, where the senior partner here, they couldn't really initiate this major a strike without our support.

A (8:33)

No, they couldn't. You know, the question would have been if we would have said, no, we won't go with you, would they still have gone alone?

B (8:39)

Right.

A (8:39)

As an I'm a long term supporter of Israel, I stand by that. I'm not necessarily a supporter of all the actions of Bibi Netanyahu's government, but I do feel like, you know, there's been lots of public sector stories about how the President was, worked, he was, Bibi had a audience of one. And a lot of that appears to be true. And at the end of the day, we gotta look at, you know, this was the America first guy and shouldn't America be supreme as we think about the most ultimate decision, which is go to war?

B (9:09)

I mean, obviously denuclearize Iran is in everyone's interests. But is it in American interests right now at this moment in time?

A (9:16)

Well, we got 47 years of a bad leadership. I don't shed any tears for the death of the senior Iranian leadership. But even if you grant the president, hey, he wants to make the case, why this is in America's interest, we gotta act now. He did not do that. He didn't make the case to the public. He didn't sure as hell didn't make the case to the Congress. And again, we keep talking about precedents being set by this guy. And you know, this is gonna be another hard one to reverse in terms of what happens with the next president, whoever he or she may be, than not point back and say, okay, I can start this without any congressional approval.

B (9:53)

So your colleague, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona said he thinks it really comes down to the President's ego. Do you agree? And if so, what are the implications of starting war for his own sense of glory or just because he feels like it? As you said, this has implications for the future.

A (10:07)

Well, it feels like so much of the President's actions are kind of random and about ego. And then if you take it to the next step, if he had decided, why not pre position to make sure that the American citizens in that region, you know, our diplomatic, our military, but also just the tens of thousands of Americans who are passing through on transit or otherwise, we're like, give them a little bit of forewarning or we could have pre positioned planes that get them out of the region. It seems so ad hoc in terms of why weren't we better ready if we and Israel jointly decided the time and when the first strike was gonna be? It just doesn't feel like this was fully thought through.

B (10:52)

Right.

A (10:53)

And I feel like, again, back to your point about Trump and his ego, you know, he felt wind at the back after the Maduro raid. He felt, you know, the last bomb was won and out, and he maybe actually believed that, you know, a short term bombing campaign would take out a country of 92 million that's got a military establishment as horrible as the regime is very much hard, really built in. Yeah, it's a lot harder.

B (11:16)

Right. And maybe thinking this is maybe his last chance, by the way, because of the upcoming midterms and with all the other pressures. So a few days ago, Trump said the war was, quote, very complete, pretty much. And that Iran has nothing left in the military sense. You're in the Gang of Eight. So have you seen any evidence that you can talk about? And has this war completely neutralized Iran's offensive capabilities? Talk a little bit about that.

A (11:37)

No, absolutely not. They still have drones. They still have the ability to mine the Straits of Hormuz. Some of those actions have been taken place after he made those comments. They have these other allies like the Shia militias and the Houthis that they've not called upon. They've got cyber capabilities that we've not fully taken out. I know there's been reports of Iranian cells, but they do have the ability, either directed or by inspiring people, you know, to take terrorist acts. We've, you know, we've got a bombing at the American Embassy in Norway. We've got shooting at the Toronto Consulate. There was some crazy story today that I don't think is true, but saying, you know, there could be Iranian ship off the coast of California that would have drones on it. So these guys are not out of the Fight. And we've got still a lot of Americans potentially in harm's way that if it doesn't scare the heck out of you, candidly should. But this is where. When you burn all your friends, who's gonna go the extra mile when it's all about America alone, Right?

B (12:42)

So let's talk about the administration. As I noted, you're in the Gang of eight. You're one of the few members getting higher level intelligence briefings. How does the information, you're in private square with what the administration is telling the public about its goals in this war? And how long could it actually last?

A (12:58)

I have seen no time predictions on any of the goals, up from regime change to getting short of troops on the ground, getting the enriched uranium out, literally taking out.

B (13:12)

So no plan.

A (13:13)

I've seen no plan to get to. Well, let's put it like this. I see no plan that meets Trump's criteria of unconditional surrender. I get to choose who the next guy is gonna be. I sure as hell would like to know on Monday who made all the money. When he came out after he had the conversation with Putin, he said, hey, we are almost got him gone. The market bumps, you know, many, many points. I'd frankly like to know who are the biggest winners on that surge. Because it felt like once the market had closed, he went back and said, well, maybe it's not over right away.

