Why It's Hard to Know What Comes Next in Iran

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway & Jessica Tarlov

Episode: Why It's Hard to Know What Comes Next in Iran
Date: March 2, 2026
Guest: Admiral James Stavridis

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an urgent, centrist discussion on the rapidly escalating crisis in Iran following US-Israeli strikes that resulted in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader. Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov, joined by retired Admiral James Stavridis, unpack the possible scenarios for Iran’s future, evaluate US strategic objectives, debate the complexities of regime change, and explore the broader implications for global stability, energy markets, and US-China-Russia relations. The conversation also touches on the importance of intelligence operations and the limitations of both military and diplomatic solutions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Opening Scene and Current Crisis

[01:09 – 01:57]

• The show dives immediately into the Iran crisis: Iran’s Supreme Leader is dead after US and Israeli strikes; a transitional council is in place; retaliation is promised; US troops have been killed; oil and airspaces are disrupted.
• Scott Galloway: Frames the episode with the question: Is there a clear “off ramp” or are we seeing the start of a larger war?

---

2. Admiral Stavridis’ Three Scenarios for Iran’s Future

[01:57 – 03:27]

• Admiral James Stavridis:
  • Urges listeners to honor US service members regardless of political stance.
  • Lays out three scenarios:
    1. Optimistic: Iranians rise up and overthrow the regime (only ~30% chance).
    2. Moderate Change: Emergence of an “Iran 3.0”—more moderate but still controlled by remnants of the current regime.
    3. Repression: The regime survives despite bombing, increases repression.
  • Quote:

    “First, one is the happy scenario... the people of Iran rise up and overthrow the mullahs... Sadly, that’s a 30% chance at best, but not impossible.” (01:57)

---

3. How Would an Insider Advise the President?

[03:27 – 05:58]

• Scott Galloway: Asks Stavridis how he’d advise the president, considering he was vetted for VP and Cabinet posts by past presidential candidates.
• Stavridis:
  • Points to huge potential upside in transforming Iran, a nation of 90 million with “long civilizational track.”
  • Warns regime change “strictly with air power” is rarely effective without boots on the ground.
  • Would advise more deep preparation before strikes—intelligence, alliances, prepping Iran’s population—rather than just launching missiles.
  • Quote:

    “It’s worth it to go after this prize, but we’ve got to do it beyond simply throwing bombs into Tehran.” (04:41)

---

4. Lack of Clear Objectives and Communication

[05:58 – 07:49]

• Galloway: Criticizes the Trump administration for lack of clear objectives—refers to the Powell Doctrine and the need for articulated goals before military action.
• Stavridis:
  • Emphasizes the failure to “launch the ideas” before “launching the Tomahawk missiles.”
  • Lists what seem to be the three (often unstated) objectives: (a) Regime overthrow, (b) support protesters, (c) degrade ballistic missiles/nuclear program.
  • Quote:

    “What we haven’t done in this instance is launch the ideas. So, yeah, it’s a weakness… If you’ll permit me, my Greek heritage, it’s an Achilles’ heel.” (06:37)

---

5. Interrogating Rationale & Intelligence

[07:49 – 10:40]

• Jessica Tarlov: Notes conflicting rationales—claims of imminent Iranian nuclear capability and alleged threats proven false by Pentagon briefings.
• Stavridis:
  • Admits lack of access to classified intelligence but guesses the goals are: trigger Iranian uprising, prevent nuclear resurgence, and exploit the “now” moment while protest momentum remains.
  • Quote:

    “Without access to the intelligence, however, I think a sensible observer would say it’s kind of an amalgamation of the goals we talked about a moment ago…” (09:17)

---

6. The Faulty “Venezuela Comparison”

[10:40 – 12:42]

• Tarlov: Notes Trump’s comparison to the Venezuela regime change playbook.
• Stavridis:
  • Firmly rejects the analogy due to Iran's deeper theocratic integration, larger scale, and lack of a clear successor—in contrast to Venezuela.
  • Quote:

