← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
Verdict with Ted Cruz: End Of Iran's Civilization PAUSED—Why, What It Means & What's Next
00:33:32
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:02]
B
Guaranteed Human the right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every
- [00:09]
A
room looks and feels. @blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it
- [00:12]
B
surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs.
- [00:15]
A
We've covered over 25 million windows and
- [00:17]
B
have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a
- [00:21]
A
pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure right now. Get up to 45 off with minimum purchase plus get a free professional measure@blinds.com rules and restrictions apply.
- [00:35]
B
Welcome it is Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. It's so nice to have you with us. And Senator, we are doing this show and honestly as we were show prepping we didn't know what was going to happen. And now it looks like the straight of Hormuz is going to be reopened after Trump announced a two week double sided ceasefire.
- [00:53]
A
Well the end of Iranian civilization that was scheduled to happen at 8pm Tuesday night. East coast time has apparently been paused. It has been paused for two weeks. President Trump announced a two week cease fire. He did so after the after the intervention of the government of Pakistan asking to negotiate peace between Iran and the United States. Iran has stated they intend to open the Strait of Hormuz. But at the same time, as we talk right now, this is late Tuesday night, Iranian missiles are still flying in the air. We're going to break down what we know, what's happened so far and what's likely to happen next.
- [01:29]
B
Yeah, we'll have all that for you as well in a moment. Let me tell you real quick though about Bitcoin ira. I gotta ask you a question. Can you buy real Bitcoin in your retirement account? Well if not, it's time to upgrade to Bitcoin IRA. It's 2026 and cryptocurrency is where so many investors are going and and diversifying. You can buy and sell Bitcoin inside a tax advantage IRA with Bitcoin IRA and that gives you more ways to diversify and grow your retirement savings. Security is their number one priority and your assets are protected by military grade multi key security and you're covered up to 250 million in digital asset insurance. So what are you waiting for? Get in the Bitcoin game today and diversify your portfolio. You actually talk to a real person. 8666-796871-86679-7871 or Bitcoin ira.com Ben that's Bitcoin. Ira.com Ben. To open a free account and earn up to a thousand dollar bonus right now. All right, Senator, so let's talk about the big news here. And look, the President made it very clear over the Easter weekend there was a hardcore deadline and that deadline was closing in quickly. It was going to be Tuesday night. The President, I said on, on, on Piers Morgan show today, he's not going to flinch. Like you need to listen to him. It's very clear. He's not going to flinch. And it was also very clear what he was demanding. If you want to get a deal done, you got to open up the Strait of Hormuz. That is exactly now what Iran is saying they're going to do at least for hopefully the next two weeks while they try to figure this thing out. But that's the reason why the President said pause to major military action.
- [03:28]
A
Well, I got to say, Ben, you and I also said that exact same thing on Monday's verdict. And so I'm sitting here wondering why, Ben, do you hurt me? Why do you bring up Piers Morgan? Like, why?
- [03:39]
B
Because I'm fighting the commies over there. I was yelling at Dave Smith, the crazy guy that thinks America is a terrorist organization.
- [03:46]
A
Don't argue with crazy people. It's, it's like wrestling with pigs. You get covered in mud and the pig enjoys it.
- [03:55]
B
That's, that's, that's, that's true. You would have been proud though. It was a one on one. And, and I, I will, I say very kindly, I whipped his aws. I, it just, it was a beat down, my friend.
- [04:05]
A
Are you familiar with the T shirt? I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
- [04:09]
B
Yes, yes.