B (13:48)

Right. So he could have just done that for that. Or someone knew about it.

A (13:52)

Yeah, it would. Like the White House is freaking out about the oil price. You know, those comments on Monday, you know, did at least steady the oil market. And I think we're down to like mid-80s now, may have hit 90 again. But, yeah, we were north of 100 before he said those statements.

B (14:06)

Right.

A (14:06)

Some pointed up to 110 over the weekend. So. But that's a pretty fast and loose way to play with American foreign policy

B (14:15)

and the economy and the stock market

A (14:17)

and the economy overall. Amen.

B (14:18)

So how close do you think the administration is to putting boots on the ground? This idea that they keep going back and forth?

A (14:24)

I don't think there's any appetite. And I think frankly, the military leadership itself, I mean, to go in and think about extracting the enriched uranium,

B (14:35)

you

A (14:35)

know, there have been plans and the Israelis, the Americans, I mean, this is as any entity would, would have contingency plans, but nothing would be easy about that. And it would be a huge, huge risk that I, you know, I think the military at this point would raise serious objections to. And, you know, Again, we've always got the circumstance, Kara, that the reality of what he said versus the reality of what he feels at this point, or the political pressure where he can say, okay, we won. All done. Well, if after we've said we're going to get their unconditional surrender, we're going to choose the next people they've had to deal with, both the American and Israeli. Best air forces in the world. If Iran regime survives in this kind of current state, is it more of a danger, less of a danger? I think it could be argued more of a danger. And what happens if we say, all right, we're out, and the Israelis say, no, we want to finish this? Does that still keep our troops and our allies in harm's way? You'd think these would have been the kind of rational questions that would have been asked before we jumped into this.

B (15:47)

I talked to several people who have done war planning and they're like, there's plans of plans of how to do plans. And then when they hadn't seen any plans, and this was a Republican who is also quite privy to a lot of things.

A (15:58)

There has been no plans that we've seen. No. Like, if this happens, then that.

B (16:03)

I mean, there's also no secret plans that Tegseth is talking. Like, there's secret plans you know nothing about. Kara.

A (16:09)

I only wish I could tell you. You know, don't worry, I can't tell you. But I'd have to kill you because I'm part of the Gang of Eight. But rest assured, no plan if they exist. He is once again not following the law by not sharing that with the Gang of Eight.

B (16:24)

So as you mentioned, Trump has said he won't settle for anything less than the regime's unconditional surrender. It's very movie like. It's like he's talking about the Nazis or the Japanese. World War II. Before the start of the war, intelligence reports warned that even a large scale assault on Iran was unlikely to topple the regime. Everyone thought this very hard. They're very hardened people there. So what are the ways this war could end? And which one to you is the worst option and the best option?

A (16:51)

Well, the best option, and I caveat it with maybe just he's done. And he says, okay, we declare victory and we've got, you know, tens of billions of dollars spent and at least at this point, eight American servicemen killed. And are we safer long term or even short term? And the intermediate would be, you know, it goes for another few weeks and you kind of come to the Same conclusion. But you know, you've attrited more of their ballistic missiles, you've taken out more of their military capacity. And I think the worst would be a semi failed Iranian state that is still, you know, repressive, enormously aggressive, and, you know, and again, one of the things that has not even been talked about very much, you know, could this reignite some kind of Sunni, Shia split across the whole region? So thank God none of that is bubble. But if you're talking about worst case, that kind of interdenominational split within the Islamic community would be a really bad, bad thing.

B (17:52)

Yes, that's called dominoes. I believe in diplomatic speaking. So Trump, speaking of making it even more chaotic, has said he's thinking of taking over the Strait of Hormuz where the oil flows through, for people who don't know, and that the US could escort tankers through the shipping channel to keep oil flowing. On Wednesday, three ships were hit in around the strait. It sounds disastrous and potentially disastrous to me. Practically speaking, what would escorting tankers look like for the US Military? It feels like we'll lose a ship, that's what it feels like.

