No Way Out

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: "No Way Out"

Date: August 10, 2026
Host: Jon Podhoretz (Editor, Commentary Magazine)
Panelists: Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor), Seth Mandel (Senior Editor)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, the Commentary team grapples with a sense of political and strategic paralysis facing the United States and its allies, especially concerning the ongoing war with Iran and the diplomatic stalemate in Gaza. They dissect the failures of President Trump’s foreign policy, the bleak outlook for the Republican Party, and the broader implications of indecision and lack of preparedness in war. The recurring motif: A feeling of being stuck, with no clear path forward—“no way out.”

The discussion covers:

• The stalled and ineffective U.S. approach to Iran’s regime and the Strait of Hormuz
• The rejection of the Gaza Peace Commission plan by Israel
• The limits of economic pressure as a strategy
• The looming munitions crisis and military vulnerabilities
• The political consequences of Trump’s war and the coming elections
• Broader implications for American credibility and alliances
• The metaphoric “frozen ballroom” at the White House as a symbol of the administration’s stalled and chaotic state

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. War with Iran & Hormuz: Paralysis and “Cheap Cope”

• The U.S. is in a state of limbo: Neither fully at war nor at peace with Iran. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is ambiguous (Is it really closed? Is anyone doing anything about it?).
• Trump administration’s current strategy relies on blockading Iranian oil exports in the Strait.
• Abe Greenwald questions the durability and seriousness of this approach:

  "If on Thursday we are still actually serious about blocking Iranian fuel, then I'm in, then I'll say yes. But until then, I'm at a zero. I simply do not trust any zig or zag in this entire spectacle." (04:49)

• Seth Mandel argues what looks like strategy is mostly “cope”—Trump reframing limitations as intentional policy:

  "It's just him, like, hearing that there are positive aspects to the current situation and then repeating those...as if it was the way the play was drawn up." (05:36)

• The panel debates whether blockading is the right long-term approach, but worry about U.S. military capacity to sustain conflict and resist retaliation, especially given reports of shortages in defensive munitions.
• Greenwald sharply notes the limits of the approach for both military readiness and political risk:

  "Cheap as it is compared to the other options, it still may be too high a price for Trump to pay. He doesn't want to see oil prices tick up over a particular range." (09:09)

2. Israeli Politics & Gaza: Rejection and Distrust

• Israel has firmly rejected the international Gaza Peace Commission’s plan to “disarm Hamas,” which would take a decade and effectively tie Israel’s hands:

  "This half a loaf that you're offering us is worse than none...The entire Israeli political establishment, from the left to the right, says no to this deal." (02:47)

• Skepticism about international or U.S. security guarantees has grown—Israelis’ refusal rooted not just in election-season politics, but in distrust of U.S. follow-through:

  "If you're in Israel...how much do you trust that certification process? If you're watching the Strait of Hormuz right now, if you're watching the clearly the clear lack of planning, right...you're thinking, I'm not really going to, you know, accept promises like that." (25:21)

3. Political Consequences: Republican Stagnation and Trump’s Poll Collapse

• Trump’s “major commitment” of his first term—war with Iran—is seen as a failure, with ripple effects for Republicans heading into midterms:

  "His poll numbers stink. The war's poll numbers stink...And in the end, this is all going to be the fault of refusing to do the right things to win the war, because winning the war would have all sorts of ancillary benefits you can't entirely guess at..." (16:49)

• Republicans lack a compelling campaign message; Trump’s “cult of personality” leaves candidates stuck echoing a failing status quo:

  "With Trump, the message...is not, there's no ideological message. There's whatever thing he's doing at the moment, whatever he's saying you should agree to or otherwise he'll go after you. And at the moment, what is there?" (21:16)

• Democrats are poised to flip key Senate seats; panelists warn that Trump’s handling of the war may create a “wave election” for Democrats.

4. American Credibility, Alliances & Military Weakness

• Gulf state allies are wary, doubting America’s capability and willingness to defend them:

  "The Gulf states are not all that confident either that we have or that we will or can defend everything...When our allies, which the Saudis are, signal that they may need another defense umbrella...that's a problem, too." (10:42)

• The munitions shortage is both a practical and symbolic issue—highlighting how poorly prepared the U.S. was before entering the war:

  "You're insane to support a war that you're not prepared, that you don't have the preparedness to fight...this is the first time in history that the United States will essentially be ending a war because it doesn't have the means to fight the war. But I don't believe that." (47:51)

5. Metaphors & Symbols: The Frozen Ballroom and Presidential Collapse

• Podhoretz draws on American history to argue that presidential collapses are often foreshadowed by strange, symbolic events (Carter’s “killer rabbit,” Bush’s “upchuck” in Japan). For Trump, the half-demolished, stalled White House ballroom exemplifies the administration’s paralysis:

  "He takes out the East Wing or whatever in order to build the ballroom. And now it is frozen...half the White House has been like, you know, sort of effectively a third of the way torn into shreds. And then it's just gonna stay there in shreds." (31:57)

• The “frozen ballroom” becomes a metaphor for the presidency—started something bold but ill-prepared, now stuck in a visible state of failure.

6. Strategic Lessons and “No Way Out”

• The hosts reflect on the futility of undefined war aims. Early on, Trump refused to say “regime change,” so there was no concrete roadmap or measurement of success:

  "The only goal and aim that Trump said that we had was to end the Iranian nuclear program. So again, not to do the we told him so thing, but really three or four days in, it was like the thing you need to do here...is win this war. And you're not defining what it would mean to win this war." (14:30)

• The consequences of mixed signals: Trump told Iranians “help is on the way,” reminiscent of Cold War uprisings where U.S. encouragement led to mass bloodshed without follow-through.