    “The idea that you could find a kind of next tier down in Iran seems very, very challenging to me…” (11:16)

---

7. US Public Will for “Boots on the Ground” and Historical Parallels

[15:07 – 19:52]

• Galloway: Doubts the American public’s appetite for a ground war; suggests the administration hopes Iranians themselves will become the “boots.”
• Stavridis:
  • Downplays likelihood of a successful uprising post-massacre of 30,000 protesters.
  • Suggests best-case is a Libya/Balkans scenario—military weakening regime to a point where the population can eventually overthrow it.
  • Quote:

    “If you’re going to send them into the street… you have got to prep that part of the battlefield far, far better.” (17:08)

---

8. Intelligence Operations & The Role of Mossad

[19:52 – 22:24]

• Galloway: Praises the apparent scale and success of intelligence, especially Israeli Mossad's role.
• Stavridis:
  • Confirms Mossad’s deep penetration, highlights necessity of granular intelligence and cyber capability to aid resistance.
  • Quote:

    “Everything we’ve done, not just dominating the air and the sea, but also taking out command and control nodes… contributes to the ability of the resistance to come forward.” (21:00)

---

9. The China & Russia Angle / Potential “Catastrophic Success”

[22:24 – 26:51]

• Tarlov: Wonders if US motivation is also to box in China (whose economy benefits from cheap Iranian energy) and Russia.
• Stavridis:
  • US focus is more on Westernizing/normalizing Iran than a pure anti-China or anti-Russia play—but knock-on effects do benefit the US.
  • Lays out a “catastrophic success” scenario: Iran and Venezuela oil comes back online, Russia struck a deal—potentially the largest oil glut and “tax cut” in history.
  • Quote:

    “Sometimes you have to be prepared for catastrophic success… that price of oil may come down.” (25:22)

---

10. The Possibility of Diplomacy

[27:57 – 28:42]

• Tarlov: Asks if a diplomatic solution is possible—Oman offers new JCPOA talks.
• Stavridis:
  • Gives it some credit, situates it in the “Iran 3.0”/degraded regime scenario. Modestly possible, could end sanctions without full regime change.
  • Quote:

    “Let them come back to the table, cut the deal that President Trump wants, and you could possibly have Iran 3.0…” (28:17)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Admiral Stavridis:

  “What we haven’t done in this instance is launch the ideas. So, yeah, it’s a weakness… If you’ll permit me, my Greek heritage, it’s an Achilles’ heel.” (06:37)

• Scott Galloway:

  “…at some point you do have to have boots on the ground. And my sense is the Trump administration is hoping that the boots on the ground will be the Iranian public–that they’ll affect the change…” (15:16)

• Stavridis on regime change:

  “…it’s very hard to change a regime strictly with air power without boots on the ground. And therefore…my advice would have been…let’s spend more time prepping the battlefield...” (04:33)

• Jessica Tarlov:

  “…the Omanis are still begging for people to come back to the table and they say we have a better JCPOA available. Do you give any weight to that?” (27:57)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Recap of Crisis & Opening Scenarios: 01:09 – 03:27
• Admiral Stavridis on Presidential Advice: 03:27 – 05:58
• Confusion on Objectives & Doctrine: 05:58 – 07:49
• Debating US Rationale & Intelligence: 07:49 – 10:40
• The Faulty Venezuela/Iran Comparison: 10:40 – 12:42
• US Appetite for Ground War & Historical Analogs: 15:07 – 19:52
• Role of Mossad & Intelligence Assets: 19:52 – 22:24
• China/Russia/Energy Market Scenarios: 22:24 – 26:51
• Diplomatic Possibility (JCPOA v2.0): 27:57 – 28:42

---

Tone and Takeaways

The discussion is urgent, reasonably direct, and intellectually honest. The hosts and guest stress the complexity and unpredictability of the current Middle East situation, openly questioning government rationales and the wisdom of the US approach. There’s a strong undercurrent of “centrist realism” with a deep skepticism about easy regime change and a cautionary attitude toward simply relying on military power. Strategic optimism is given space, especially when considering the potential ripple effects for global markets, but always grounded in hard experience.