A (18:22)

Well, or if we may not lose a full ship, but we will lose sailors because again, these, these small boats, I don't know. And again, President Macron from France has said he's going to send, you know, potentially French ships through. I have not heard and I'm sure there must be a plan, but the straits are so small. How you, you know, if you're thinking about something like an aircraft carrier, how you actually escort through, particularly if mines have been laid. So it's, you know, you're not going to stop the mines or if they're sending out these small boats, I guess you can blow them out of the water. But I've not heard somebody come to us and say, hey, don't worry, we have a plan. We can do it with frigates and elsewhere, smaller military vessels. I just don't know the answer to that. And I think most of the commentary from retired military has been, you know, this would be very, very, very hard,

B (19:12)

very hard to do. And it could make it even more chaotic if there was an explosion or something like that. We'll be back in a minute. Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Groons. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Groons. Grooms is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. They're convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack. Of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Grunes ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications, while generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins. GRUN's have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients, which include nutrient dense and whole foods. That includes 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the lean greens, powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Grooms does into just one gummy. Plus. That makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year right and save up to 52% off with the Code Kara. That's Code Kara K A R A at Groons G r u n s.co. This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Each week, host Liz Ann Saunders, Schwab's chief investment strategist, and Colin Martin, head of fixed income resurge and strategy for the Schwab center for Financial Research, analyze economic developments and bring context to conversations around equities, fixed income, the economy and more. Join Colin, Linzan and their guests as they share insights on what might be moving the markets and why, as well as what indicators they're watching for for signs of change. They'll also answer investor questions on everything from how sectors are evolving to what bond markets are telling us, to where to look for opportunities and connect considerations for your portfolio. You can download the latest episode of On Investing and subscribe so you never miss an episode@schwab.com on investing or wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from Rippling. If your company's all in One system has you jumping between a dozen different apps, one for onboarding, another for payroll, and yet another for benefits, then you ought to reconsider your definition of all in one. Rippling, on the other hand, is actually an all in one. It's a unified platform for global hr, payroll, IT and finance, with rippling workflows that normally bounce across various tools and departments all just happen in one place automatically. Here's an example. You have an employee who gets promoted or moves Rippling can update their payroll taxes, manage any new app permissions, ship them a new laptop, issue a new corporate card, and assign any required training all in one Place without you having to put in all the legwork. Switching between apps. With Rippling, you can run your entire hr, IT and finance operations as one, or pick and choose the products that best fill the gaps in your software stack. So if you or your company wants to run the backbone of your business on one unified platform with people at the center, head to rippling.com Kara and sign up today. That's R-I-P-P-L-I-N-.com K A R A to sign up. Let's talk about some of the long term risks then. The regime seems, as you said, to be digging in, not looking for an exit ramp. As Trump expected, clerics chose the Ayatollah's son, Moshebah Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader. He is by most accounts more of a hardliner. And of course, we've killed his wife and children. What do we know about the stability of the regime right now? Nuclear capabilities. Trump has said he got rid of them, but he didn't. Or he said now he didn't talk about where they really are.

A (23:17)

This is where I want us to not just be relying on the Israelis who've got better visibility into Iran than we do. This is where I just am not sure whether particularly our European friends who've got embassies still in Tehran, whether they still have better contacts, ideas about what the resistance might look like. You know, there was some conversation that even within the group of The, I think 88 clerks, there was some, you know, it was not a slam dunk that this guy was going to be voted in. But this is again where I think we're flying a little bit blind. And, you know, usually the theory of the case is if you're going to have a resistance against an authoritarian regime, you got to have a leader. And, you know, we've had lots and lots of intel reports over a number of years that say, okay, we get rid of the supreme leader. Who's next? Is there some other viable leader? Is somebody going to, you know, reemerge that we could actually do business with? And the overall consensus was always no. And again, I'm just afraid that he's thinking the Venezuelan model where Dulce Rodriguez, you know, the act the president now in Venezuela was close with Maduro, appears to be trying to do business with us, although that still leaves, you know, the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans who voted against murder maybe out in the cold.

B (24:38)

And so does that person exist, a person in the US can work with, I'm sure, listen, and also has legitimacy Right.

A (24:45)

Well, the regime is hated. I'm not a great student of Iran, but I've read enough intel, I've followed enough, you know, the fact that there was, you know, in the immediate aftermath of the killing, you know, some level of street celebration. But boy, oh boy, you gotta have a leader, you gotta have some organization. And when you've got this, you know, the irgc, I think much different from even the Assad regime in Syria, you know, got 180,000 plus or minus. Folks, you know, they not only are part of the security apparatus, but they have, they own as an entity about half of the Iranian economy. So a lot of money, you know, probably hated by many. So if there's a regime change, and it's not a few hundred that would get killed by the regime change, but potentially tens of thousands who have been so repressive for so long, they're going to fight pretty damn hard.

B (25:43)

Yeah, that's true. And speaking of flying blind, you said one of your biggest fears is the US running down its stock of munitions to intercept ballistic missiles without knowing how many more Iran has. Talk about the risk of running down those stocks. Even though generally speaking, the US is in a much better position than Iran to keep dropping bombs.