  "That's why you gotta be careful and not say things like help is on the way so that people will then get murdered. So, yeah. Do we have blood on our hands in that sense? We kind of do." (62:46)

• Iran has taken Trump’s measure, sensing no real threat and seeing the U.S. as unwilling or unable to enforce its demands, while avoiding actions that would rile Israel:

  "They can do whatever they want. They killed 40,000 people. It was still less of a news story than Israel and its behavior toward Gaza." (60:12)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the blockading strategy and political will:
  "If the country were behind it and the country was like, we better win this war tomorrow, we would either fire off all the defense...and then we would just build them back the minute it was over. Because there was a national consensus that we needed to fight this war." (51:38, Jon Podhoretz)

• On the credibility of U.S. security promises:
  "If you're in Israel...how much do you trust that certification process? If you're watching the Strait of Hormuz right now, if you're watching...the clear lack of planning...you're thinking, I'm not really going to...accept promises like that." (25:21, Seth Mandel)

• On symbolic presidential collapses:
  "In American history...unsuccessful presidencies end up having strange symbolic events that seem to herald their collapse...the freezing of the ballroom last week is the...synecdoche of what is maybe happening to this administration." (31:57, Jon Podhoretz)

• On Trump’s dealmaking reputation:
  "A friend of mine who is a major New York real estate developer said to me...I've built 15 [buildings]. Now...he only built three buildings. What he did was market his name. But he's not a builder." (54:14, Jon Podhoretz)

• On Iran’s psychological warfare:
  "Iran has basically said, you're going to have to kill me. The regime is a person who is saying, you're going to have to kill me. And Trump sees that...metaphorically and not literally." (52:38, Seth Mandel)

• On the psychological toll for Republicans:
  "With Trump, the message...is not, there's no ideological message. There's whatever thing he's doing at the moment, whatever he's saying you should agree to or otherwise he'll go after you. And at the moment, what is there?" (21:16, Abe Greenwald)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:05 – 02:55 — Opening and framing: Stuck in stasis with Iran, Gaza, and poll numbers.
• 04:02 – 09:42 — Discussion of Trump’s blockade policy, skepticism over effectiveness and political will.
• 10:42 – 11:43 — U.S. alliances in doubt; concerns over defensive capacity in the Gulf.
• 14:30 – 16:49 — “Define and win the war”: the lack of concrete aims.
• 16:49 – 22:46 — Political fallout: Republican messaging crisis and election forecasts.
• 25:21 – 27:29 — Israeli perspectives on U.S. credibility & parallels to Taiwan/China.
• 31:57 – 37:41 — Symbolic moments: The frozen ballroom as metaphor for collapse.
• 41:47 – 47:51 — The munitions shortage, arms production, and the risks of unprepared war.
• 51:38 – 60:12 — Iran’s psychological tactics, Western self-blame, Gaza vs Iran.
• 62:46 – 66:25 — Historical analogies: 'Help is on the way,' the costs of empty promises.
• 66:41 – end — Closing, recommendations, and sign-off.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast delivers a bleak but incisive analysis of U.S. gridlock in war and politics. The hosts argue that the inability to define clear objectives and commit the necessary resources dooms both foreign policy and electoral prospects. Trump’s war on Iran, conceived without proper preparation or will for victory, is both a strategic error and a metaphor for broader American stagnation. With politics in “no way out” mode and symbolic signs of collapse multiplying, the panel sees little hope in the current trajectory—for the administration or the Republican Party.

Transcript

[A]

Hope for the best, expect the worst Some drinks and pain Some die of thirst no way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best, Expect the worst, Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Monday, August 10, 2026. I am Jon Podhortz, the editor of Commentary magazine, reminding you that on November 8th here in New York City, we have our 17th annual Commentary magazine roast. Our great event, annual event, fundraiser, fun time, gathering of the Commentary community. Our roastie this year is Ron Dermer. So you can go to commentary.org roast to find out how to participate. And at that roast you will meet executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[B]

Hi, John.

[A]

And senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[C]

Hi, John.

[A]

Well, welcome to another stunning edition of Jean Paul Sartre's no Exit. Because here we are. And I can say today on Monday, exactly what I could have said last Monday or the Monday before, the Monday before that. We are still at war, but we're not really at war. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, but it's not really closed. Or maybe it's closed. Trump's poll numbers are bad and getting worse. The indicators are that gas prices are starting to go up again. And here we are with the Israelis having rejected the Gaza Peace Commission's plan to disarm Hamas, which the more you read, it is not really a plan to disarm Hamas, since it's will literally take a decade to disarm Hamas. And I don't think a decade of a decade in which the tunnels are blown up and all the arms are taken away constitutes a disarming of Hamas. And therefore the Israelis are saying, you cannot take away our freedom of action. The Peace Commission says all Israel has to do is nothing. We're going to do everything. They don't have to do anything. It's fine. And Israel's like, we already know what happens when we do nothing. So we can't do nothing. We can't make an international agreement to do nothing. And this half a loaf that you're offering us is worse than none. There are disagreements about whether or not this attitude that is being taken by the Israelis is sound. Amit Sehgal, who is a very aligned with the right journalist and commentator in Israel, says on balance he supports the plan. But the entire Israeli political establishment, from the left to the right, says no, says no to this deal, is against this deal. So Trump's not going to get a peace deal in Gaza. He is not achieving any aims as far as we can tell, with Iran and Then we have the one maybe bright light. And the bright light is that Trump is now signaling that he believes that Iran will inevitably collapse if we keep the economic pressure on Iran to the extent that we blockade their ability to get the oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, which we are now doing, totally. According to reports this weekend, no Iranian ship with oil on it has left Carg island or is likely to leave Carg island or is likely to leave Carg island without being interdicted. And according to our conversations here over

[D]

the last

[A]

three, four months, this could be the way to bring the regime down. I mean, if you really do starve them, choke them off. Really, really, really choke them off. At some point, even the people in the regime who don't care about the condition of the 90 million Iranians over whom they wield power are going to have to cry uncle. So here's the question. Has Trump, because he couldn't get the Iranians to do what he wanted them to do through bluffing and yelling and screaming, had. Has Trump achieved the right policy? Even though it's gonna take a long time, I will believe it.

[B]

When it's been more than three days. Pretty low bar, but, I mean, really considering the rhythm of the stops and starts and changes and announcements and check back in on Thursday. If on Thursday we are still actually serious about blocking Iranian fuel, then I'm in, then I'll say yes. But until then, I'm at a zero. I simply do not trust any zig or zag in this entire spectacle.

[D]

I think.