- [04:11]
A
So look, Monday's podcast, we did a deep dive on this. And the President's threat, President Trump's threat, I believe, was not a bluff. He was not kidding. And at 8pm he was prepared to unleash holy hell and to take out power plants across the nation of Iran and take out bridges across the nation of Iran. And what we talked about was the big open question was does the ayatollah care? Do the mullahs care? Are they perfectly happy seeing their economy go literally back into the dark ages? See the lights go out, go back to having candles and be by fire pits because there's no electricity in the country. Well, here's what President Trump put out on Trump Social on Tuesday, based on conversations with Prime Minister Shabazz Sharif and Field Marshal Aseem Munir of Pakistan and Wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent to tonight to Iran. And subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran's agreeing to the all caps, complete, immediate and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided cease fire, cease fires, all caps. The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all military objectives and are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning the long term peace with Iran and peace in the Middle East. We have received a 10 point proposal from Iran and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the agreement to be finalized and consummated. On behalf of the United States of America, as President and also representing the countries of the Middle east, it is an honor to have this long term problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President Donald J. Trump now in response, Iran put out an official statement and here's the response of Iran. Tehran 7, April 2026 on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I express gratitude and appreciation for my dear brothers, the Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif and the Field Marshal Munir for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region. In response to the brotherly request of Prime Minister Sharif in his tweet and considering the request by the US for negotiations based on its 15 point proposal, as well as an announcement by POTUS about acceptance of the general framework of Iran's 10 point proposal as a basis for negotiations. I hereby declare on behalf of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, if attacks against Iran are halted, our powerful armed forces, all each capitalized, will cease their defensive operations for a period of two weeks. Safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran's armed forces and with due consideration of technical limitations. Sayed Abbas Aragachi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Iran now, as you and I are sitting here, it is a few minutes before midnight Tuesday night. We don't know what's going to happen. We do know there are reports this evening of Iranian ballistic missiles raining down on Israel right now. So it appears as of right now, the two way ceasefire is not being honored by Iran. We don't know what will happen on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday, I will say if Iran continues continues offensive attacks on its neighbors, I, I am skeptical the two week pause will hold.
- [08:01]
B
Let me ask you a question about the, the wording there because I think this was very interesting and I, and I want your take on it. Two way ceasefire. There was, there was several people that I talked to in Israel that said the reason why that verbiage may have been used is to make it clear this was just a ceasefire between the US and Iran. So this did not include Israel. Iran. That's why it was two way, not three way. Right. Trilateral, you know, agreement here. And it looked like Israel. It also basically said like, we're still going to probably be hitting targets over the next two weeks as well. Is that part of the reason why the President said it that way, do you think?
- [08:40]
A
So I'm going to give you my technical and precise answer. I got no idea.
- [08:45]
B
I don't know. This is why I love doing this show. If we don't know something, we will tell you. Like, I'm not going to hide it.
- [08:51]
A
Look, I'm reading the same tweet you are. The tweet says this will be a double sided ceasefire. Look, my suspicion is that was meant to include Israel, but I don't know that.
- [09:03]
B
Okay, I see. I read it opposite of that. I thought it was like a cheeky way of saying, hey, you guys in Israel, y' all got to figure out your own thing for the next two weeks. This is just us. This is me, this is us, Iran. And that gives Israel the freedom to do what they need to continue do in their opinion.
- [09:20]
A
Oh, look, maybe, I don't know. I have not seen any reports in the media or on X of additional attacks on Iran tonight. They may be happening, I don't know that Israel is not attacking Iran tonight. But, but I have not seen any reports if that's happening. What I've seen is reports of Iran's attacks going, going out and you know, for example, the New York Times, always a questionable source, retired as follows, by the way, 28 minutes ago in the New York Times. Okay, you ask and I answer, albeit with weak sourcing. The New York Times updated 28 minutes ago. Iran War. Live updates. U.S. iran and Israel agree to cease fire now.
- [10:13]
B
Okay, there you go.
- [10:14]
A
The deal came shortly before President Trump's deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face devastation. Israel said the cease fire did not include Lebanon. Now that seems fair. Lebanon with Hezbollah. That's not Iran. Yeah, although Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, but that's fair. Here, here's what the New York Times reported. And by the way, I don't know what this is I literally just found it on my phone and I'm reading it. So we'll find out what it says. Here's the latest. The United States and Iran reached an 11th hour cease fire deal on Tuesday evening, hours after President Trump threatened to start wiping out Iran's whole civilization if it did not allow commercial shipping to pass safely through the strait of Hormuz. Mr. Trump announced the agreement Pakistan proposed each side observe a two week ceasefire. It will take months for global jet fuel supplies to return to normal. Now here's another aspect. Oil prices plunge and stocks surge after the ceasefire deal. And here's, here's what Iran or Iran. The New York Times posted. Oil prices tumbled and stocks in Asia surged on Tuesday as investors breathed a sigh of relief after the United States and Iran reached a last minute cease fire agreement, temporarily avoiding a worst case scenario. President Trump following through on his pledge to wipe out Iran the seat. Why is that a worst case scenario? I guess if you're the Ayatollah, it's a worst case scenario. I'm not sure. From the New York Times. You know, it would be truly horrific if the Islamist regime in Iran that wants to murder Americans, it is murdering Americans if they suffered yet another loss. That's the New York Times. Let me keep reading. The ceasefire deal came 90 minutes before a deadline set by Mr. Trump. Israel supports President Trump's decision to stop attacking Iran for two weeks, subject to the immediate reopening Strait of Hormuz and the cessation of Iran attacks against the United States, Israel and other countries in the region. Office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. So we don't know right now. But listen, if it gets the Strait of Hormuz opened, that's positive. Yes, that is a step in the right direction. I will say the Iranian military, what President Trump said in his truth, social is exactly right. Many of the military objectives have been accomplished. The military has been degraded almost out of existence to one of the reasons the Iranian statement about, you know, our very powerful military will stop striking. Yeah, there's virtually no military left. It's like four guys with a slingshot sitting on the back of a camel. So, so it's, but, but they're very powerful military. What they do have is some mines and some speedboats with dynamites that have the potential of sinking potentially oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. And so it, so, so they are having leverage.