A (26:00)

Well, here's the thing we gotta focus on. We have plenty of bombs to drop on Iran in the kind of the classic sense of airplane comes over, shoots a guided bomb down. What we don't have are the interceptors that can take down the Iranian ballistic missiles that are left or the Iranian drones. I go back to that, you know, yes, $50,000 drone that we're spending a couple million dollar missile on. And this is again, if there was even thinking about this coming around, why in the hell didn't they, you know, say, all right, Zelensky, who offered, I believe in a, we'll send a bunch of our drone experts, we'll send you a bunch of these right away. They have perfected the ability to take down Iranian drones. They were going to start this war. Why the hell didn't they take up that offer? And my understanding is Zelensky made an offer to Trump in the White House and you know, nothing that got acted on. Now, I'm not sure we could have gotten them all into region, but it's just not the way you would do something that has this major of ramifications, right?

B (27:05)

We don't have the right munitions.

A (27:07)

Yeah, we got the right munitions to bomb the hell out of them. We don't have the right munitions to take down the Iranian attack back towards us. And that would hit the whole region.

B (27:17)

Right. We also saw an alert this week that Iran may try to activate sleeper cells outside the country, which they're well known for. When you think about the different ways they could wage asymmetrical warfare that hurts U.S. interests. What worries you the most, I would assume in this country? Right.

A (27:31)

Well, it does worry me in this country and it worries me that, you know, Kash Patel at the FBI has over this past year fired most of the senior expertise on counterterrorism, counter espionage. What worries me is that the, you know, the intel community, you know, has, you know, Tulsi Gabbard's been chasing relitigating the 2020 election as opposed to like saying how are we going to stay safe from terrorists? And then overall, and this is not, again, this part is not the Trump fault by any means entirely, you know, the intel apparatus moved away from counterterrorism to focus on counter adversaries like China and Russia. That was I think overall the right move. But, but again, you know, at this stage, a single incident or two with the World cup coming and others, I mean we are, if this goes on, you know, is, is, is again, we're vulnerable. Like you're never going to be totally. And if there is not.

B (28:32)

No. In a very good, in a non cash Patel world, it would be hard enough as you're saying, but are we ready to protect against what is in place to do that? If these people have left, we still

A (28:43)

have lots of operations, we still have lots of personnel and we've got a pretty good record of stopping whether it's Iranian or other entities as they try to launch these threats into America. And our nsa, our ability to listen in, ability to break up these groups has, has been good. It's not like we've taken out a number of them, but at scale and again with some of the expertise that has been dismissed by Kash Patel, my level of worry is higher. And because this war is not popular already, I think the American people would be angier than they are a couple a terrorist attack along with already I think $0.51, $0.60 of additional gas prices going up. And the amazing thing on the gas prices is that is because we're still burning down the oil that we've had or using the oil that we've had. And we're not really feeling the effects of the straight to Hormuz being shut down.

B (29:48)

So every episode we get a question from an outside expert. Here's yours.

A (29:52)

Hi, Senator Warner, this is Jason Rezaian. I'm a journalist with the Washington Post. I'm also Iranian American. And I lived and worked in Tehran for many years as a correspondent until I was taken hostage and held by the Islamic Republic for 544 days. What cost should the American public be prepared to pay for this war in terms of lost lives, destruction, environmental and otherwise civilian infrastructure in the Middle east, but also to our own economy? And finally, there are currently six Americans that we know of who are being held hostage in Iran. What can be done and what is being done to free them right now? Well, Jason, I'm very aware of your story and have been part of the groups that were urging, pressing to try to get you released and thankful that that came to pass. But again, as you said, after over 500 days, in terms of the six existing Americans that are still being held, I am not aware of, particularly at this moment of war, what is going on real time, in terms of the expectation of costs. We have been lucky to date that some of the strikes on some of our embassies haven't resulted in more casualties. Some of our strikes on our military or intel agencies or outposts around the region, that's been, in a lot of ways, combined with good intelligence, but the honest acknowledgment. So if we're talking about even giving the administration all the credit at a billion dollars a day of munitions cost, that doesn't count the cost of rebuilding what has been destroyed. Increasing gas prices on an economy that's already a bit wobbly, especially on the job front, and people struggling with affordability, from groceries to gasoline. But as you know, you know, this goes on virtually whether we like it or not. Kind of almost everything we make has a petroleum base to it.

B (32:13)

Everything.