[C]

I don't even think it's a zig and a zag. I think it's. It's worse than that, as Abe would say. I actually think that it's. It's cope. It's just him, like, hearing that there are positive aspects to the current situation and then repeating those positive aspects to a reporter as if it was the way the. The play was drawn up. That's how I feel when I hear him say that, because he hasn't talked. We've talked about it for months. We've said that time is more on our side than on the Iranian side and that they have less of an economic cushion to withstand a standoff in the Strait than we do. And if we just play our diplomacy right and continue trying to find ways around the Strait to make it, you know, 5%, 10% less important, whatever it is, the bottom will fall out of the Iranian strategy. And even before that, the bottom may fall out of its ability to control its population because of the financial struggles that it's going to head into before we head into anything like any, you know, anything like a depression or anything like that. And so, you know, that is a plan that's been on the table. But he never made that argument. It just sounds to me like he's saying, by the way, you know, this is tougher on them than it is on us, so we could just, we could just stay here and, and we'll still win. So I, yeah, I kind of feel like, I kind of feel like he's looking at silver linings of the current strategy more than restrategizing the field.

[A]

All that being said, could be cope, could be that he'll change gears, shift gears in the next three days does not vitiate the question of whether or not if what you need to do is end the regime, which is the thing that he would not say when the war started, but if that's the only way to solve the Hormuz problem and indeed the nuclear problem, and writ broadly that this is the cheapest alternative for him, it's merely the maintenance of a blockade. It's not going back to war. It's not starting to talk about whether or not you need to take some territory or whatever it is using the strength of the US Navy, excuse me, to stop shipping traffic that will theoretically provoke the Iranians into responses around the Gulf. I mean, hitting, hitting targets around the Gulf. But it could be both the cheap cope strategy and the right strategy. And if it's the cheap cope strategy, then it's going to be a little, you know, it's a little hard to like get off it because it, at least you could sort of game it out even if you're Trump in a kind of linear fashion, which is you keep doing it and they get poorer and poorer and poorer and poorer since everything else you've done, bombing whatever, threatening civilizations, all the whatever hasn't actually caused them to relent, open the strait and basically cry uncle.

[B]

Cheap as it is compared to the other options, it still may be too high a price for Trump to pay. He doesn't want, he doesn't want to see oil prices tick up over a particular range. We really, and I'm just speaking for myself here, I have no idea what the accurate number of our armament,

[A]

it's

[B]

the word I'm looking for our, how low we are on what we need defensively and, and perhaps in terms of long range missiles. So I don't, so until I even have some number, some, some understanding of what we could do if in another Universe, Trump was actually willing to go back and commit to kinetic operations. I don't even know. I hope that we have what would be required to sufficiently defend against Iranian retaliation for sticking to what we're calling the cheap COPE strategy, or even the right strategy. You know, if we are as low on defensive munitions as some reports indicate, that's not, it's not clear to me that we could sustain the Iranian retaliation on our allies.

[C]

And also we gotta be, you know, we gotta be careful about these alliances forming in response. Also because the Gulf states are not all that confident either that we have or that we will or can defend everything. So we have to be careful that, you know, we don't. You know, I wouldn't go so far as to, say, drive them into each other's arms, but this whole. Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey. Excuse me, Turkey. However we're pronouncing the new. The spelling of Turkey. Turkey. You know, this aligns like. I don't. It's not exactly. It doesn't appear to be much more than a paper tiger, obviously, maybe even just the kind of signaling. But we should be aware that when our allies, which the Saudis are, signal that they may need another defense umbrella besides for the one the United States is offering them, that's a problem, too.

[D]

Today's executives are more threatened, more exposed, and more vulnerable than ever before. Corporations spend billions on workplace security. But what happens when a threat finds your executives? Here's why that matters. 70% of attacks on executives happen at home or away from the office. And Ironwall understands a terrifying reality. If someone has a grievance against your company, the first place they turn to is Google. It takes about five minutes to find one of your executives home addresses online. And if their personal information is sitting on the open web, they're far too easy to find. You're leaving them unprotected. The team at Ironwall knows this better than anyone. They protected some of the most targeted executives and individuals on the planet for almost two decades. As a white glove enterprise security service, they protect your people with continuous personal data removal, proactive prevention tools, and emergency support. So when someone goes looking for your executives, Ironwall ensures they hit a dead end. So here's what to do. Go to ironwall.com commentary fill in the quick form and request your free risk assessment. Their team will show you just how exposed your executives are and how to lock it down before a threat reaches their front door. That's Ironwall.com commentary. Stop online threats before they become real world attacks. The link's in the show notes

[A]

August

[D]

is the perfect time to hit reset

[A]

before the autumn rush begins.

[D]

And honestly, I can't think of a better place to start than my closet. That's why I love shopping at Quints. If you're still hanging on to the same worn out basics, Quince makes it easy to upgrade.

[A]

For example, I just bought a bunch

[D]

of linen shorts because frankly I've been losing a little weight and I need some shorts that fit. And these are fantastic, comfortable, breathe and very, very good looking. Everything at quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work with ethical factories and cut out the middleman. So you're paying for high quality, not brand markup everyday staples that work harder like their ultra soft organic cotton tees and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters which I've been telling you about for years. And it's not just clothing. Quince has become my go to for everything from hotel quality bedding and bath essentials to premium cookware and travel must haves. I also just got a new Quince

[A]

wallet just to give you a sense of how this goes. Upgrade your everyday Download the Quints app

[D]

for app exclusive offers or go to quints.com commentary get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q-U-I-N c e.com commentary.

[A]

Really, three days into this war, the danger of the war had become clear because there was no defining quality. That was the war Zen we weren't going to put boots on the ground and we were not. We're not seeking regime change because the term regime change is anathematic to podcasters because it's neocon. So nobody was going to say regime change. Of course, if you say regime change, it then provides you with a roadmap to the conclusion of the war, which is everything you're doing is directed toward regime change. So how do you do that? What steps do you need to take to fulfill that aim? As opposed to we're going to blow this up, then we're going to blow that up, the Israelis are going to blow this up and then the Israelis are going to blow that up and they're starting to hit Revolutionary Guard Corps and morality police like substations in neighborhoods in different cities and they're hitting that. But there's no they're there. And the only there there was we want to get the dust, we'll take the dust, we will seize the dust. Because the only goal and aim that Trump said that we had was to end the Iranian nuclear program. So again, not to do the we told him so thing, but really three or four days in, it was like the thing you need to do here, now that you've started this war, is win this war. And you're not defining what it would mean to win this war. It's very exciting that you have decided to change the stagnant way the United States has viewed the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than four decades as a. As a fact of life that needs to be accepted forever. But then you gotta win the war. And then as things have been going, I think we've kept saying the only way out is through win the war. Define the war. Win the war. Win the war.

[D]

Win the war.

