Robbie the Fire Bernstein (8:50)

Well, yeah, the lying and then complete pivot is pretty remarkable. It seemed. I watched all of the wonderful content that you've done over the last couple of days. I watched the zero hedge debate along with the Piers Morgan appearance. I feel like there was one other one, but I watched all of it and it feel, it felt to me that some of what you were saying is this feels like the US Is a gambler and they've lost a lot of money gambling. And they're walking into the casino going, hey, I just want to look at the craps table. I'm not going to play at the crabs table. And you're like, well, why don't we just not go near the crabs table? It seems to always be a problem. And they're going, it's not going to be a problem this time. This time we're just going to look at the thing.

Dave Smith (9:27)

Dude, that's really. That's a great analogy. I'm like, hey, you just bought chips. Why'd you buy chips? Why are you buying chips? They're like, no, dude, I just like the Way I like the way chips feel in my hand. I'm not going to place it back. I'm just going to go get real close to the table. And you're like, guys, I've seen this movie a lot before, I don't know.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (9:42)

And so now we're just a few days in and everything that they said of that we wouldn't be involved is not true. We might get to the clips later, but they've been playing, you know, both J.D. vance and Marco Rubio have been on the news going, this is not going to escalate into a fight. Seemingly it already has. One of the most remarkable claims is, hey, they're just 14 days away from getting a bomb and so we just need to do this one strategic strike and then they won't be able to then claiming that it's done to find out a day later that I don't know that all the sites were completely destroyed and potentially materials were taken out of one of the sites. And also if they were just 14 days away, how do you know that they didn't contain any material in other locations that they could then break, still continue to break out? So, yeah, it's been nothing but lies. It seems like the Donald Trump administration is absolutely looking to actually have this war while continuously pretending. No, we're not even fighting them. We're just going for the nuclear assets, the nuclear assets only. And all they need to do is come to the table and negotiate with us. When. Why would they trust Donald Trump? Donald Trump lied to them the first time. He pulls a little bit of a doll hair move where he goes, well, I gave them the 60 days. Or I said, well, I was going to wait 14 days and make it. I was going to make a decision within 14 days. I made it the next day. I didn't lie to them. But I'm just saying after the Gaddafi situation and after the way that we've negotiated, why would they just trust us that if they were to absolutely fold on their nuclear ambitions and all of a sudden we're going to give them a big hug and just let them back into the world economy?

Dave Smith (11:12)

Yeah, no, that's right. I mean, look, it's like at this point, you know, someone was arguing with me the other day and they said, you know, something of like, how, look, dude, it just like it can't, we cannot take the threat of a regime enriching to 60% uranium or something about that. And it's like, yeah, but just think about like the fucking incentive structure that you've created. Here, like, if this regime does survive, which is quite possible, and if this regime does survive, you're like, okay, so you're telling me that you. Okay, for all the regime changes that America has had. You ever see like, where they list all the regime changes the US has had, like post World War II, where it's like all the regime changes through direct war or CIA covert actions or colored revolutions or whatever. It's just like a long, long list. I think we're at like 70 something nations that we've overthrown. None of them have had nukes. We do not overthrow nuclear armed regimes because it's just, even for these guys, it's just too risky. So you're telling me we will. If you completely abandon your nuclear ambitions like Gaddafi, we'll overthrow you. If you develop nukes, we won't overthrow you. If you hang around at 60%, that's high enough, we'll overthrow you. So like, it's like all, every. The incentive is just so obvious. You're creating the incentive for more people to, you know, try to obtain nuclear weapons and worse.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (12:39)

Worse than that. And this feels a lot like, a lot of what I'm seeing feels like the propaganda I've seen before. So if you remember the Ukraine propaganda, it was Biden refused to say that Naito will not. Ukraine won't be a part of Naito, but then also pretended like we're not escalating the situation here. And so on the same note, they keep floating this tout, this talking point of, well, they enriched all the way to 60% and. But then also the 60% is not really the problem. From what I understand, they were willing to go back to just being allowed to enrich uranium. But then the Donald Trump, they said, you guys can enrich uranium at all, while then pretending that the issue is over the 60% enrichment. And it's like that wasn't the fighting point. If anything, they went to the 60% to be within breakout range of having some sort of a nuclear deterrent, which, speaking to your point, this new environment would suggest don't be within range. Make sure that you're either fully there or not doing it at all. Because being within range, you're going to be treated as if you have it without actually having the deterrent.

Dave Smith (13:35)