A (32:14)

So it gets into every products. It gets in. I met with one of the CEOs of the airlines today, and, you know, he said so far they're doing okay. But, you know, that's so far in terms of jet fuel costs going up. I won't say the airline, but he said the war is costing that airline $25 million a day.

B (32:31)

Yeah. Yeah.

A (32:32)

And if this goes for, you know, you can do the math, it goes for six months. You're talking about $5 billion.

B (32:36)

Right.

A (32:36)

And this could have a huge effect on our economy. And then finally, Jason, I guess I'd say I always believe that America is stronger with allies around the world. We have so burned so many of our allies around the world. And if we take these kind of actions, that doesn't think through, you know, will they really be There next time, right.

B (32:58)

Right now it's not over. In the last few months, the US Military deposed two heads of state, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, even though the same government is still there. And the administration has made no secret the fact that it wants to do the same in Cuba. Let's say for the sake of margin that Trump is successful either ending or severely damaging all three regimes. Does that make the US safer? And if so, should Trump get credit for that? And what are your thoughts on Cuba? Because, you know, Lindsey Graham can't keep himself like down.

A (33:28)

It's hard to make a assumption. And I'm not going to react everything just because it's Trump. You know, if the Iranian regime died gone and Iran returned to not just a threat against us and against Israel, but against frankly, other nations in the region and in Europe, you know, I'd have to give credit due. But at what cost? I mean, that's not gonna happen today, tomorrow or next week. In terms of Cuba, I think the regime is on its last legs. I was hopeful they would have reformed. I don't think they had. I visited during the Obama period and I always thought change shooting in Argentina. I love South America. You know, I think we've never. We always look east, west, we never look south. But the idea, even when so many of the South American, Central American regimes would be glad to see Maduro go, be glad to see the Castro regime moved on, they sure as heck don't want to return to the days of the United States. The gringo being the kind of patron or the, you know, the paternalistic influence over all of that region.

B (34:38)

Gunboat diplomacy is what you're saying.

A (34:40)

Yeah, gunboat and just kind of. I think we'd finally built to the point that we looked at Central and South America as partners. We needed to do more, obviously to slow down the traffic flow of people coming into America. But to go back to the old days of the gringo with the big guns, I'm not sure that again helps us since so many of these countries though, through South America. One of the things I don't think most Americans realize, most of them have already moved away their mass. Vast majority of their trading relationship with China, not with the United States. And I don't think us being kind of the big powerhouse, we're gonna run the whole continent north and South America is gonna, you know, move them away from China.

B (35:24)

What are the chances of a Cuban invasion or Cuban action?

A (35:28)

I don't know, other than the fact that I would say the Cuban regime is, I think this is. Trump is right, is on its last legs without the oil that would come from Venezuela, with the fact that, you know, people are still trying to get out of Cuba at record rates. If he could navigate a transition in Cuba, I would, you know, I think that would be better for the Cuban people, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that. And I still think while I'm glad Maduro's gone, I'm not sure the Rodriguez administration, which is still the Maduro folks without Maduro there, is actually making life better yet for the Venezuelans, maybe in terms of the fact that they're going to, with reopening the embassy and potentially getting the increase of the Venezuelan oil again, that may start to trickle through to the Venezuelan people. But so far, still the same people. My reports is not so much.

B (36:24)

Yeah. All right. Now, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the war right now seems to be Russian President Vladimir Putin. The US has started loosening some of the oil sanctions on Russia, which undermine the US And European pressure campaign against the war in Ukraine. And soaring oil prices will boost the Kremlin's main source of funding for that war. Spin it out for us. How does the war weaken American strategic interests in other parts of the world? Ukraine being the center of that there

A (36:45)

is the one thing we absolutely know, that the only geopolitical winner thus far into this war is Vladimir Putin. If the Iranian regime had collapsed very quickly after Syria and after Hezbollah, you could argue then Putin was weakened because his client states. But if the Iranian regime remains, and they have now got, because we've released some of the sanctions in terms of sale of oil to India, we've given Putin a lifeline of additional funds because it didn't get a lot of attention here. And I'm not even talking about necessarily American sources, but a lot of the Europeans, when I was at the Munich security agreement, were actually slightly more optimistic on Ukraine's chances because the Russians were taking such a cost in their economy. And just, you know, any country that's lost close to a million men killed, not wounded, killed, you can only maintain that for so long. But this gives, I think, fresh at least fuel to the fire for Putin. And that's not a good. That's not a good thing.