[A]

Well, here he is. He is now in the worst of all possible situations. Never mind the United States, which we can get to. His poll numbers stink. The war's poll numbers stink. The war's poll numbers are starting to stink among Republicans. This is the major commitment of his first term, and it's failing. And the Republicans are going into the midterm elections with absolutely no positive case to be made about the last two years of governance, aside from the passage of the one big, beautiful bill, which doesn't seem to have much in the way of electoral legs, since you don't hear anybody on the campaign trail talking about the greatness of the one big beautiful bill. And the tariffs are in question. The ballroom has been frozen. The, you know, ice is now sort of quieted down. It's, you know, public raids. His numbers on immigration are bad. His numbers everywhere are bad. And in the end, this is all going to be the fault of refusing to do the right things to win the war, because winning the war would have all sorts of ancillary benefits you can't entirely guess at, but surge of national pride, a sense that, you know, a country's monstrous regime has been ended and that the people there have been liberated from its horrible yoke. Even if you don't quite know what's going to come next, restructuring of the Middle east so that the. So that we are less beholden to or in bed with forces like Gutter that are doing domestic damage to the United States in terms of their propaganda campaigns, I don't know what. But losing is the. Losing is the end of everything. Like this is. I literally don't know what he goes and tells the American people or that Republicans go and tell the American people that they should be brought back into the control of the Senate and hold the House, except that the Democrats are crazy socialists who are evil and indeed Abu El say it is evil. And many of the people who are running are extremists who are bad for America. But that's not a case for the Republicans. And right now, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas is in the lead multiple polls. He has a small but measurable lead outside the margin of error of about 4%. James Talarico in Texas, the race in Iowa is a three point race one way or the other. Not clear. Texas and Iowa lose, Republicans lose in Texas and Iowa, Abuel Said can lose in Michigan to a Republican. And with enough other dominoes falling, Democrats can still take the Senate. They're going to take North Carolina. So that's already apparently a relatively done deal. They can win Maine, they can win Alaska, they can even win Nebraska, in theory with this independent candidate. So, you know, and then in a, in a wave election, surprises happen and it's early yet. It's, you know, we're two, two and three quarter months away from election Day. Other states could start coming into play, I hear get this little buzz about Mississippi, which I don't entirely understand and I don't know what the politics are like in Mississippi. But I do know that in wave elections, people win who shouldn't otherwise win. And Trump is just making sure, the way he's behaving, that this is going to be a wave election. As far as I, I mean, am I wrong?

[B]

Like, I don't, I, it's especially hard on Republicans, more so than it would be under another Republican president who was doing poorly. Because with Trump, the message, the only message that you have to convey as a nominated Republican for Senate or the House is not, there's no ideological message. There's whatever thing he's doing at the moment, whatever he's saying you should agree to or otherwise he'll go after you. And at the moment, what is there, what is, he's sort of, you're sort of waiting for your lines, you know what I mean? There's not even a, you know, to sort of, how can you even echo the White House at this point? I don't know what the White House is saying.

[C]

Yeah, they won't talk about Iran. They don't want to talk about Iran at all. That's the key. That's the way to, that's how you know how well or not well it's going.

[D]

Right.

[C]

The party empowered theoretically in charge of the war. As you know, the president's obviously talking about it, but the rest of the party isn't Making a case for it. They're just trying to avoid the question. That, to me, is the most telling thing. They don't really know what to say.

[B]

Yeah. And by the way, you know, like, look, if you said, look, I'm not the president, I'm me as a Republican, I'm not the president, I'm me. I thought when he went into Iran, I thought it was an admirable thing to do. He clearly miscalculated. I don't support the way he's prosecuted this. So that's, that's not on me or whatever. Something. Trump will go after you way more than he's going after your opponent at that point.

[A]

I just wonder what force that's going to have over time. Trump is a unique political force because he has turned the Republican Party into a cult of personality. But, you know, a guy in the mid-30s to high-30s polling is a guy who is only going to see that number degrade in this sense, which is that everybody who has decided they don't like him has decided that they don't like him. And that's independent. And so you have like 65% of the country against him. You only have Republicans for him, and they'll fall off here and there. It's not going to get. His relation to them is not going to get stronger, as far as I can tell. Or there's no reason for it to get stronger. He can play the victim card, but he'll only be able to play the victim card if they win the House and Senate and go after him and impeach him and run a creditable trial. So he may be finding himself in a position where he doesn't know how to play his hand when he's in the, you know, when he's in the power seat and did not take full advantage of doing what he did by taking this shot at Iran and then putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line, which she's done anyway, because this war ends with Iran, with the acceptance that Iran has some sway or control over the Strait of Hormuz. The war. We lost the war.

[C]

Well, and also.

[A]

Go ahead. Sorry.

[C]

It just doesn't it reflect back on what you started with, which is the Gaza plan. If you are watching the Hormuz drama play out, if you are in Israel's, you know, the Defense Ministry watching what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz, you're thinking, I mean, the main reason that nobody can, in Israel can say that they support the plan is because it's election season, and they just can't. So, you know, it's election season, and that's, that's, that's the main reason. But if you're watching this play out and you're thinking, all right, I'm getting a promise from the administration, you guys don't have to do anything until we certify that this is done. How much do you trust that certification process? If you're watching the Strait of Hormuz right now, if you're watching the kind of shifting, the clearly the clear lack of planning, right? I mean, in past wars, you would, you would have everybody sitting in a room and a map, and you would have, like, three different options for preventing the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, right? It's like almost the first thing you would do. But even if it weren't the first thing you would do, you would certainly have reactive measures on the board. So if you're watching that, if you're in Israel, you're thinking, I'm not really going to, you know, accept promises like that. And that's going to be true of, of conflicts all over the world. We, we often bring this back to, you know, China and Taiwan and what people see and what people expect of the US if and when that conflict turns really hot. And this is just another example of it, I think. But, you know, to me, it's like you've got. Trump likes his, his reputation as a peacemaker. He really likes claiming he solved conflicts. But his inability to win when winnings on the offer is, is actually going to make it harder for him to do diplomacy in all these other areas where he has active negotiations going.