Yeah, that's right. And just to be clear, I mean, I know I've said this on some other podcasts, but so like they were also, it should be pointed out that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA because the way the deal was worked right like, the deal still exists. The deal was between, like, Europe, America and Iran. But the way the deal was written was that if America pulls out of the deal, then they're allowed to enrich up to 60%. So that's what they did. America pulled out and they went, okay, well, then we're going to exercise our option to enrich up. But they still have the inspections regime. They still have inspectors coming in. That's how we know that they're at where they're at. That's actually what the hawks are using against them, is the reports coming back from the inspection regime that still is operating in Iran. And so, and also they are, they are on record saying, we will get back into the original JCPOA if America wants to come back into it. So they're sitting there negotiating. Essentially, they've admitted that we enriched all the way up to have something to negotiate away. That's, that's what they were. That was the Iranian perspective in these negotiations. And this has been widely reported. It's like they were, they were going like, hey, look, will come back down our enrichment levels and you drop some of the sanctions against us. Like they were trying to negotiate back into the deal that we already had before Donald Trump decided to walk away from it. It's just all, you know, any. So this idea that, oh, because they're enriched and look, all of this other stuff where even Tulsi Gabbard selling her soul and coming out and going, they could be weeks away, directly contradicting her testimony from just a couple months ago. The, and her. And, and even the intelligence she was putting out just a couple weeks before that. Now they're saying they could be days away or weeks away. This is a completely new talking point, just invented after this war broke out. It wasn't. It was not a talking point. Five minutes before Israel bombed Iran. Even Benjamin Netanyahu, after he launched the initial attack, in his interview with Brett Bayer, said, maybe a year, maybe 13 months. But of course, Rob, and this is some of the stuff Thomas Massie is getting at, and we talk a little bit about that, too. Of course, if you have a year, then what does that mean? There's plenty of time to debate the issue in Congress. This isn't a situation where there's some pending emergency and the President has to strike. It's like, no, he could bring this to Congress, bring all of the evidence. This is the way that our constitutional system supposedly was set up to work, is that the people's representatives in the Congress would get to make a decision on behalf of the people looking at the evidence, do we think that this threat, you know, whatever. But of course, none of them want to do that. So just launch an illegal war of aggression. Why not? You know, that's good enough. The Israelis say, so that's good enough. Good enough for Trump, evidently. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Crowd Health, a longtime sponsor of this show. It's a company we've been telling you guys about for many years now because they really are great and offer a tremendous service. They are an alternative to health insurance. So if you are somebody like me, and I'd imagine most of you who don't really love your health insurance provider maybe think the whole health insurance system is a big scheme that's rigged against you in favor of the big insurance providers, go check out Crowd Health, a true alternative to health insurance. Crowd Health is a decentralized health care payment system that frees you from the tyranny of health insurance. You can go to whatever doctor you like because there's no networks and it's significantly less exp. Expensive than health insurance. Singles are $185 a month. A family of four is $605 a month. But right now, you can use the promo code POTP to get just 99amonth per person for the next three months. Crowd health is not health insurance. It's a totally different way of paying for health care. Terms and conditions may apply. To learn more, go to joincrowdhealth.com all right, let's get back into the show. It's. I guess there's a few other things that should be pointed out here. I was also, I was, I was criticized by a couple of people because I said something about how, you know, that essentially here, and look, I, I understand people were saying basically that they were criticizing me of creating a framework where I'm right no matter what happens. And I kind of get that. You know, I understand someone saying, like, hey, you're saying you're going to be right if this happens or right if it doesn't happen. But my point was just that, like, look, there's only so many possibilities here. We will see how this, this all ends. But essentially what I was saying was like, what I'm, what I'm praying for now, this is after Trump strike, you go, like, the best case scenario here is that Iran really does just take this like a bitch. Like that. They really do just take this kind of wave the white flag. You Know, like, I knew they had to, like, respond in some way, but maybe they do one of these, like, you know, pretend responses like they did with Israel after Israel killed their guy in Syria there, and they gave the US Warning and then sent a bunch of missiles that were all shot down and didn't really kill anyone. And they've already done a little bit more than that in Israel this time and they've killed some people. But, like, maybe the response would be something like that again, something like the post Soleimani response where they send some missiles at American bases but don't actually kill anybody or something like that. But so, like, what we're hoping for, now, we're in a, we're in a position where we are relying on Iranian restraint. This is the position that the hawks have brought us to, where we're counting on the mullahs to not do something crazy. And I was just making the point that looks the best case scenario here is that nothing like they do that, they push out, they don't have a real response to this. And then somehow Donald Trump is able to say, look, I'm so great. We hit him, we walk away. It doesn't lead to a wider war. But I was just making the point that if that happens and then, you know, people can, People will undoubtedly, you know, say, oh, you guys were alarmists on this, or you got it all wrong. You were talking about what a catastrophe this has been. But look, it didn't turn out to be that bad of a thing. But I was saying in the, if that is the case, then really, even though people are going to say, oh, you were alarmist, the real takeaway from that would be that it disproves the entire foundation of the hawks argument here. Right? Like, if, if the whole argument is that, yes, obviously we, I mean, at least the ones who aren't lying through their teeth will go, yes, Israel has secret nukes. Secret nukes aren't really the big problem. The big problem is the moas can't get nuclear weapons. Sure, Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons. Sure, Joseph Stalin had nuclear weapons. Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons. You know, like some of the worst people who have ever existed in the history of the world. In fact, say the worst people who have ever existed in the history of the world had nuclear weapons. Okay? But no, no, no, no, no. I know India has nuclear. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. But if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that is cannot be allowed to happen. You know, like, nobody ever suggested that we just launch a war of aggression against Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union because he was pursuing nuclear weapons even though it was Joseph Stalin, you know what I mean? Like, even though it's like a guy who's already committed genocides, you'd still, Mao Zedong killed more people than any human being who's ever lived. And yet nobody suggested the response to him having a nuclear research program was to launch an aggressive war against China. Nobody suggested that we preemptively strike India or Pakistan. So my point is that the whole case for the Hawks rests on this kind of unfalsifiable assertion that Iran with nukes will destroy the world. It's just, this is a risk we cannot tolerate. But if Iran takes this and doesn't do anything major in response, doesn't that just disprove the whole thing? Because the only reason they wouldn't do that is because like all of those people, as bad as all of them are, as bad as Mao and Stalin and as bad as, like all these people throughout history have been. One of the things that they have in common that makes them kind of human is they like being in power and they like being alive and they don't want to die. They do have self preservation. They don't. And so Iran, obviously not just now or today, even before these strikes, Iran could do a lot of damage to Israel or our bases in the region. But they don't want to do that because they know what will happen then. Okay, well what happens if they nuke someone else? Everybody knows. Nobody doesn't think that if Iran had a nuke and then used it offensively that the country wouldn't be destroyed as a result of it. The problem is just then you're at nuclear war. But everyone knows they'd be blown off the map, they'd be obliterated, as Hillary Clinton threatened to do. You know, like it's. So if they, if it is survival that dictates their restraint, then that disproves the whole goddamn point. Okay. And then my other point was that if they do respond and they do end up like killing some Americans and then we have to respond to that and then the situation escalates, well, then we are at this tremendous risk of another disaster. And so people could say, oh, I'm, I'm creating a situation where I'm right no matter what. But like, I'm just saying argue with the point there. We didn't have to do this. And now the best case scenario is Iran doesn't do anything major in response which disproves the Hawks entire position or what I got to say I think is the more likely scenario here is that they do something in response and now we got dead Americans or now we got a wider war all for something we didn't have to do to begin with. So yes, I guess I'm proven right in both scenarios. But I'm sorry, like make an argument about why either one of those is wrong. It just seems so obvious. This is clearly, you know, you enter a war of choice and there's two options here essentially broadly speaking and both of them disprove the hawks own talking points.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (24:10)