B (37:52)

Not a good thing. So in talking about the war, democrats have been visibly torn between their justified opposition to a brutal regime. You yourself have just said it. And their opposition to Trump's unilateral decision to go to war. As a result, it Feels like the Democrats have a muddled message. The problem was the process, not the decision to bomb Iran and kill its leader. Why center on process, especially when Trump was already deeply unpopular before the conflict? By the way, the Pentagon reportedly may ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in emergency funding. Where are Democrats on this, and will you vote against it if it comes before the Senate?

A (38:26)

You know, I want to see what the request is for. Remember, the Pentagon got a huge boost up in the big ugly bill last summer. So to say you have an emergency here when you've got a series of additional funds, you gotta make the case. When they make the request, and I'm sure they will, where do we stand at that point? Is there an endpoint? Is there a more articulated goal, or. We still got these four goals that we've been bouncing around on.

B (38:55)

Can we see the plan?

A (38:57)

I'm not gonna do an absolute no. I'm not gonna sure as heck not do an absolute yes. I want to see the circumstances and see the request, what it's for. You don't want to, obviously. Nobody wants to hold the lives of our service members at risk if they're not getting the munitions or the tools they need to defend themselves. So this is the kind of conundrum a little bit. Once the war is. This war has started, you have to back them. You have to back. Obviously, we all would back the troops. I think our country, thank God, has moved past that kind of, you know, venom around Vietnam, where even if they didn't like the war, you took it out of the troops. That was awful. The goals, even if it's of like he declares victory tomorrow and gets out, I actually think we've probably made America less safe because a wounded Iran that's still got all of these capacities, who knows where they'll stop? I mean, the remarkable thing about the Supreme Leader, the guy that we knocked off and the Israelis knocked off on their first day, he was a bad guy, but he had actually restrained Iran from weaponizing their enriched uranium. He had held back on tax against America and our interest. I got no belief or bet. The son, he's not a kid. I think 55, 58, something like that. And I think he's been wounded, too. There's a lot of reporting on that. Who's gonna be probably more anti American than his dad since we killed his dad, wife and kids.

B (40:22)

Right. But go back to the process part of that. Center on the process. Voters, especially Democrats, want the party to make a clear position here. Is it important to focus on the process of how it happened because this is how it always happens with Trump. He just moves forward and says, oh well, come and arrest me if you want kind of thing.

A (40:40)

Well, if the position is, and this is probably the position of most at this point, stop it tomorrow. Stop, stop, stop. Regardless of the outcome and regardless of the consequences, I just like, you know, as important as it is to have a sound bite answer, I'm too deep in the weeds on this. You know, it's hard to say stopping tomorrow when he did, I think something careless and irresponsible to start without making the case or it's much more than process. But to stop tomorrow. I think my job is also to say, is that going to make America safer or less safe? Right. And to me, that's unfortunately at this point, a bit of an open question.

B (41:25)

We'll be back in a minute.

A (41:33)

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app download today.

B (41:58)

It's true that some things change as we get older. But if you're a woman over 40

A (42:03)

and you're dealing with insomnia, brain fog,

B (42:05)

moodiness and weight gain, you don't have to accept it as just another part of aging. And with MIDI Health, you can get help and stop pushing through it alone. The experts at MITI understand that all these symptoms can be connected to the hormonal changes that happen around menopause. And MITI can help you feel more like yourself again. Many healthcare providers aren't trained to treat or even recognize menopause symptoms. MITI clinicians are menopause experts. They're dedicated to providing safe, effective, FDA approved solutions for dozens of hormonal symptoms, not just hot flashes. Most importantly, they're covered by insurance. 91% of MITI patients get relief from symptoms within just two months. You deserve to feel great. Book your virtual visit today@joinmidi.com that's joinmidi.com

A (42:58)

everyone's heard of a midlife crisis, but what about a mid career crisis? Turns out countless people are going through one right now. For some, they're starting to feel they've hit a wall, that there's no room for growth, no new opportunities. Promotions pass them by raises are few and far between. Others worry they're becoming replaceable either by younger talent or by technology. And still others find themselves asking over and over, is this all there is? If any of this feels familiar, it's time to visit Strawberry Me where a certified career coach will work with you to get you out of your rut and help you move forward either at your current job or by helping you land a new, more rewarding one. Your Strawberry coach will help you turn a mid career crisis into a mid career revival. Go to Strawberry Me unstuck and get 50% off your first coaching session. That's Strawberry Me Unstuck. Now is the most affordable time ever to find out if career coaching is right for you.