- [12:58]
B
By the way, the way that, the way it was described to me by a guy in the military when he was trying to explain to me, like, again, it's coming from a military mindset. He said, ben, this is what Americans need to understand. He said, and please explain this wherever you can. We've taken out them as a military.
- [13:15]
A
Yes.
- [13:15]
B
They now have what he described as terrorist weaponry. Terrorist weaponry is completely different than military weaponry. Military weaponry is like, you know, radar and ballistic missiles and airplanes that can have dog fights. He said, terrorists can do things with fertilizer. They can do things with. With dynamite. They can do things that are basic, as you just described it, like blowing a hole in the side of an oil tanker and having a massive, you know, economic as well as environmental issue in the Strait of Hormuz. And so the point he was making was this idea that, that, I mean, he went back to Al Qaeda and isis. You can do a lot of damage with very basic things. Car bombs are a great example, with fertilizer, ammonia, you know, the very basics. He described it. He said, the good news is we've. We decimated the military in Iran. We have not decimated, as he described it, the terrorist aspect of Iran. Because all you need is a couple crazy guys with very little resources and you can do something on a terrorist scale. And we've seen that all over the world.
- [14:19]
A
I think that's exactly right. And understand the Strait of Hormuz is not Iran's to control. That is not part of Iran. That is international waters. It just happens to be nearby to Iran. And the fact that they are willing to act as terrorists.
- [14:34]
B
Can you explain to everybody how the Strait of Hormuz is supposed to work? I think a lot of people don't understand the international aspect of this. I think also the media has been really portraying it, almost like, well, it's kind of Iran's anyway, and they let us use it. That is a lie. Can you explain that for people real quick?
- [14:51]
A
Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't operate materially differently than, say, the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean. If you're sailing from New York City to London, you're going to cross the Atlantic. And you know what? There is a possibility halfway across the Atlantic of piracy. Someone out on the Atlantic, you could be in an ocean liner, could pilot a ship into your boat and have dynamite and explode and sink it now. And by the way, piracy used to be a frequent peril. I mean, that was not an unusual. There's a great series that I've watched on Netflix. You ever watch Black Sails?
- [15:28]
B
No.
- [15:29]
A
Oh, Black Sails.
- [15:30]
B
Why have you been holding out on me for A guy that tells you that all these other movies I gotta watch. You. You admit this one? This actually seems like one I want to watch now.