Yeah, well speaking to being right, no matter what, whatever ends up happening here, I just see a lot of parallels between what we saw in Covid and the propaganda here. You know, just 14 days to slow the curve. Just I need 14 days to think about. I don't actually want to be in a war. Yeah. And then the other one is, you know, my takeaway on the COVID thing the entire time was that the vaccine is just. I'm not going to tell you that the vaccine is going to, you know, have a harmful effects to you because I don't know, but it seems like an unnecessary risk and that this thing is not good enough that we should be shutting down the country over. And I basically feel the same way about the Iran war. I don't have enough military intelligence to tell you, hey, is Israel taking out every factory there? Is there so much discontent in the region that they're actually going to throw over the leader? Are we actually going to end up in a situation where this turns out to be better for Iran and we're just rid of this bad regime? I mean these are aggressive gambles and that's a possibility. I wouldn't predict that that's going to happen. I don't think it's likely going to happen. But at the end of the day I don't think that these risks justify that potential outcome because I don't think it's likely and I don't even think it really serves our interest. At the end of the day Iran does not have the capabilities of striking the United States of America. So this might serve Israel's interest. And no one ever explains to us why they're the most strategic asset. So it just, the argument is essentially we are taking unnecessary risks that doesn't actually benefit our direct interest. There might be some corporate interest of that. People don't want Iran oil on the market. That's not my direct interest.

Dave Smith (25:40)

And so it's certainly in some people's special interest. But yes, it's not in the general interest of the American people seems to.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (25:47)

Be an unnecessary risk. And if you look at the track record of wars that we've had and as you've said multiple times, this is unlike any of the other wars that we've had because we have the debt that we have. We didn't have the debt that we currently have when we fought these other ones. And our country was slightly more unified when we had the. I'm just rehashing things I've heard from you on these other podcasts. But the point just being, I think it is a very fair and winnable argument to go these are unnecessary risks. And in the long shot that you manage to get this right, which you likely won't, but in the very long shot, I still don't think that this gamble is going to be worth the payoff and that the payoff is that great for us.

Dave Smith (26:24)