---

For listeners:
If you want a measured, security-savvy perspective on what’s happening in Iran, the rationale behind US/Israeli decisions, and the real limitations and prospects for change, this episode delivers clear-eyed analysis in real time with deep expertise and nuanced debate.

Transcript

[Scott Galloway]

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.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Download Today this is a Monday.com ad the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. When things get hard. How do you talk to yourself? I'm Robin Arson, VP of Fitness Programming and head Instructor at Peloton, and this week on my new podcast Project Swagger, I'm sharing my strategies for how to build better self talk. It's time to work on befriending yourself. Follow Project Swagger wherever you get your podcasts.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Foreign.

[Scott Galloway]

Moderns I'm Scott Galloway.

[Jessica Tarlov]

And I'm Jessica Tarlov.

[Scott Galloway]

If you haven't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to get up to date coverage on everything happening today. We're joined again by retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis to help us make sense of developments in the Middle east over the weekend. Welcome back to the show, Admiral.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Good to be with you.

[Scott Galloway]

So I can't imagine how in demand you are, so we'll bust right into it. Here's where things stand. Iran's supreme leader is now dead, following US Israeli strikes. Tehran has installed a transitional council and is vowing fierce retaliation. At least three US Troops have been killed. Israel is hitting the heart of Tehran while Iranian missiles target US Bases and Gulf allies. Oil flows are disrupted and airspace is closing. Admiral, from a military standpoint, is there a clear off ramp here or are we looking at the very early stages of a longer war in the Middle East?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I'll answer that in one moment, but you said from a military standpoint. I'd just ask every hold those service men and women in your hearts wherever you are on the political spectrum and whatever you think about this operation, Scott, I'd say the future is pretty hard to predict at the moment. But I'll give you three scenarios very quickly. First, one is the happy scenario. This would be where the people of Iran rise up and overthrow the mullahs, the Revolutionary Guard. I think. Sadly, that's a 30% chance at best, but not impossible. The other 70% breaks into two scenarios. One, you can kind of think of it as Iran 3.0. If Iran 1.0 was under the Shah, and now Iran 2.0 has been under the mullahs, could there be an Iran 3.0 that includes some remnants of this government, but that beh a more moderate, sensible fashion? And then there's kind of the dark end of the spectrum in that 70% tranche, and that's that Team Mula Ayatollah toughs it out, takes the bombing. No boots on the ground are coming, and they repress the populace even worse. So there's a snapshot of the future as I see it.

[Scott Galloway]

So you were often mentioned as a potential VP candidate for Secretary Clinton during her run. Put yourself, if you can, in the, you know, the situation group where you've been asked, based on your military background, to give the President, you know, 72 hours before or as we were building up armaments here or hardware in the region, give us a sense how you would outline the risk to the upside and the downside and ultimately what your recommendation would have been around this.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Well, to the point of your show, Raging moderates. Yes, I was vetted for VP by Hillary. I was also offered a Cabinet post by the Trump administration. So I've kind of seen both sides of this, I think, in the Situation Room. Had I been, let's say the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the National Security Advisor or the Director of National Intelligence for either side, I would have started with, there's big upside here. If we can, and it's a big if. But if we can crack the Iranian regime and bring in a better Iran 3.0, enormous upside. Here's a country of 90 million people, wealthy with oil and gas, highly educated population, long civilizational track going back to the Persian Empire to pull that entity into the world. Big upside. But here's the downside. The downside is it's very hard to change a regime strictly with air power without boots on the ground. And therefore, Madam President or Mr. President, take your pick. My advice would be let's spend more time prepping the battlefield and preparing the people of Iran for an overthrow scenario. I don't feel that has happened. So my advice would have been it's worth it to go after this prize, but we've got to do it beyond simply throwing bombs into Tehran. And the bottom line question I would end with is let me go back to the Pentagon and build a plan with the CIA, with the Mossad, that preps the battlefield before we start launching the missiles. That would have been my advice.