[D]

Today's executives are more threatened, more exposed, and more vulnerable than ever before. Corporations spend billions on workplace security. But what happens when a threat finds your executives and outside the office? Here's why that matters. 70% of attacks on executives happen at home or away from the office. And Ironwall understands a terrifying reality. If someone has a grievance against your company, the first place they turn to is Google. It takes about five minutes to find one of your executive's home addresses online. And if their personal information is sitting on the open web, they're far too easy to find. You're leaving them unprotected. The team at Ironwall knows this better than anyone. They protected some of the most targeted executives and individuals on the planet for almost two decades. As a white glove enterprise security service, they protect your people with continuous personal data removal, proactive prevention tools, and emergency support. So when someone goes looking for your executives, Ironwall ensures they hit a dead end. So here's what to do. Go to ironwall.com commentary fill in the quick form and request your free risk assessment. Their team will show you just how exposed your executives are and how to lock it down before a threat reaches their front door. That's Ironwall.com commentary stop online threats before they become real world attacks. The link's in the show notes

[A]

August

[D]

is the perfect time to hit reset

[A]

before the autumn rush begins.

[D]

And honestly, I can't think of a better place to start than my closet. That's why I love shopping at Quince. If you're still hanging on to the same worn out basics, Quince makes it easy to upgrade.

[A]

For example, I just bought a bunch

[D]

of linen shorts because frankly I've been losing a little weight and I need some shorts that fit. And these are fantastic, comfortable, breathe and very, very good looking. Everything at quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands.

[A]

They work with ethical factories and cut out the middleman.

[D]

So you're paying for high quality, not brand markup. Everyday staples that work harder like their ultra soft organic cotton tees and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters, which I've been telling

[A]

you about for years.

[D]

And it's not just clothing. Quince has become my go to for everything from hotel quality bedding and bath essentials to premium cookware and travel must haves. I also just got a new Quince

[A]

wallet just to give you a sense of how this goes. Upgrade your everyday Download the Quints app

[D]

for app exclusive offers or go to quints.com commentary get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q U I N C E.com commentary.

[B]

I mean, you know, to me the blueprint was sort of in the Russia, Ukraine, endless negotiations. Trump was happy to go on ad nauseam. Months and months and months. Still is saying we're very close to a deal. Funny, I thought this was the one I was gonna get done. I thought this was gonna be the quickest, but it's taken a little longer. But we're getting there. I think we're very close. We're very close and there's no progress. That's all well and good. I mean it's not, it's horrible, but it's well and good enough. When he's the third party negotiating or seeming to negotiate a peace with two other countries. He did this with us. He did this with the us. He got the US involved in a nonsensical, endless, we're very close process. And that's the model. He thought it was gonna be Venezuela or something like that. And instead it's this. And I just see no end in sight. It's, you know, we knew this with the Gaza Peace Board too. I mean, we knew that. It's kind of like when you, you know, people who move in to a new home and they never fully unpack, they kind of live out of boxes, you know, forever. That's, that's like, you know, it was, it's, it's a substantial thing to move from one place to another, but you never really unpack. And that's, that's like Trump with the Gaza, that's the Gaza Peace Board. That's, that's where we are with Iran now. You know,

[A]

in my book Hell of a Ride, which was published in 93 and which is about the decline and fall of the first Bush administration from a high of 90% in the polling in March of 1991 to getting 38% of the vote in November of 1992, which is obviously an extraordinary fall from grace. I noted, as I was reporting the book out and thinking about American history, that unsuccessful presidencies end up having strange symbolic events that seemed to herald their collapse. Famously in the Carter administration, or infamously it was the fact that the President of the United States, in a rowboat near his house in Georgia, was attacked by a feral rabbit that had to be beaten off the boat before it attacked everybody. And Bush had an incident in late 91, early 92, when he was on a trip to, to Japan and had a vasovagal incident and, and basically threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Though at the time it was actually, the press was relatively gentle about it and said he had collapsed or something like that. But it was basically a presidential upchuck and, and, and Bush in 2007, there were, there was the. When the guy threw the shoe at his head in Iraq. Anyway, there are these moments, and I would say that the freezing of the ballroom last week is the moment that is the perfect symbolic synecdoche of what is may be happening to this administration, which is that he decided to act and act decisively, right? Wasn't going to wait, wasn't going to look for money. He was going to create a fact on the ground. He wanted a ballroom. He also wanted a military post under the ballroom. So rat. Create fact on the ground. You smash the old thing first, you smash it up, so then you gotta fix it. One Way or another, something he may have learned in New York in 1982, again, a famous moment when a landlord who had bought two theaters intending to tear them down to build a hotel, there was a restraining order about to be filed. And the day that the restraining order was about to be filed, that night, he sent in the bulldozers to smash the theaters up to again create the fact on the ground, huge incident in American, in New York State real estate history. That would be something that Trump knew. Anyway, so he takes out the East Wing or whatever in order to build the ballroom. And now it is frozen. And the judge has ruled that Congress has to vote the funds to do this and to approve it. And unless the Supreme Court comes in and says, no, it's okay, you can go ahead and does so with some dispatch, the White House is going to have this giant crater, half finished area sitting there. And fortunately for him, it's very hard to take aerial shots above the White House because of the air restrictions around the White House and the way that height restrictions work in buildings in Washington, D.C. but half the White House has been like, you know, sort of effectively a third of the way torn into shreds. And then it's just gonna stay there in shreds.

[B]

It's another living out of boxes scenario.

[A]

I mean, yeah, yeah, it's like you're living in the house during the renovation, but then the contractor goes broke or, you know, or the city comes in and says you don't have the right permit, and then you're just frozen and you got that big sheet of plastic sheeting over the hole to keep the elements from coming in.

[C]

So all of New York is one large sidewalk shed. I mean, all of Manhattan. All of Manhattan in that way, you know, but, but I think it's also, I also like the fact that these weird incidents encapsulate the prevailing criticism of the president that you're referring to. Right. Like, Jimmy Carter's is not a frozen ballroom. It's being supposedly afraid of a much weaker opponent, a rabbit, you know, and jumping out when there's a rap. And, you know, and George W. Bush's, you know, the criticism is he makes Arab people want to throw their shoes at his head, you know, and stuff like that. You could even, you could even say Poppy Bush was the, you know, after the Chicken Kiev thing, the question was whether he had the stomach for it, you know, but, but so there and then with Trump, it is this. It is this literal frozen, like, the White House is a frozen conflict in its own way. So I like how they, they do sort of the ones that catch on. I think that's, that's probably it. It's just like any news story. Right. Is that if it, if it latches onto a pre existing narrative about the person, it's just killer.