- [15:37]
A
Yeah. So it's actually not a movie, it's a series. And it's like four seasons long. And it's about pirates. Black Sails, it's about pirates in the Caribbean. And so Blackbeard is in it. And it's really well done. I watch the whole thing. Look, I'm on airplanes all the time, so, as you know, I download lots of series. By the way, Ben, we have done a movie podcast. We haven't done a Netflix download podcast. I want to do that at some point. Maybe we'll do it for holiday or something. I think those. Because I have a lot of series I've downloaded, but Black Sails goes through. There was a whole era where if you're taking cotton from a plantation in the south and you're going to the Caribbean or you're going to England, you might encounter pirates who would come along with cannons and board you and potentially kill everyone on board and steal your cargo. And piracy, it's not entirely gone away, but it's mostly gone away. And it's mostly gone away due to the United States. And one of the things that happened Post World War II is the United States took a responsibility of ensuring navigation of the open seas. And it wasn't. We didn't have to do that, but it produced more than a half century of global trade and commerce where people could. You could put a shipping container from the United States to England, from the United States to Asia. And the odds of it being robbed on the high seas were pretty low. They weren't zero, but they were pretty low. And it produced. You know, when the Roman Empire was at its height, the world saw something called the Pax Romana, the Peace of the Romans, because the Roman Empire prevented threats. Well, we had for some time been going through what's called the Pax Americana, which is the peace that the Americans have brought by allowing global shipment and trade. The Strait of Hormuz is a much more constricted place because it's just. It's going around where you don't have much space. And if you're going through the Suez Canal, you gotta pass through there. And it's a narrow passage, which means, look, if Iran wanted to try to shut off transit across the Atlantic Ocean, that's a really big body of water. That's not easy to do. The Strait of Hormuz is not that big. And so it is a natural choke point. Where a terrorist could focus. It's interesting. Iran is promising to open it up, so we'll see what that means. But there are also reports of Iran continuing to fire ballistic missiles. So we'll see if the ceasefire even lasts 24 hours. Every missile Iran fires, I think, decreases the chance of the ceasefire maintaining.
- [18:22]
B
Yeah, no, you're right. I want to ask you another question. I got a lot of questions to ask you tonight, Senator, because they're questions I keep getting asked, and I want your take on them. I was asked this question by Piers Morgan, and he said, ben, what is your definition of success in Iran? My answer was, look, I think the media has changed it to, the only thing that is acceptable to not be considered a failure is if the regime falls. And there's this, like, massive, you know, moment in Iran where the people win. I said, my definition of success is taking away the threat of Iran being a nuclear power and being able to kill innocent men, women and children and Americans. That is my definition, success. Now, a bonus, right, a moral victory above that would be if you truly saw regime change and the fall of the leadership in Iran. Right now, I'm not so obsessed with that point. I think the people of Iran, they got to decide for themselves, but for me, it was all about the nuclear capabilities and. And making sure they could do no harm to us and to innocent people. Also, I think in the Middle east, around the world, that includes Israel. What is your definition of success here? Because the media is trying to say a. This is a quagmire. Quagmire. By the way, if you ask AI, for example, they'll say it's years into a war if it's stagnant or you're not making gains, not four weeks in, five weeks in, or six weeks in. That's absurd. But the media keeps wanting to use the word. We're in a quagmire already. I think that's an absurd lie. And now they're saying the only way this could be a success for Trump is the way I described it, they describe it, which is the regime falls and that's it.
- [20:00]
A
Well, look, there was a very interesting story, a long story in the New York Times today about the inside decision making in the Trump administration behind the decision to go to war with Iran. And it describes the TikTok up to it, right up until the point on Air Force One on Friday where Trump gave the go order. And I was with President Trump on Air Force One at the time he gave the order. I did not know he had given that order. But he was asking me and the others on Air Force One what we thought should he do so. And it turns out on that flight is where he actually gave the go order. And it describes that there was a vigorous debate within the administration that J.D. vance, the vice president, was the most vocal opponent of striking Iran. And there was a vigorous back and forth among the cabinets. And it described four different steps of the military engagement. Number one, decapitating the Iranian regime, taking out the ayatollah and the senior military leadership. Number two, destroying their ballistic missiles, their drones, their ability to wage war. Number three, incentivizing the Iranian people to rise up and revolt. And number four, seeing a new government, seeing regime change in Iran. And there was considerable debate, according to the Times. And I gotta say, just reading the account, I don't know that it's exactly accurate, but it read in a way that was very plausible. There was considerable agreement that steps one and two were very accomplishable, very achievable, and likely achievable in fairly short order. And there was considerable debate about whether steps three and four, a popular uprising and replacing the regime with another regime, whether those were achievable. I can tell you what the Trump administration has articulated. It is articulated. Its goal was, number two. Number two is what it's described as goal, which is taking out Iran's ability to wage war.
- [21:59]
B
Yep.
- [22:00]
A
And in particular, it's described, look, Iran. There's no indication, I've seen no evidence that Iran had nuclear weapons or was close to getting nuclear weapons that they were trying last summer. And President Trump launched bunker busters and took out their nuclear weapons research facilities, including in Fordo, in the basement of a mountain, that had devastating effect. So the reason this military attack was launched was not to stop an imminent realization of nuclear weapons tomorrow type of thing.