[Scott Galloway]

And last question before I throw it over to Jess. The soft issue here, I think so far in terms of the administration's approach to this attack, or in my opinion, the biggest region of soft tissue is it doesn't feel entirely clear to me. I remember what was it, the Powell doctrine that you have to have stated objectives? And it feels as if there's some confusion coming out of the Trump administration around what it is the objectives are here. Would you agree with that and what do you think? If you were advising them on how to articulate some objectives, what would they be?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Well, here I'm going to put on a different hat and I'm going to take the hat of my good friend, the chief of staff to President Trump, Susie Wiles. Susie Wiles, a fellow native Floridian, understands that you have got to get the explanation out there before you start launching the Tomahawk missiles. And we are really good at launching the Tomahawk missiles. What we haven't done in this instance is launch the ideas. So, yeah, it's a weakness and if you'll permit me, my Greek heritage, it's an Achilles heel. But I'll, I'll close with what I think the objectives as I've heard them are overthrow the regime, support the protesters, take down Iran's threat from ballistic missiles and whatever is left of their nuclear program. Those, I think, are the three objectives. I've heard them articulated in varying degrees at different times. The president, as we're cutting this podcast, is about to come on and speak to the American people. I hope that he will clearly articulate which of those three, or is it all three? What's the priority order and what's the plan?

[Scott Galloway]

Jess?

[Jessica Tarlov]

Yeah, I'm glad that you talked about the confusion. I guess that's going on right now. I was listening to Secretary Pete Hegseth's speak and he didn't offer a ton of clarity except saying, which the president echoed in calls. It seems to all the reporters that there are out there that he's open to boots on the ground and more American lives are going to be lost. But it's worth it for this proverbial goal that we still don't fully understand. I wanted to ask you about the two main predicates that I understood as the rationale for going in. So first, that Iran is on their way to a nuclear weapon and that that's happening soon, even though we had OPER Operation Midnight Hammer just months ago, which was supposed to have eradicated their program. And then the second, that there was a strike coming from Iran, irrespective of what Israel did. Now the Pentagon has been briefing reporters and they have refuted those predicates. So those are not the scenarios we were facing. What do you see in light of that as the rationale for doing this? Right now?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I'm asked this question constantly, and there are two answers to it. The first is nobody on this podcast has access to the intelligence. So here we've got to depend on Congress, which is supposed to be exercising oversight, and evidently at this moment has not been briefed in real detail on the very pragmatic questions you're raising. So one answer would be, I just don't know. Without access to the intelligence, however, I think a sensible observer would say it's kind of an amalgamation of the goals that we talked about a moment ago, Scott and I did. It's the perhaps chimera, but perhaps it could actually happen. Pull the Iranian population into the streets to overthrow and end this rotten theocracy. I think number two, snip in the bud any hope of a nuclear program kind of regenerating like the Phoenix coming back. But I think more realistically, in terms of threat, going after those ballistic missiles, that's kind of point two. And I think point three, frankly, is the protesters in the why now? Category. Because as we get away from the horrific 30,000 killed, the moment could pass. And so there's a temporal quality to this. When you put all three of those together, I think you can sketch out a reasonable case. I'm waiting to see more intelligence revealed to the public.

[Jessica Tarlov]

I hope that that's coming. I just wanted to note one of the comments that President Trump made to Bret Bear from Fox, where he said that the model that they're following is what happened in Venezuela. And that feels very different to me. I mean, Nicolas Maduro is just a couple miles away from me here as I sit here talking to you. And we knew exactly who would be taking over and Delsey Rodriguez, and there was a plan also talks obviously with Maria Machado. What do you think of the fact that President Trump is making that comparison?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I think it's a mistake. I think the two scenarios are utterly different. And the idea that you could find a kind of next tier down in Iran seems very, very challenging to me. Part of this is because that web of theocratic belief is woven very deeply into the senior parts of the body politic in Iran. Number two, Iran is just a massive country, even compared to Venezuela, which is a big country, but it's double, triple in both population size and scale. And then number three, the chances of finding a path to moderation, I think are very low with the individuals at the top of the structure. So I don't think it's a very good comparison. I'll throw in a fourth, which is at least with Venezuela we can send someone down there like Amarco. Rubio, fluent Spanish speaker. We know the region. We've been interconnected with Venezuela for decades. Centuries really. They were one of the first independent countries along with ours in the Americas. There's a lot there that we understand about Venezuela. Iran, not so much.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us.