Well, let me just real quick because there's some I got an update here which is actually a pretty big deal. So it's just reported right now, Disclose tv, which is a good Twitter account to follow just in Iran coordinated. Oh sorry, this is from the New York Times. They're reposting it. Iran coordinated attacks on the U.S. air base in Qatar with Qatari officials providing advance notice to minimize casualties. So there is at least we've gotten some, some reporting here now that they did the thing again where they give advance notice to minimize casualties. This would check out because there were a bunch of, bunch of like all over the region. Everybody was on like the highest of alert and there were some evacuations and stuff happening earlier today. So may hopefully maybe we are seeing the first scenario there where Iran is, is kind of bitching out and doing something for show. That being said, you know, these things are still very dangerous because even that to minimize casualties. But what does that mean? What if there still are some casualties and then how's that going to be? And then you know, of course, just like as you alluded to earlier, Rob, you know, the whole thing is that so in the negotiations and this was widely reported, this was transparently the case that. So Iran comes into the negotiations when Donald Trump saying he wants to negotiate. Donald Trump makes a 60 day time limit completely arbitrarily, just makes that up, says they have 60 days to negotiate. Iran comes in going okay, let's negotiate. How about we bring our enrichment levels down and we get back in the JCPOA and you drop some of the sanctions and the so they're trying to go. And then the hawks insisted on putting in the poison bill, the poison pill, excuse me, that you have to have zero enrichment and you have to get rid of all your centrifuges and get rid of your civilian nuclear program entirely, which is like a totally ridiculous, you know, like just, it's in, it's a poison pill. It's a request that, you know, they can't give and you intentionally demand it to kill negotiations. And so this is what the hawks are always doing, right? So they kill the negotiations. Then on the 61st day, Israel attacks. Now, I'm saying even if casualties are minimized, let's say there are three Americans who get killed, you know, the hawks are going to use that to beat the war drums and look at Donald Trump and say, trump, what are you a weak man? Or are you a big, tough, strong man who does something when Americans are killed? And this does seem to be the type of thing that actually moves. Donald Trump. So, anyway, just gaming all of that out, there was one other thing you said I wanted to respond to. Oh, yeah, in terms of, in terms of like what, how successful the strikes actually were. And I've, I've, you know, a few of my military buddies who really know what they're talking about here have confirmed this is true. This was kind of my, you know, gut instinct. But then I did get it confirmed by some people who actually, you know, have some expertise in with the subject matter. But you're talking about doing these airstrikes alone, with no forces on the ground. You have no idea what you got and what you didn't get. You need to send in ground forces to really know is there nuclear material left? Was nuclear material moved? Was this. I mean, you can have some intelligence, but this is going based off sources and it's, it's low confidence type stuff. And so even I think the Pentagon did say that some of the nuclear material had been moved. But, you know, immediately after the strike, everyone, of course, Donald, Donald Trump first and foremost is bragging about how successful they were and how it took out everything. The Iranians, who are really the only ones who would know, they go, ah, no, it didn't do nothing, didn't take out anything. We've moved all of the nuclear material. You know, who knows who's telling the truth there? Or, sorry, I shouldn't say that. Who knows if the Iranians are telling the truth? The Americans are just making it up. Donald Trump's administration is just saying it was very successful. But the bottom line is that for all of us, we just don't know the. We don't know what, you know, how much was achieved or not achieved by these strikes.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (30:39)

And on that note, just explain to me, how are they 14 days away from breaking out, and then you take out three strategic targets, and then you declare, well, there's no longer any risk of a nuclear threat anymore. I mean, just rectify those two positions for me, particularly if you just kind of, you know, kick the bees hive here. And I guess potentially, I mean, you want to talk about the extreme upside, I guess it's that we flip Iran and they end up being a peaceful country. And it's better for the people there on the extreme risk side is that, you know, they end up acquiring material from North Korea to finish a bomb because they weren't actually interested in doing that until now. Or that Russia and Iran decide, hey, we really don't like the way America's running around picking all these fights with our allies, and we're gonna step in, and you know what? We're not at war with the US either, but we're gonna start very strategically sending a lot of arms into Iran or helping them with their nuclear program. I just. I don't understand the claim of 14 days away from a bomb. Oh, we hit three targets, and now, mission accomplished. We no longer have to deal with this nuclear threat. And if the only thing you're concerned about was the nuclear threat, then I guess we don't have to even negotiate anymore and we just call it a day. If it's mission accomplished and we're not at war with the regime, we're not at war with the people, and we're just at war with the nuclear threat. If you're going to tell me, hey, I mean, pull up. Go ahead. I mean, you can pull up the tweet and read the tweet. Donald Trump said, mission accomplished. We're done. We did it. We took out the three strategic assets. So just some, somebody, one of these Trump loyalists, tell me how these two things fit together. 14 days away, three targets hit. We know that we're done. It's bullshit.

Dave Smith (32:15)