- [22:34]
B
Yeah.
- [22:34]
A
The reason it was launched is they were vigorously, rapidly building ballistic missiles and drones, and they were doing that because they wanted such a large arsenal that if Israel or the United States attacked Iran, they would be able to inflict massive damage on their neighbors and kill a lot of people. And the Trump administration didn't want to be in a position a year from now when, say, they had launched their nuclear weapons research and development again, but when the cost of intervening was so high that thousands of people might die because they had so many missiles, they could just carpet bomb their neighbors and kill hundreds or even thousands of people. And so the Trump administration said, look, if they develop enough missiles and enough drones, they would do that as essentially an umbrella to shield Their ability to then develop a nuclear weapon. And I think Iran with a nuclear weapon, the odds are unacceptably high they would use it. That was the major reason that we launched this attack. And what the Trump administration articulated is their objective was to take out the air defenses, to take out the air Force, to take out the navy, to take out the ballistic missiles, to take out the drones, to take out the launchers, to take out the drone manufacturing capability, to take out the missile manufacturing capability. We've done essentially all of that. The success has been extraordinary. Now, the administration has, by and large, been very reluctant to use the words regime change. And I understand why. Regime change is associated with Iraq. It's associated with hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for years on end. It's associated with escalating American casualties and fatalities. And President Trump is not interested in that kind of military conflict. The chances of that happening, I believe, are zero. Trump doesn't wanna do that. And so regime change, people are really nervous to say that's the objective. What I have said the objective should be, is regime collapse. This regime, a regime of Islamists who chant death to America, who fund terrorists, who are killing Americans and who want to continue killing Americans. I think that is a danger to the United States. I don't care who takes their place. I don't care if it's the Crown prince, the Shah son. I don't care if it's a military strongman. I don't care if it's. If it's a democratically elected leader from the people. That's not my concern. I'm not in the nation building business. My objective is not to turn Iran into Switzerland. That's up to the people of Iran. If they want a peaceful society, that's great. I wish them all the, well, all the best. But it's not the US Military's job to do that. It is the US Military's job to take out enemies. Now, I do agree that, that, that seeing a regime of tyrants, particularly a regime of tyrants willing to kill up to 40,000 of their own citizens, seeing them fall, is not easy. So the objective of regime collapse may prove really difficult. I hope we keep at it. But opening the Strait of Hormuz is a really important tactical step. And by the way, if we end up with a government that has a negotiated settlement where they stop funding terrorists and they stop killing Americans, and they stop trying to kill Americans, that is a huge, huge victory. I don't know if we get there, but what I told President Trump that the day he ordered the attack is, this regime has never been weaker than right now. And we will regret it. We will regret it for years and decades if we miss this opportunity. Because there's very few things on planet Earth that would make America safer than getting this murderous regime out of power so they could no longer be able to kill Americans. Early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning, because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over $120. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only.
- [26:37]
B
All right, let me ask you another question that's gotten a lot of. Of fodder online, and I think it's an important one to answer. Democrats and the media really seem to be trying to figure out some way, even if there's success with this Iranian policy of Trump, that they can stick it to Donald Trump. And now the new thing over the last 24, 48 hours been Donald Trump is advocating for committing war crimes by blowing up bridges, potentially in Iran and power plants in Iran. Let's talk about the war crimes aspect of this and deal with what Americans need to know about this new line by the left. Because they're, I mean, they, they, they care more about Donald Trump being in trouble than actually taking out a murderous regime in Iran.
- [27:20]
A
That's true. And I will say one of the sad things. It used to be the case for a long, long time that politics ended at the water's edge. In other words, that Republicans and Democrats battle here at home over all sorts of issues. But when it comes to military conflict abroad, when it comes to defending America, that the two sides refrain from partisan attack, I gotta say, that is not the case anymore. The instant President Trump launched this attack, Democrats began savaging him. You know, we had a classified briefing shortly after the beginning of this attack where you had the Secretary of State, secretary of Defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the head of the CIA, kind of all the top national security apparatus in the Trump administration.
- [28:03]
B
Yeah.