[Kara Swisher]

Hey, Kara Swisher here. I want to let you know that Vox Media is returning to south by Southwest in Austin for live tapings of your favorite podcasts. Join us from March 13th through the 15th for live tapings of today explained Teffy Talks, Prof. G Markets, and of course, your two favorite podcasts, Pivot and On with Kara Swisher. The stage will also feature sessions from Brene Brown and Adam Grant, Marques Brownlee, Keith Lee, Vivian Tu and Robin Arzon. It's all part of the Vox Media Podcast stage at south by Southwest, presented by Odoo. Visit voxmedia.com sxsw to preregister and get your special discount on your innovation badge. That's voxmedia.com SSW to register. Really, you should register. We sell out and we hope to see you there.

[Scott Galloway]

What are the main takeaways of the foreign policy section from Donald Trump's State of the Union address?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I do think they've made a decision to elevate domestic issues as we head towards the midterms. We'll see if that sticks because he keeps getting drawn back to the foreign policy issues. I'm John Finer. And I'm Jake Sullivan and we're the hosts of the Long Game, a weekly national security podcast.

[Scott Galloway]

This week we'll react to President Trump's State of the Union address, the situation with Iran, and the eruption of violence involving cartels in Mexico.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

The episode's out now. Search for and follow the Long Game wherever you get your podcasts.

[Tori Dunlop]

This week on Net Worth and Chill, I'm joined by her first 100K, aka Tori Dunlop, a fellow personal finance creator who's changing how an entire generation thinks about money. And Tori's journey is a masterclass in turning personal finance wins into a platform that empowers millions. She opens up about the real strategy behind hitting that six figure milestone without the typical privileged blind advice and how she's redefining what it means to be a wealthy woman in 2026. We're diving deep into investment strategies for real people with real budgets and why financial feminism isn't just a buzzword, it's a movement. Get ready for an unfiltered conversation about money, entrepreneurship, and what it really takes to build both personal wealth and a business empire. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com YourRichBFF welcome back.

[Scott Galloway]