B (43:59)

So I want to shift to something because another thing that's going on here is we've been talking about the war in Iran, but there's a major story related to the Pentagon's decision to label AI company Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation historically reserved for foreign companies. Pentagon's decision was huge implications for how the US conducts war in the future. And Anthropic was involved in the Venezuelan situation. I suspect their technology has been used in this operation.

A (44:23)

It has.

B (44:23)

And Anthropic announced it's suing. And obviously after the Pentagon's decision, Sam Altman announced that his company OpenAI had swept in to make a similar deal. He claimed it included some of the same guardrails that killed Anthropic Steel. I'm skeptical but talk a little bit about these two related things and the impact on these companies that are becoming more critical.

A (44:44)

The idea of designating American company a supply chain risk is I think completely unprecedented. We've done that with foreign companies but never with American companies. And a company that anthropic OpenAI, Google, there's a lot of large language models out there that are really good but nobody would disagree that Anthropic is not one of the best. Now you could go back and fly spec whether Dario, the CEO of Anthropic should have been, you know, is out there this much in the Department of Defense what they did. But the thing that just why I'm so much on you know, anthropic side in terms of the of the court case is that arbitrarily saying you're a supply chain risks because you think issues like whether we should create an AI driven weapon without a human in the loop or that we should turn over completely unprecedented surveillance tools that AI models could provide without a fricking debate. I Don't want to trust Pete Higsef with making those decisions. I very strongly feel that the government's overreached. I think if there is no process and it's again as arbitrary as Hegseth and Trump, you know, without I think any real justifiable cause saying we can declare any of you supply chain risks, you are our best and brightest really gonna try to even do business with the government.

B (46:08)

So their argument is that Anthropic is a private company can't tell a government to use its products, which is what Anthropic was trying to do. On the other hand, it sounds reasonable to say the government shouldn't use these tools to illegally spy on American citizens or kill opposing soldiers. That human oversight. It's also their if they don't want to sell it, they don't have to sell it. Right. That's usually our way. Where's the line of this power from your perspective? I mean, you've been on both sides of the equation.

A (46:31)

I've been on both sides. It is a really hard choice. You gotta make some concessions to work with the government. I get that. And particularly dod and you know, you're doing business with an entity that's job is to both protect Americans and you know, to kill the bad guy. But to do that without a debate, particularly in an area where we are in such uncharted territory as AI it just doesn't make sense to me. This is why, you know, I've put a bill out today, bipartisan bill, that's going to try to say let's do economy of the future commission trying to model after the cyber solarium to say we got to put some ground rules in place around AI but you know, Carol, we have completely stunk at putting any guardrails on social media. You know, the power of all these companies has only exponentially grown. The idea that we're going to sort this through quickly and I'm not only questioning about, you know, have we unleashed and I'm pro AI in terms of I think ultimately it will be very beneficial even around jobs. But man, I am spooked about the economic disruption, particularly for like recent college grads over the next five years, you know, the doom scrollers I don't fully agree with, but they're not without some argument that we ought to go through the malt box bot stuff about you know, these agentic AI agents kind of creating their own network, their own religion, you know, that's pretty spooky place. Or just, you know, go back to anthropic you know, the fact that Claude, their best model, has in just the last two and a half months completely disrupted the software industry for a few days on the markets because they, the movement on these AI tools is absolutely as fast as anything Altman or Dario or any of these guys said. And usually the prognosticators, the advocates are wrong about how long it's gonna take this time they may be right.

B (48:20)

Right.

A (48:21)

Somehow we gotta, and you're part of this debate and I'm part of this debate. We gotta somehow force the country to come to grips with the fact that we can't punt this.

B (48:29)

Does this incident complicate the situation and does it make us less safe with Claude was really important. From what I'm talking to a lot of people are like, we don't want OpenAI, we want a claw. Like that's our best and brightest.

A (48:42)

Well, there are things like, you know, if you got a ship and you've got an AI defense system that automatically responds to an incoming missile, that to me is less problematic. Obviously we have variations on that already. To you know what some people have said we're going to launch, you know, a thousand drones all at once and once they're launch, you know, we're going to have no control. They're going to be able to go after targets they want because you don't have any kill switch or you don't have any ability that once launched, yeah, agency, you got control. Yeah, agency. So I don't pretend to know the answers on that, but I sure as hell don't want to turn that all over to Pete Hegseth to arbitrarily make a decision on a short term basis.

B (49:23)

So what's going to happen with this anthropic thing? From a guess from you, you know,

A (49:27)

I hope I saw that Microsoft, I didn't think filed an amicus brief. I think even Altman, you know, said he supported some of the privacy issues.