[B]

But, you know, if we're, I gotta say, if we're talking about crises with sort of poetic resonance, the reflecting pool is a pretty good one too.

[A]

Right?

[B]

I mean.

[A]

Right. Well, they somehow they're, they're kind of, they're. They're linked.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Right.

[A]

In this idea that he wants.

[B]

By the very nature that it's a reflecting pool, you know that.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

It's.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

It gives you an image of, of, of, you know, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like his reflection in it. And he's angry.

[C]

Yes. Narcissus bends down at the water and can't see the reflection.

[A]

Right. Yeah. And then obviously that's a criminal act and people have to go to jail for it. So my question then is this. I still think that the best way out is forward, which would mean winning the war. But when you read about what everybody is saying inside, internally, about the things that Abe was talking about, the defensive munitions crisis and all sorts of other things, though of course you notice we don't have a munitions crisis. Nobody's saying we have a munitions crisis. The bombs that we were dropping in March are the same. We still have the same bombs to drop. What we don't have is a sort of like a dome of protection around our forces necessarily, or around the Gulf, because those have been eaten up. We have eight or nine hundred of them left. But people fought wars before there were defensive missiles. I mean, we fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without defensive missiles. So now it's like, we can't fight a war without defensive missiles. I will accept the contention that the military is effectively refusing to do so. But then we've lost the war no matter what, because there's no solution to this problem that is positive for the United States, aside from Iran agreeing voluntarily to exit the Strait of Hormuz and leave it open. At this point, anything less than that is a defeat for the United States. Unless again, the choking strategy. Now that's what could be the end result of the choking strategy, of the blockading strategy. But I don't think that happens in three months. It's not going to happen before the election. And by the way, it doesn't matter. Even then it won't matter that much because he'll be ruined anyway. You know what I mean? He'll have a sort of free shot because he'll be ruined. He'll figure out some way to stop the clock and start it again with this 60 day gimmick so that Congress doesn't have to vote on it. Or the blockade will simply not be seen as an act of war. Or he can say, we're not at war, we're just blockading the straits so there's nothing you not want to blockade the strait. Democrats. So one way or another, either he's going to keep blockading the strait or we lose the war because he's not willing to do anything more aggressive to win the war. I don't know what else is left when you have people literally saying that it is Admiral King, it's, it's General Kane who wants to end things. That's, I mean, I, I assume that's not a lie because if it were a lie, Kane could come out and say they're lying. You know, this is a lie, this story is a lie, and he is not saying anything.

[C]

I also don't. Wouldn't we. My question is, if we know about the defensive munitions shortage, whatever it is that we're calling it, wouldn't we know or have some way to know if it is being addressed in any way? For example, are we, have we increased our manufacturing capacity at all? Because everybody seems to, everybody seems to agree that this is bad. No one's saying we don't actually need those things unless we get involved in stupid wars. People are saying we would be out of munitions in two days when, you know, if and when China decides to take Taiwan or whatever. Everybody seems to agree that it's a problem. This is bad. But I haven't seen any reports and I'm asking honestly, would we know? How would we know? Like, wouldn't we hear, let's get that manufacturing rolling? Let's get it, you know, let's get everything, you know, let's get the engines rolling and let's, let's just start and at least start to try to set us on a different course, that it won't affect this war. Fine, but wouldn't we want to, like, wouldn't we want to do something that

[A]

says, I got an answer, five years

[C]

will double our capacity?

[A]

No, but I've got an answer for you. Because there are two answers and they are mutually contradictory. One is, yes, we can replace the defensive munitions. And supposedly we are doing, you know, that the assembly line is running. Two, we have a wrong strategy with defensive munitions going forward. Because we have this asymmetry problem, which is that our defensive weaponry costs $2 million. A missile and a drone cost $25,000. And so we should be using drones, not gigantic missiles. We should be adapting our defensive capability to the battlefield of the 21st century, the way the Israelis are, the way the Ukrainians are, and that we need to restructure our view of what it means to have a defensive capability as part of your war fighting machine. So if you have to go into full production on the Patriots and on whatever the other stuff is that is so valuable, you are by definition creating an opportunity cost for the Pentagon of the future that should be taking an entirely different tack based on what we've learned in the last three years, four years from Ukraine, from the Israel war in Gaza, and from our own conflict here in Iran, where, I mean, we're not being particularly bedeviled by drones. But could we use drones more effect? You know, could drones be part of a. And they are part of our harassment strategy. But I mean, in other words, we go full in, full on. And so that's that, like, there's no solution. We have no choice but to replace what we have. So we're not left without any of it. But I again just raised this commonsensical question about whether or not wars have been fought for 5,000 years without there being a defensive missile. So in theory, you should be able to fight a war without a defensive missile in 2025 or 2026, just the same way you could in 1825.

[B]

But, well, but you have to respond to the new forms of offensive missiles coming your way. I mean, that's, that's the problem. The, the other thing is that this all takes, it takes very, it takes so long to get, you know, like a huge, like, arms manufacturing push underway. The. The Pentagon is signed something they're supposed to be. The problem with hypersonic missiles, one problem is like, they're unbelievably expensive to produce. And so there's some company came up with some new fraction of the cost hypersonic missile for the US Called the Blackbeard. In May, the Pentagon signed a framework that's aimed at getting, I don't know, however many tens of thousands of these missiles in production. But who knows what the next step, when we get to the next step after the framework, I mean, this is not. You just, you can't blink and build a sufficient arsenal to be the backstop against tyranny for the globe. I mean, this is not something that happens overnight, you know, and like, you Know, I've made this point one way or another before and I think it

[C]

applies to all of us.

[B]

I'm sure if you had said, you know, people say, oh well, the neocons got what they wanted. They got the one. No, none of us wanted this. If you had come to me in any of us, I'm sure in late January and said, hey, we're going to go into Iran, what do you think? I go, great. And they'd say, but we only have enough defensive missiles, enough defense batteries and maybe enough long range missiles for like an honest month of fighting and then we're out. I'd say, no, no, don't do it.

[A]

Build up.

[B]

I'm excited in the change in direction, but don't do it the wrong way. That's going to be a disaster.