Yeah, Complete bullshit. And then, of course, look, it's like with all of these things, Donald Trump just speaks out of every side of his mouth and takes every position. So. So it's like completely incoherent. You don't even know. But at the same time, it's like, no, listen, you just launched a war, so. And now you're talking about regime change. So, like, what is it here? What's the goal? And it is, you know, people are, you know, it's Just like I've been saying for the last few days, even though, and you make the point about COVID there are striking parallels there as well. And there's also just a ton of striking parallels between the war propaganda for almost all the wars and this one. But it is, I'm sorry, like the people falling for this one. You are so much worse than the people who fell forward in 2002 leading into 2003, because we got a 20 plus year track record. Now to look at and see all these people making these same claims with the same level of certainty, and then already we see them abandoning those claims and moving on to other claims and making them with the same certainty, it's just, it's ridiculous. But I mean, for people who, you know, I still, you know, I mean, we got to see how this plays out. We'll see what happens with these Iranian strikes and then see what the response to that is and what the response to the response is. But the idea that people, look, I'd say I still think at this point where things are right now. Yeah, I think it's, it's on. I find, I have to say, I don't think Donald Trump is really going to send the army in like, you're talking real boots on the ground like that type of thing. I just, I imagine he's not going to, you know, just destroy, destroy his presidency, which it certainly would do. There's no question about that. If he is invading the country with the army, he has destroyed his presidency. He may have already. You know, he's, he's really risking it. But the point is that the risk of being lured into that is just unacceptable as we're taking this risk of something that would be, you know, if you're talking about a regime change, which is what the commander in chief himself is saying now, and certainly what the Israelis want and what a lot of the hawks have, want and have wanted for, for many years, many decades. You're talking, you know, it's like people, they get in these, like, kind of goofy ideas. It's amazing how quickly, like when the war drums start beating or let me, you know what, let me actually tell this, this story and then I'll get into the regime change stuff and what a regime change in Iran might actually look like or what it might take. But. So I remember this now. I didn't do very, very well in college. School was never my thing. I was much better at learning outside of school than I ever was at learning inside of school. But I do remember this one moment and this was very interesting to me. So I graduated high school in 2002. So I graduated high school and then started college in the year 2002, which was the year between 911 happened, 2001. The invasion of Iraq happened in 2003. So I went to college in the year that was post 911 with the. We had already invaded Afghanistan. And then all through 2002 was the war drums beating for the war in Iraq. It was for people who are like a bit younger than me. Like even you and Natalie are a bit younger than me. I don't know. You know, you were alive, Rob, and not, you know, I guess Natalie was alive but was very young. There's, it's hard to explain. I mean if you think there's like war fever now, you know, 911 had just happened. America had been attacked on the homeland. The war propaganda, the war fever was just insane. And so there was this, there was this one student at the college that I went to. He was living in the dorms with us and he was like an active duty military guy. And so he goes, somehow the local paper of like this, you know, shit little town wanted to do like an interview with him because he was active in the military. He was getting ready to deploy. He said he was going off to, to, I think it was Afghanistan at the time because we hadn't yet invaded Iraq. But he was getting ready for, to like deploy. And you know, everybody was so like gung ho rah rah. This was Team America days, you know. America? Yeah, like that's what that, that's what that movie was making fun of, was that moment in time. And so the paper got excited and they did like a spread on him. They put it on the front page of the newspaper and they took a picture of this guy with like his, his like he had like, you know, he was in his military fatigues and he had like semi automatic rifle. And they came into his dorm room and took these like cool badass looking pictures of him. And then they wrote up a whole piece about him. Okay. And then it came out like two days after they wrote the piece that this kid was not in the military. This was not real at all. And in fact what they were dealing with was a lying fucking 19 year old with an AK47 or I don't remember what the gun was. It was. Maybe it wasn't an AK47. It might have been like an AR15, but it was like a badass fucking, you know, semi automatic rifle on college campus. This is post Columbine by the way, we were already in the era of school shootings. You are not allowed to have a semiautomatic rifle on a dorm room. And yet the newspaper came in as he, he showed them their gun and went and took pictures and ran a puff story about it. He was making it up. He just bought some military fatigues. He wasn't in the military at all anyway. No, no tragedy ended up happening. They retracted the story, he got kicked out of school. Don't know whatever ended up happening to that kid. My guess is nothing great, but it was. I remember there was this one professor and he was like one of the only professors who I really liked in, at college. But I remember Heat. We were talking about this in his, in class the next day. And he goes, guys, you just lived through a great example of war fever. Because people lose their minds. Like, they just get so swept up in the whole thing that even people who are journalists by trait, like, this is what. And this isn't like, you know, this isn't Chris Cuomo at cnn. Like, these weren't like corporate hacks who are lying on behalf of the regime as a job. These were like, like, you know, people who write for the local newspaper in some town, like they would. But even they did not ask themselves the most basic questions, like, wait a minute, what? Like, he's getting ready to go for deployment and they've already sent him his weaponry and uniform here at school. He's got the gun on college campus open at a dorm. What? No one asked the most basic questions and they ran the story. Meaning, like, the editor saw it, the senior editor saw it, like, it, it was the front page of their little newspaper. Everybody imaginable who would have been the level to check there, they all signed off on it or whatever, didn't object to it. And so it was just like a great example. And again, that doesn't mean that, like, maybe there is a scenario here where we can just be proven wrong. And I'm not trying to intentionally create a situation where I get to say I'm right no matter what, but if the facts unfold in a way that I don't, that I didn't anticipate, I will certainly be the first to be like, I didn't admit that. Believe me, I would love for this to have a non catastrophic resolution where I look bad, I will gladly take that. I've had enough wins in major policy areas that me and you have been completely right about, Rob. So like Jer, I'll take being wrong for this to not be the disaster that it could end up being. But you see, I've just lived through this movie so much. I guess this is what wisdom is. You've just like, you're like, no, I don't know. I've seen this. I've seen it over and over again. And the War Fever people are talking about how we're going to have a regime change with a few airstrikes. All right, I've never seen that before. Never seen that. And I think we were picking on some regimes that were not as tough as this one. I mean, look, just to keep this in perspective, look, even in Libya, we had a full NATO no fly zone. We had CIA and Special Forces Special Ops on the ground. It wasn't just, you know what I mean, like, oh, a couple targeted strikes and the regime fell. And I'm sorry, but the President's talking about regime change. And I don't want to be one of the people who are like, you know, hysterically just reacting to what Trump said. But this is important enough that you got to kind of take it seriously. So just for some reference, right? Like for those people who, who know. And even if you're not like, really, you know, like, well read in the history of all this stuff, you do, you know, like how we, we were talking about the, what's it called, the Gulf war in the 90s against Iraq, right? And like, as everybody knows on some, or at least I think most of you guys know, right? Like, George H.W. bush launched a war in Iraq, and then George W. Bush launched a war in Iraq, okay? And both of them fought the war against Saddam Hussein. So, like, just pointing out that even invading the country, Saddam Hussein held on to power, right? Like, there wasn't even a successful regime change in 91. Now, you could certainly argue that they could have overthrown Saddam Hussein and opted not to. I think that is the case. They decided not to go into Baghdad and overthrow him. That's true. But I'm just making the point that, like here you had a Sunni minority country with a Sunni dictator over ruling over a super majority of Shiite Muslims who were not fans of his. You know, it's like all these people talking about the Iranian people don't like their government. Therefore, what is even with Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator whose people did not very much like him, and an invasion from the US army still didn't overthrow the regime. He still held on to power for another, you know, decade or a little over a decade. You know, like the idea that, oh, we're Just going to hit these sites, and then the regime will be changed, and then everything will work out well. Seems like more something out of the realm of science fiction or fantasy than any honest, like, military assessment of what might happen as a result of limited aerial strikes. So the people, like, there's. There's this big circle that cannot be squared of. We took them all out. The job is over. We're also calling for regime change. And then the people saying. They're like, oh, no, no, no. We're not saying we'll do the regime change. We're just saying, like, the people will do the regime change or something like that. It's like, well, why would. Why would some precision strikes that take out key nuclear facilities if that's what we're being told is happening? Why would that lead to the people rising up and overthrowing the regime any more than the people could have just risen up and overthrown the regime yesterday or a year ago or 10 years ago? This regime has been holding on to power since. This regime is four years older than me. They're 45 years old. I'm 42. This. They've been holding on to power for quite a while. And the idea that a few precision strikes are going to somehow lead, you know, I don't know, is it, like, the most charitable way to say I think that is wishful thinking? Let's say I'll tone down my normal rhetoric. That seems to be wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Hexclad. Hexclad has completely revolutionized pots and pans and knives. They've got the best cookware you can imagine. I will tell you, my family is using hexclad and loving it. Where my wife loves the knives, the pots, and the pans. So go check it out. If you're looking to level up your kitchen game, Hexclad has got you covered. Their Japanese Damascus steel knives are not just tools, they're works of art, designed to make your time in the kitchen effortless. These knives are forged from 67 layers of premium Japanese Damascus steel, giving you incredible durability and edge retention. And just like all hexclads products, they have a lifetime warranty. Hexclad's pans truly check every single box when it comes to picking your cookware. They're metal, utensil safe, dishwasher safe, and oven safe up to 500 degrees. They are induction ready and even have a Stay cool. Handle so you can saute with ease. The products are really fantastic. I highly recommend them. Go check it out. Upgrade your cookware. And for a limited time, our listeners will get 10% off their orders. With our exclusive link, just head to hexclad.comproble for that 10 discount. Once again, that's hexclad.comproble. all right, let's get back into the show. I don't know, Rob, any thoughts?