B (49:36)

But he's on every side he's on. In case you're interested.

A (49:39)

I care, I know your relationship, but I just would say and I like

B (49:42)

him, but he's on every side.

A (49:43)

Yeah, I would just say this, this is why we were so crappy on doing anything on social media. That is child's play compared to implications around this AI debate. So we gotta get our shit together and you know, and not think incrementally. And I just, I did a couple of AI forums today off the Hill and I want to be optimistic, but I just hope we don't have to go through some God awful event that says, holy crap, why didn't we think about this ahead of time?

B (50:13)

Right. And the companies have power they possibly shouldn't have. You've seen that with Elon Musk and everybody.

A (50:19)

Well, we've seen the power and also I think they got to share the responsibility. We could spend a whole nother program on just the economic misdistribution, maldistribution, job elimination. I don't think has to happen. But as we've talked in the past with a lot of these AI tech big guys, empathy would not be the first word that comes to mind.

B (50:42)

No. In fact, it's not even in the top 100. So last question. The fact that we're having this conversation while the bombs are falling Toronto only underlines this urgency. Let's circle back to the war. There've been a lot of comparisons to the Iraq war and fears we're repeating that mistake. But at least with Iraq, Congress overwhelmed, overwhelmingly authorized the use of military force there. And a big majority of the public initially supported intervention. In hindsight, we know Bush administration built that support on untruths about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. But conflict with Iran is unique because a clear majority of Americans oppose it at the outset. If this drags on longer than the administration anticipates, what happens? What does it mean for the country? I was talking to a very prominent Republican senator and he said, if it's not over in 15 days, it's over for the Republican Party in a lot of ways. I don't know if that's the case. What do you think?

A (51:33)

What I would say is, you know, there have been so many incidences that I thought, oh my God, this will be the breaking point for my Republican friends. And you know, and again, I'm, I'm guilty as charged as still trying to be bipartisan, but man, I have lost a lot of faith with these guys and gals that, you know, there will not be a constraint put in place and we don't have to get a bunch. But until, you know, a good number of Republicans step up and say, is this really the, not only the precedent we want to set, but is this the way we want to have our country governed by a single individual without any congressional constraints if they keep ceding power, but we, you know, we bring up our resolutions, we argue and fight, but you know, in a system where you still got to get 51 or 218, 217, 18 in the house, we gotta get some folks to get religion that this is not the way the country ought to work.

B (52:29)

Well, there was Marjorie Taylor Greene. We aren't expecting that plot twist.

A (52:33)

Yeah, it's like strange things. If she can come out. Come on, guys, this shouldn't be that hard.

B (52:39)

Well, she's consistent with what she said at the beginning. She's a consistent voice in that regard. Other things, let's leave that aside. But last question. What could it mean for the country as a whole if you had a gay men out? They're not moving or constraining him. You're unable to. What does that mean until at least November?

A (52:56)

Well, it means that if we don't all get out and vote, like hell we're screwed. It also means what really scares me and we ought to talk another time about this. As much as I'm afraid about what happened in Iran, I am almost equally, if not more afraid about this president at this moment in time is going to interfere in a major way in our elections.

B (53:18)

Or attempt to.

A (53:19)

Or attempt to. And I'm not as worried about trying to change the vote after the votes are cast. But I am concerned about using even, God forbid, a terrorist event or a piece of raw intelligence as a reason to change dates, close polls, move in troops. If that happens and we have a truly corrupted election, I don't know how the country ever comes back.

B (53:46)

Oh, man. All right, let's end on that note.

A (53:49)

But I got it. Senator Warner coming back next year.

B (53:53)

If you watch heated rivalry, it's so happy. Anyway, go vote. But I really appreciate it. Thank you.

A (54:01)

Thank you, Carol.

B (54:07)

Today's show was produced by Christian Castro, Michelle Eloi, Kathryn Millsop, Megan Burney and Kalen Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcast. Special thanks to Eamon Whalen. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan and our theme music is by Trackademics. Go. Wherever you listen to podcasts, search for on with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.

A (54:43)

Hi, we're back Market. We sell expertly refurbished tech like iPhones for talking to your friends or your AI girlfriend.

B (54:53)

Wow, you have such strong muscles.

A (54:55)

Either way, this expertly refurbished tech costs way less than new guaranteed by the back market. Promise 30 day free returns and 1 year warranty on every purchase.

B (55:05)

I am breaking up with you to

A (55:07)

be with Back market. Back Market where the world shops refurbish tech.