[A]

I just think that's axiomatic. I mean, you're insane to support a war that you're not prepared, that you don't have the preparedness to fight. I mean, in effect, we never went to war with the Soviet Union because we did not have the capacity to go to war with the Soviet Union. The cost was too high. You know, we ended up having proxy wars throughout the Cold War because there was no possibility of actually direct confrontation with the, the, the enemy in itself. So we went after their, we went after two of their or three of their subsidiaries to clear the battlefield in some sense of their efforts to expand their sphere of influence. Yeah. If the thing that is so disturbing and that we're going to have to find out when the books are written, after the administration is long since over, is what Trump was told or what they did say, or what was said in the course of that month or even the week that after Bibi came to him and said, they're all meeting on 28th February. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take out the entirety of the Iranian regime in one fell swoop. So we can either go or we cannot go. And then Trump says, go. On the Wednesday, did somebody say, well, we've gamed it out and now we have AI. So we said to Claude, how long can we fight at full strength until we start hitting a critical, until our defensive missile numbers are under 1,000, like, game that out for me. And it would take Claude roughly a tenth of a second to come up with that calculation, assuming that the inputs were all accurate. I think we all assumed that such a thing would axiomatically had happened, you know, that we didn't start something that we weren't able to Finish. That's a new thing for us, by the way. It's not like we couldn't have won in Vietnam or won in Korea if we had stuck to. We didn't have. It was our loss of desire, will and hunger to succeed in the aim of those wars were dedicated toward which was the propping up of these regimes. One of which did South Korea did stay propped up and the other of which South Vietnam was swallowed whole by North Vietnam. It's not like we couldn't have kept fighting. We just didn't want to anymore. Nationally, this is the first time in history that the United States will essentially be ending a war because it doesn't have the means to fight the war. But I don't believe that. That's my point, which is if the country were behind it and the country was like, we better win this war tomorrow, we would either fire off all the defense that we would like, use up the entire arsenal on the grounds that the country. This was the necessary thing to do, and then we would just build them back the minute it was over. Because there was a national consensus that we needed to fight this war. And therefore, after the war was over, we would have a national consensus about replenishing the stocks or we'd be broadening it out to be a more conventional conflict if the country were behind it and we were willing to take Carg island and take some territory, as I keep saying, in order to have something to trade for which we don't have. All we have is, no, we won't bomb you anymore. And they're like, oh, so bomb us. What are you gonna do? Like we're back hanging people by cranes in our streets to just to show you how little effect you've had on our. The way we view our role as the right.

[C]

And then they add, they added new terms over the weekend, by the way. Also to reopen the straight, we have to sign a non disparagement clause.

[A]

Yeah, that's the best. That's right.

[C]

No, no criticizing literally a non disparagement clause. As part of the deal to end this war. Iran has basically said, you're going to have to kill me. The regime. The regime is, is a person who is saying, you're going to have to kill me. And Trump sees that or has seen that metaphorically and not literally because most of the time it is, you know, it's not literal. Most of the time, you know, you can do what you do in. I mean, you can do it you in Venezuela or whatever, but this is the regime The IRGC is just saying to you are going to have to kill me. And Trump seems not to believe that that's true. And so they just keep insulting him in these like wildly creative ways, like putting a non disparagement. Also you have to apologize. Also you have to replace my niece's dead goldfish. Also, like at some. At what point do you, do you start? At what point does Trump's head like look like the, the, the, the, the. The anger avatar in the, in the, the.

[B]

The.

[C]

The movie about emotions, the kids movie, the animated movie about inside out where his, his head, like literally the Lewis Black voiced character's head FL top of his head flies off because there's a volcano of anger coming out of it. Like at some point you would think that has to happen and he just doesn't. It just hasn't happened.

[B]

So I don't know.

[A]

You know, he fancies himself a great deal maker, wrote a book called the Art of the Deal and all of that. I don't, you know, in the end that was always an open question about whether or not he was such a great deal maker. In New York City, for example, in a city very difficult to build in because it's Manhattan in particular because it's an island and everything, basically every inch of the island is occupied by, by except for Central park and Riverside park by buildings. So you have to get rights to a site, tear the existing buildings down. Like I said, those theaters at the beginning of the podcast and build up and those sites come up for auction and deal making and all of that and various developers try really hard to get their hands on those sites. A friend of mine who is a major New York real estate developer said to me in wonderment in 2016, when Trump was making his way to the nomination and the presidency. The funny thing about him is in his entire career as a real estate developer in New York, he has built three buildings and I've built 15. Now. He said, I'm not saying I'm the greatest person ever, but he only built three buildings. What he did was market his name. But he's not a builder, so why am I? So in the end, he couldn't make these deals. His great successes in life were signing a deal with NBC to become the star of the Apprentice and the bankruptcy game. The loss of money in 1991 that led to him paying no taxes for 18 years and effectively having the tax system subsidize his wealth because he had taken this gigantic loss that then banks propped him up to hold. So I Think the Iranians have taken his measure and said, you know what, he's a crap dealmaker. He stinks as a deal maker and it's his great vanity.

[C]

And he said, they've never lost a negotiation. He said it. He said, they've never won a war and they've never lost a negotiation. But we're in a negotiation now, supposedly, not the war part. Like, why would you say that about the guy sitting across the table from you? Oh, he's the best. There's no.

[A]

In 2015, I think, didn't he. I think that'd be an old quote. That was sort of what he said when he said he opposed the JCPOA or when he pulled out of the JCPOA or whatever. But I just think, like, when you are existentially threatened, as the Iranian regime is, the prospect of hanging wonderfully concentrates the mind. And so it gives Iran unique insight into what the enemy that they're fighting, what tools they can use to save themselves. And remember, the most interesting aspect of this, if we want to pull back, is to say this has now been going on between the United States and Iran since March 8, or whatever the day was that Trump announced the ceasefire. There has been no or two minor engagements with Israel in those four months. Iran does not want to involve Israel. Iran wants. Israel does not want Israel anywhere near it. Iran gave, you know, stopped saying Israel had to stop bothering Hezbollah, it's rival, its rival, its subsidiary, really. And it wants. Because they've taken Trump's measure, but they don't know what Israel is capable of, and they don't know what Israel knows, and they don't know what Israel would want to do given a casus belli. And so they are not. They're not casus belli. They're not looking. They're not doing anything to bring Israel into the fight or to. Or to, you know, make a symbolic show of their hatred of. And, you know, Israel needs, you know, from the river to the sea or whatever it was that they might want to support. But America, they seem to think they can push around. And, you know, it's working so much so that, you know, people I know in Israel, there are people who are like, this is still a strategy, they're still there. Trump is lulling them into a false sense of security. You know, any minute now, you know, the cavalry are going to come up the hill.