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (46:06)

Well, the Trump loyalists seem to have absolute faith in Donald Trump at all times, even if he contradicts himself 48 hours after he said the initial statement that they defended the hell out of. So, yeah, there seems to be some rosy picture being presented here of American strength is going to get them to just acquiesce to our will. I'm loving the statement, and by loving it, I mean the whole, the situation is tragic in my point of view. But the statements by J.D. vance and because Trump's actually not really giving his pitch, he's got his minions out selling this for him and he's just saying crazy shit on Twitter. But basically where we are now is, listen, they just saw the strength of the United States of America. And while we're not at war with them, they're just going to give up without having the war. They're just going to come back, they're going to meet all of our demands, they're going to trust us and everything that we want will be given to us because we're the mighty United States of America and we have no interest in a fight. But we're not saying we're not going to fight them. And what happens if they decide to shut down the Strait of, I think it's her muse or whatever.

Dave Smith (47:06)

Yeah, yeah. The Straits of Karmus.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (47:07)

And what happens if they strike United States military bases? Well, they know, they know not to because they know that we're going to come at them with even more strength. Can you clarify what that means? That we're going to come? No, because it's not even going to get there because they just witnessed what we'll do to them and they know that we're serious about this. And it's like, I just, it, it insults my intelligence. Give me some straight answers. What is the plan here? Because it seems like you guys just want an all out war. And what's the intelligence that you guys think you can actually win it? How much is it going to cost us? And of course they're not going to give us any of these answers.

Dave Smith (47:38)