- [28:04]
A
And all 100 senators attended that, and they were laying out what was happening. And look, I'm not gonna say anything that was said by the briefers in the classified briefing, but I can tell you, other than John Fetterman, who's been very positive on what he said publicly about the conflict with Iran, every single Democrat senator in the room was highly, highly skeptical, was attacking what happened, was opposing. What happened was started on day one with we are against standing up to Iran. And I sat there and Just kind of shook my head. I was saddened by that. And so one of their talking points, when President Trump said he was gonna take out power plants and bridges. And why did he say power plants and bridges, by the way? Look, the biggest thing to take out for Iran is their oil production facility, Carg island, which is the key to. It's where they export virtually all their oil from.
- [28:59]
B
Yep.
- [29:00]
A
Carg Island. If we really wanted to cripple Iran and put them into the Stone Age, we'd take out their oil facilities, we'd bomb the hell out of Carg island, and Iran's economy would just be screwed for a decade or more. Instantly.
- [29:15]
B
Yeah, instantly. By the way, people need to understand that, like, if you just wanted to decimate them economically, that is how you would do it, and it would not be that hard.
- [29:23]
A
So Trump very deliberately has not done that. The reason he said power plants and bridges is because they're critically important to the economy. You take out the power plants, the electricity turns off. The military is crippled, but also the economy is crippled. The basic. All of banking, all of communication. Lights, literally at night, people start lighting candles because there's no longer. The light switches don't work. And bridges are essential for transportation, both military and commercial transportation across the country. I think the reason he picked those two is their enormous lever points. And his hope is that it would cause the collapse of this regime, I believe. But also it means if there were a new government in Iran, the oil facilities would still be there. So they have the ability to generate billions in revenue pretty quickly. And that billions. If the United States military took out the power infrastructure, if you had billions in oil revenue coming in, you could rebuild. It wouldn't be immediate, but having the revenue stream makes rebuilding much more possible than if you take out the oil infrastructure. The revenue stream is much further down the road, and it's much harder to turn around. I think that's why he picked it. But I will say we're getting a lot of pompous Democrats and pompous news reporters, although I repeat myself on TV saying taking out civilian power plants is a war crime.
- [30:52]
B
Yeah.
- [30:52]
A
Well, let me read to you from the Pentagon's Law of War manual. So the Pentagon has a manual on the law of war. Here's what it says. Quote, electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a state's capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry, so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts. And by the way, the broader section, which I will read from you, this is in section 5. 6. 8.5. Examples of military objectives, economic objects associated with military operations. And it says before what I just read, economic objects associated with military operations or with war supporting or war sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives. That is incredibly inconvenient for all of the Trump haters in the Democrat party or in the media who want to scream war crime, war crime, war crime. Because there's no doubt the power generation is integral to the war fighting ability of Iran. And listen, I will say the fact that Pakistan stepped in, it actually goes to what we said on Monday's podcast, which is Trump's threat with any ordinary and rational leader would be incredibly effective. If you actually had a leader that gave a damn about their people, that gave a damn about their economy, that threat would be, holy cow, we can't let that happen. The risk factor is the very real possibility that the ayatollah and the mullahs just don't care that they're willing to see that kind of devastation to their country. I will say Pakistan, Pakistan is, I've long described Pakistan as a problematic ally. They are an ally, but there are challenges in Pakistan. I actually put Pakistan, it's a very
- [32:55]
B
diplomatic way of putting that.
- [32:57]
A
Yes, but you know what, they're an ally rather than a friend. But there are real challenges. We work with Pakistan. There are a lot of bad people or enemies of America that are within Pakistan, but we work with the government of Pakistan. And I think the prime minister of Pakistan stepped up and said, hey, look, you guys in Iran, don't go down this road and end up crippling. Don't go back to the dark ages. And this goes back to where Pakistan may have some credibility with Iran. I don't know if Pakistan provided Iran something of an off ramp. That's a good interpretation. Or if Iran's just seizing on this to delay. That's another interpretation that is possible. But I do think Pakistan stepping forward and saying, let's have a two week ceasefire is an example of a more normal country and a leader who presumably cares about his people, at least to a significant extent, stepping forward to Iran and saying, come on, guys, don't, don't keep playing chicken. This doesn't end up well.
- [34:01]
B
Yeah, it's a great point. Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. You can also watch it on YouTube as well. So if you are on YouTube, put in verdict with Ted Cruz. You can watch almost every episode that we do on video there and, and write us a five star review. If you wouldn't mind as well. That helps us reach more people and the center. And I will see you back here on Friday morning.