Is there a scenario? It strikes me I'll make two theses and you respond 1. I don't see the American public having the patience or the will for an extended ground war. Boots on the ground. And I agree with military history shows us it is very hard to accomplish any sort of sustainable change in government or governing from the air, that at some point you do have to have boots on the ground. And my sense is the Trump administration is hoping that the boots on the ground will be the Iranian public, that they'll affect the change, that they were waiting for some air cover, literally, and that they would in fact foment change on the ground or be their own. Boots on the ground say that does not happen. There's 150,000 minor standing as members of the IRGC and they're deeply integrated into the economy. So it's just not taking over the White House or whatever the equivalent is, and everything changes overnight. So assume that they do, the ROGC does survive in some form. Is there a potential off ramp to diminishing their assets, including the Navy? And I'd love to hear what you think the next stage is in terms of decapitating or neutering their naval capabilities, which my understanding is it's pretty formidable, where you could say, okay, we now control the air, we now control the sea. They're not going to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz and they have no real power to wreak the type of havoc they've wreaked in the past. But we're quite frankly, we're out of here and it was worth it to just, quite frankly take them from on a scale of 1 to 10, we thought they were at a 7 or 8, ends up there with a 4. Take them down to a 1 or a 2. Is that a potential off ramp here?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Yes, it is. Before we get there, let's stay for just a moment on the boots on the ground piece of this being the population. It won't be boots. It'll be people, brave people in slippers, flip flops, in sandals, in sneakers, and God bless them if they have the courage to come forward. The problem is they tried that about a month ago. 30,000 of them shot down. And let's face it, those were the shock troops. Those were the ones who are most passionate, most committed, willing to get out and risk their lives. And 30,000 of them, by all accounts, were shot down. So back to my advice here. If you're going to send them into the street and you want this not to be Tiananmen Square, but instead to actually be the French Revolution, you have got to prep that part of the battlefield far, far better. So now to your thesis, Scott. I agree with that. And this is what I called a Moment ago, Iran 3.0. What's it going to look like? It could be a regime that neutered, as you say, and diminished in its capability to conduct mischief. And then see paragraph one. Over time, the people can step in. I can think of two times that people have stepped in in my career. One was the Balkans, where we did in 1999, Scott, you and I can remember this. We bombed Belgrade. I launched Tomahawk missiles. Everyone was very engaged, no US Boots on the ground. Milosevic then overthrown by his people and ended up dying in a jail cell in the Hague at the International criminal court. Second one, Libya, 2011. Not that long ago, I commanded that mission. We launched 25,000 combat sorties, serviced 6,000 targets all over the country, and the people rose up. Big difference. In Libya, they had weapons, they had guns, they had some level of training. The people of Iran have a shot. But again, I think it's probably 30%. We need to do more to prepare. So how's it going to end? As my friend Dave Petraeus would say, tell me how this ends. I think your scenario is probably the most likely. We end up smashing away their capability. We will take away their navy, we'll take away their ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz. We'll take away their ballistic missiles, will crush whatever is left of the nuclear program. And then we could say, now you're contained, a kind of different kind of containment. Your economy is still cratering, sanctions remain, your military's down to a one. Now we're going to say that was the objective all along. And in that scenario, again, see paragraph one, eventually, the people have a better shot of stepping up.

[Scott Galloway]

You talked about prepping the ground game. That sounds like soft assets or intelligence on the ground. And it sounds, and I'm just curious to get your assessment. My assessment is that the Mossad has deeply penetrated every, I mean we still, my understanding is don't fully the American public don't fully recognize what has happened here. We have taken out the equivalent of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the Joint Chiefs in the first 48 hours. I mean the level of intelligence here is just extraordinary. And I don't mean to diminish the incredible servicemen and service women in our intelligence, but I would posit that the Mossad has played a disproportionate role here. Is our ability to control the skies create do you still feel like we should have done a better job prepping the ground game or does this create more opportunity to have a stronger ground game?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Or

[Scott Galloway]

what is your assessment of the intelligence to date and what you think it might be moving forward?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

You are absolutely correct. Mossad has deeply penetrated Iranian society and governance exactly as they did to Hezbollah. I think they were less capable. Obviously on Hamas historians will try and pull that one apart. But Israel clearly had granular German say fingerstuhl that that feeling about Iranian and I think they ought to be leading this effort to try and build a serious resistance movement. To your excellent point, yes. Everything we've done, not just dominating the air and the sea, but also taking out command and control nodes, taking out the police station, all of that contributes to the ability of the resistance to come forward in a serious way, not just rolling into the streets and hoping for the best. And a final thought here on all of that would be for the protest to succeed. It's going to take in addition to everything we've talked about also really granular intelligence and also cyber capability, the ability to take down the opponents networks to black them out. All of that is something Mossad, CIA or special forces can do and I hope they do in the time ahead.

[Jessica Tarlov]