Yeah, it's like again, you also have. It's almost like a situation where if you. I don't know, let's just, like, hypothetically say, like, you had a problem with your car. And, like, a mechanic was like, listen, like, there's. There's like, a 1% chance. Let's say there's one out of a hundred. There's a 1% chance that if you try to drive this thing without fixing it, it's going to explode and kill everybody in it. And then you're at home, and you were like. Your wife was like, I'm going to run to the grocery store. I'm going to take the kids with me. And you were like, well, you can't drive the car because there's. We have to have it fixed before anyone can drive it. There's a 1% chance that it kills you and the kids, you know, and your wife was like, well, I just really want to get some food from the grocery store. And you were like, do we need groceries? Like, are we out of food? And she's like, no, the house is stocked up. I just want to go. You know, there's no real reason for me to go. You can see where you'd be like, no, absolutely not. You cannot take that risk. Even if it's only 1 out of 100, you cannot take that risk. It's just like, it's totally reckless and there's no benefit. There's no need for it, so just don't do that. And, you know, by the way, I. I would put the. The odds of a catastrophe here at much higher than 1%. Much, much higher. We're. We're. Look even just now, I mean, today, and I don't know exactly what this means, but Russia was moving subs, like, close to the English Channel. You've got all types of different possibilities that could. Could come out of this. Like, I don't know if you. We're reading up on this, Rob, but we have now, we have no allies in. In Asia over this fight. Japan and. Was it South Korea? Definitely. Japan came out and totally blasted the thing where it was like, yo, what is Israel in America doing? Like, why are you starting another war right now? There's, you know, you've got a very different global order than we had even at the beginning of the war on terrorism. I mean, the global order shifted around quite a bit over the Ukraine war. And again, it's just the. The risks of these. Of course. Now, Russia, obviously, has taken some provocative stances here. I don't know if you saw the thing where they were talking about giving nukes to Iran. Now that I, I highly doubt that's going to happen. That would be quite a first if you had a nuclear country just giving nuclear weapons to a member of the non proliferation Treaty, you know. All right, I'm not saying I think that's going to happen, but the point is it's a signal. It's, it's Russia sending a signal that they're also very unhappy about what's going on here. And keep in mind that Russia did intervene when America was trying to overthrow Bashar Al Assad and prevented it at least temporarily from, from happening. So there's just, there's so many like there, there are substantially higher risks than just an Iraq war. But when you talk about, look, when you, when you talk about a regime change, you're like, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be an Iraq style invasion of the army. I mean, that's not what we had in Libya or Syria or Yemen for that matter. You know, they were catastrophic. Nonetheless, it's like, okay, they did not involve, you know, us spending $2 trillion and losing thousands of our, of our soldiers, but you know, overthrowing Mommar Gaddafi did destroy the country, destabilize the region. It was a huge component of the migrant crisis into Europe. Bashar al Assad, I mean, a nightmare that civil war turned into. Hundreds of thousands of people died. The country is now run by Al Qaeda and isis. It's like, you know, there's very bad possibilities. But again, of course, with a regime like Iran, a regime change seems like it would require much more than with those others. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it certainly seems that way. And then this is the other even. Look, with this war you have risks that are way higher than even with Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply just did not pose the technical threats that the Iranian regime is capable of. And we're seeing that already right like this, this right now, even just Israel being bombed and people being killed by Israel and all, everybody having their security at the highest alert and US Bases now being having missiles launched at them. Again, we'll see as the reporting comes out what exactly happened. But you might notice this is different than any of the other terror wars. This is, that never happened in any of them. And so like, okay, we're already dealing with something different. And even if this does not become a wider like global confrontation, we, you know, as, as you mentioned that I had brought up were simply, I don't think we're in a situation where we really can risk that. And I think that's something that, that the American people should really grapple with. Like, let's just say, hypothetically, let's say we wanted to launch another Iraq style or Afghanistan style war right now. I think it's a very reasonable question to ask. Could we, could we do that? I'm not so sure we could. Like, you know, those, those wars had a profound damaging effect on our country. And, and you know, economically, culturally, spiritually, like, it, it was very, very bad for our country. And are you telling me that it's so obvious that we could do another Iraq right now? Like, you think we could just go blow another few trillion dollars and lose thousands of our bravest guys and destabilize a region and have protests and all, all that comes with it? I gotta say, if it were to turn into something like that, I'm also, I'm very concerned about what that is going to look like here in our country. You know, it's like really start adding up, like all the different costs in your mind. First of all, the, the new media landscape is something that will have to be dealt with if we do launch another war of that nature. They're just not going to be able to have all the people like us out there talking all this. And they are not, they are going to have to put the protest down. They're going to have to put down the people who are speaking out against the war. You know, for all the talk we've heard over the last two years, Rob, about the dangerous rise of anti Semitism, what do you think that looks like? Let us launch another war. Now that is just nakedly for Israel. It's not even like the other ones where they had a little bit of a cover story, just one where we're just straight up, we are going to war for Israel right now, even though all of the American people don't want it, or, you know, super majorities of the American people don't want it. I just don't know. I don't know how that would look. And I'm really, God damn. I am really hoping that this does not escalate to something like that. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blackout Coffee. As you know, I'm a lover of coffee and I appreciate a good cup of coffee more than just about anything else. And that is what Blackout delivers. I also love that they're a good company of people who love freedom, love the, love the United States of America and its declaration of independence and constitution. Most importantly, it's just really good coffee. So make sure you go grab some. With over 25,000 five star reviews, it is clear that they're doing something right. It's not just hype, it's premium coffee. And you can get yourself some@blackout coffee.com problem. And if you go there right now and use the promo code problem, you'll also get 20% off your first order. Again, excellent coffee. I've been drinking their cold brew for, for over a month now. Love this stuff. Go check it out, get some for yourself and get a 20% discount. Discount when you go to blackout coffee.com problem and use the promo code problem. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, I saw, I found this to be kind of interesting, actually. Let me just pull it up so I can read the, the exact numbers here. But so Charlie Kirk, who runs Turning Point usa, which is, you know, really Donald Trump's kind of young people ground game. I mean, Charlie Kirk has been a, a truly consequential, influential person in all of this. Like they go out, they have chapters all over the country and they got certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young people to be Republicans and support Donald Trump and all of this. And he's very, you know, anyway, it's just his audience is very that. So he, he posted a Twitter poll. Now of course, this is not a scientific poll that should be obvious, but nonetheless, it's kind of interesting. You know, he got three. As of right now, it has 311,000 plus people who have voted in this. And this was, you know, so again, not scientific, but this is Charlie Kirk's audience. It's kind of interesting to see where they would be. And the question was, do you still support U. S led regime change, removing the Iranian mullahs? And of this right now it is just under 70%, 69% say no and about 30% say yes. And I did think that was somewhat interesting, particularly just because Donald Trump just came out and endorsed the idea of regime change. And so it's just interesting to still see even in that environment that, you know, 70% of Charlie Kirk's, you know, followers are like, no, we don't want that.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (58:12)

And that's, that's Trump didn't actually endorse a regime change. He's going to make Iran great again. I mean, your inability to trust in Donald Trump or see the 8D chess or the plan in play because he has no interest in regime change. He just wants, he wants Iran to be great.