So I wanted to get to this U.S. israel, what's most important to either side and I was particularly struck by Secretary Rubio's comments that they didn't, we didn't know that they were going to take out the Ayatollah, that that wasn't actually on our list. And this came via Congressman Mike Turner. So Israel, we know exactly what Israel has wanted to do and they've been perfectly clear about that. How much do you think of the US motivation is due to countering China? Because I feel like that hasn't been discussed as much as it should. I mean the strait of hormones is shut down right now. We've seen the huge spike obviously in oil prices. But we know that our goal and you certainly spoken about this, and written on it extensively, is to push back against China. And they get cheap oil from Iran, also Venezuela. So that feels like a connective tissue line, maybe in President Trump's thinking. So how much do you think the US Rationale has to do with China?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I think less than you might think. But you're absolutely right. It's both China and Russia who are diminished by these events. And don't forget there's a knock on effect to all this in Ukraine in a couple of ways, some good, some bad. On the bad side, a lot of munitions, a lot of capability is now diverted and incredible amounts of attention. Intelligence, cyberspace, all now focused like a laser beam on the Middle east that will have knock on effects, not good ones on the Ukrainian side in this. On the good side of this, don't forget, Iran has been supplying Russia with a great deal of their unmanned vehicles, their drones, if you will. They've been very involved in this. So there's a military component on Russia over on China. And you're absolutely right, there is. It's energy and the economy. China is way too smart. Xi Jinping is way too smart to really throw in geopolitically with Iran. But economically there's a lot of interaction, including they're a big part of the Belt and Road initiative and a number of other things. So yes, this is of benefit, generally speaking, to the United States when we diminish Iran. Back to Scott's thesis, taking them down to a one, they have less ability to do things with China and with Russia. That's a good thing. But at the end of the day, that the principal focus here for this administration has been this idea that they can kind of pull this prize back into the world of the west and into business and commerce. And I wouldn't entirely rule that out. Certainly I've talked about 30% chance that people rise up as investors and many of the people who listen to you and Scott are investors. Yeah, there's an oil price spike. Now how about this trifecta? The administration lands the plane in Venezuela and that oil comes out from under sanctions. The people rise up in Iran and flip the regime and they come out from under sanctions. And I said trifecta, what's the third? We cut a deal with Russia, Russia, Ukraine, freeze the frame, divide the country along the lines that are held right now. This is a proposal on the table. And if that happens, and Russian oil and gas come out from under sanctions, wow. Now that's the equivalent of walking into a casino in Vegas, putting a quarter in the slot machine and hitting three golden cherries. It's not likely you're going to get all three. But as investors, it does happen. As investors, sometimes you have to be prepared for catastrophic success. And by the way, Scott is going to say, being the economist in the room, but, but Admiral, there are winners and losers in that scenario. That price of oil may come down. That's not good for the Saudis, that's not good for Texas, that's not good for Canada, blah, blah, blah. But point is, that's the scenario that's worth thinking about. A lot more oil coming into the markets. That could all happen in 2026.

[Scott Galloway]

Well, to your point, that would effectively be the largest tax cut in history.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Thanks.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. And also I think when we ask what could go right, if you took this, as you pointed out, this 90 million person economy that sits on the second largest reserves of natural gas, third largest of oil, incredible appreciation for science education, and you unleash that economy, bang.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Yeah.

[Scott Galloway]

I actually think this could be what, quite frankly, what Europe needs. I would imagine they'd be just an unbelievable trading partner for Europe.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

100%, Scott. And we at Carlisle, where I work, of course, we have a significant buyout capability in Europe and we are looking actively to the well, what if this goes right, part of this scenario. Europe is primed for this.

[Scott Galloway]

Jaz.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Yeah, it's additive to what you were just talking about, though. I'm not good at going like bang, but I like it. It was like an exciting side to this.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

It's an admiral speaking of going bang, I've gotta go bang over to CNN here.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay, last question. Jeff.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Yes.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Just really quickly, is it, is there an extra scenario that involves diplomacy? Because the Omanis are still begging for people to come back to the table and they say we have a better JCPOA available. Do you give any weight to that?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

I do. And this would be in the category of kind of the 70%. And it's probably where Scott has talked about really degrading the Iranian overall capabilities. Let them come back to the table, cut the deal that President Trump wants and you could possibly have Iran 3.0, somebody we're not going to be super friendly with. But it could be that they would come somewhat out from under sanctions. It's a small version of what we've been talking about.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Great. Thank you so much.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

My pleasure. Always great being on with my fellow

[Scott Galloway]

raging moderator, Admiral James Stavridis. Graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1976. While in the Navy, Stavridis served as Commander United States Southern Command and Commander United States European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Thanks so much, Admiral.

[Jessica Tarlov]

Bye, guys.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Bye.