Dave Smith (58:29)

Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's. That's the new. That's what everyone voted for, right? To make Iran great again. No, but I mean, you know, the regime change tweet that I'm referring to, like, he also just straight up endorsed regime change.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (58:41)

He said that it's politically incorrect to call it regime change. We're going to. But we are going to make Iran great again.

Dave Smith (58:48)

Yeah. Here, let me.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (58:49)

Because I really. The only way that America can be great is if Israel is made great first. And so now in order to make Israel safe, we need Iran to be great. So, you know.

Dave Smith (59:00)

Well, yes, well, let me read the exact Donald Trump quote here. It's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Mega. Well, if, if you'd allow me to say Donald Trump mega, please. What a ridiculous. Well, again, it's just like all the, it's like with all these wars, like, they always just, they do this thing all the time, right? Where they just, like, they just imply it. Like, technically speaking, I guess he didn't say he's for regime change, but it's like he said, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Even though it's politically incorrect? Like, also, like, that's not what politically incorrect means. It's not politically incorrect to say regime change. It's just that after 25 years of disastrous regime changes, the. The American people don't support one.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (60:08)

It's not like.

Dave Smith (60:09)

I don't know what this.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (60:10)

That's what he means.

Dave Smith (60:10)

Yes, yes, right. It means it's unpopular. It means people know that everything before and after that statement is almost always a lie from the people who are trying to sell it. But, yeah, it's. Look, man, this is. We'll see what comes next. Obviously, whatever is going on right now as we speak is going to play a huge role in that, but it has been in on it. It's been an unbelievable period, just the last week of, of watching how quickly, like, how quickly people have jumped on board with this new war, how quickly they've been celebrating the success of it before it is even kind of clear that there's been any success whatsoever. And as I open the show, I suppose I'll, I'll close it with the same thing. I just, I've never quite seen. I've seen many, many times, like, where there's like a propaganda campaign for some horrible government policy and then it turns out to all have been lies. And then they move the goalposts and then they have a new, you know, they have a new justification for the same policy that is different than the old justification. All this, I don't think I've ever seen one where it has been this quick, where the propaganda has moved the goalposts so quickly that literally, it's just like. Like I was arguing with some people on Twitter and literally had the moment where you're like, but that's not what you were arguing yesterday. Yesterday you and me had this argument. Do you remember that? Remember yesterday when your argument was, america won't be getting involved. Israel can do it on its own. Remember that? It's like, it is truly crazy. And then, of course, the cherry kick was that all of them going on the Sunday talk shows talking about. Nobody's talking about regime change. And then Donald Trump just throws them all under the bus, essentially, and goes, I'm going to say it. Regime change. Nate, listen, by the way, we didn't. I gotta end the show here. But he also has just been going at Thomas Massie talking shit. But honestly, I don't know. I don't even think we really have to have, like, that big of an argument here. Donald Trump and Thomas Massie, you know, we can all agree to disagree, obviously. Like, listen, the thing about it is, is that Thomas Massie is like, we're. We like him, but that we're in different movement. Like, we're in the MAGA movement. But Donald Trump, of course, is the leader of the mega movement. And I wish the mega movement best of luck, but I want no part of it, no part of it whatsoever.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (62:49)

Before we call it a show. Let me plug. It's the last vestige of freedom in this country is that you can porch tour with me. I got upcoming dates in Raleigh, North Carolina, Hempstead, North Carolina. I'm doing a dispensary at Myrtle Beach. And then I got Oklahoma City, Granbury, Texas, Shreveport, Louisiana. All those are@portstore.com and then the last one of that run is at the Secret group in Houston, Texas. You can find that on their website. And then I think after that, you and I are in Denver. I think that's the next weekend.

Dave Smith (63:16)

Yeah, July, guys. That's the next. The next thing, I'll be on the road, of course, with Rob, will be in Denver July 10th through 12th at the Denver Comedy Works. Please come on out and see us there. I'm very excited. This is a. I've heard from, like, everybody. I love that this is the best club in the country. And it's my first time doing a full weekend there. My first time performing there, but we're doing a full weekend, so I'm really, really looking forward to this. So comicdavesmith.com come on out and see us. Oh, yeah. And then back in Cleveland, Hilarities, which is one of the best clubs in the world.

Robbie the Fire Bernstein (63:50)

So they got some Greek guy who he thought was Jewish, makes some good food.

Dave Smith (63:55)

Man, did he seem Jewish. But he's not. He's Greek. Makes a mean steak. All right, thank you, guys, for listening. Catch you next time. Peace.