[C]

Well, that's what. That's also, by the way, why he should, you know, this, why I'm not as enthused about this. This landing even accidentally on the right strategy. Because if it's the idea that you can bleed them economically, which I agree with and which I think should have been a strategy, or at least one of the strategies from the beginning, but at the same time, it's kind of like, we'll bleed you until your people start dying of hunger. And, and the IRGC is like, we'll just kill them now. Look, if you think we're worried about our people dying, we'll kill that. Like, we'll just, we'll line up 100 on, you know, cranes right now and kill them all right now. Like, you're getting your answers is what I'm saying. You're getting your care. Will this eventually matter to you, that your people are starving? We'll kill them now. So you don't even have to ask that question.

[B]

No.

[A]

What do the Iranians know about the west as a result of the three years since October 7? They know that Hamas, which ran a deliberate strategy of endangering the civilians in Gaza as part of their war fighting tactic, make the Israelis hit civilian sites, put our stuff in apartment buildings, put our bases inside and our communications inside hospitals, do what they can to create these images that will turn the world against Israel, even though they are the ones to blame because they are the ones who are involving the civilians. So the Iranians, look at that, look at the west, look at the west deciding that Israel is a genocidal nation having committed genocide in a land where the population is larger now than it was before the genocide began. And they're going, this is what the west is like. You know, they'll always blame themselves. You know, they'll, they'll, Trump is the one who's going to suffer, not us. Note how nobody is talking about how evil the Iranian regime is anymore. If they even did, if they even were. They weren't. They didn't. And so they were right. Like, they can do whatever they want. They killed 40,000 people. It was still less of a news story than Israel and its behavior toward Gaza. Months after the guns had gone silent in Gaza, Gaza was still a larger story than Iran's slaughter of 40,000 people.

[B]

I mean, that's a whole other aspect to this, by the way. That is just so. It's just so bad for Trump, bad for the U.S. iran killed 40,000 people. And Trump said to the Iranians, help is on the way. So this, whether he articulated it or not, was a regime change war. What else could help is on the way mean? Either we are going to get Rid of this regime entirely or it will be so transformed as to no longer be a mortal threat to the people of Iran. Huge failure there. I mean, he never had to say

[A]

that when we start before the war, back in January when he said help is on the way. Again, I keep mentioning my, like I'm a prophet, but I reminded people on this podcast of the occasional horrors of the Cold War when captive populaces behind the Iron Curtain came to believe that the United States was going to help them if they rose up against their communist dictators. That was Hungary and 56 and Czechoslovakia in 68. And in 56, there were things were said relatively comparable to help is on the way. And the Hungarian revolution was a sort of amazing popular uprising against this communist regime that was savagely crushed. And we don't know the extent to which the uprising was supported by the idea in the heads of the people who went into the streets that the cavalry in the form of the democratic west was going to come and help them pull off this yoke. And in Czechoslovakia, similarly, the idea was somehow that the United States would at the very least keep them, keep the Polish, excuse me, the Czechoslovakia regime from bringing its boot down, which it kind of did. And so then the Soviets had to roll their tanks in and crush them with tens of thousands of deaths. When we learned our lesson and didn't talk about help being on the way, that also wasn't that satisfactory. Right, Because Tiananmen Square there, the Chinese rose up, they were waving American flags, they were carrying around statues of the, carrying around copies of the Statue of Liberty and all of that. And we said nothing on the grounds that we knew perfectly well that we could not intervene. We had no capacity to intervene in any way that would help in Beijing or in China. That was beyond our reach and beyond any rational understanding of risk, reward in terms of American power. But that's why you gotta be careful and not say things like help is on the way so that people will then get murdered. So, yeah. Do we have blood on our hands in that sense? We kind of do. I mean, it's, well meaning, it's like, you know, but the intent wasn't to cause bloodshed, but, but, but when you're careless and heedless and you don't follow the lessons of history and you're, and you're reckless, you know, you're Trump and

[B]

you, you know, George W. Bush got rid of Saddam and deposed the Taliban, you could say the, the price in blood and treasure is too much. It's a very good argument, very Serious argument. I'm. I'm not dismissing it, but he did it, you know.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Help, help, help with help came, and then Biden reneged it in Afghanistan. But anyway, this is. This is a totally different story.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. I'm going to make a quick recommendation, then we can go. Tony, I didn't do this on Friday, did I? Just remind me that I didn't.

[C]

You did.

[A]

Friday.

[C]

Yeah, I think so.

[B]

I did.

[A]

Okay, then. I'm. So you've now become witness, you lovely people in our podcast and YouTube audiences, to my creeping cognitive decline. And you know when you hear Abe say things like, I've never seen him more energetic and more active and I can't keep up with him and all of that, that's when you'll know that a great wall of dishonesty and silence is being created to protect me from the revelation that my cognitive faculties have become so impaired that someone else must take over the podcast. So I have no recommendation, therefore, and we can take this till tomorrow. So embarrassedly for Seth Mandela and Abe Greenwald, I'm John Podwortz. Keep the camel burning.

[F]

I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time, that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk to founders, athletes, and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons. Lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.

[A]

When you get momentum, you step on the gas.

[C]

That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[A]

I was at Harvard Law School.

[E]

I was.

[A]

Blah, blah, blah. I looked up.

[G]

Let me tell you something.

[A]

There's kids in my neighborhood putting in Sheetrock that are smarter than you.

[C]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.

[B]

It is never going to disrupt physical

[A]

blue collar trade skill.

[C]

And the guy just looked at me

[A]

and he said, it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question. I said, it's impossible. Possible. Unless that's.

[F]

Podcast with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcasts.

[E]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay. BJ Novak. Yay. Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry Dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive, compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[G]

From the State House to the courthouse, in the emergency room, and in the classroom, Americans are losing trust in their leaders. In a 2025 U.S. news and World Report survey, 85% of Americans said government leaders care more about their own power than the people they serve. 73% are disappointed in healthcare leaders, 72% in business, and 68% in education. But there are still leaders worth believing in. I'm Eric Gertler, CEO and executive chairman of U.S. news World Report. This is the Best Leaders podcast sponsored by the Noble Reach Foundation. On this show, we'll go deeper into the stories, challenges, and lessons of extraordinary leaders across public service, business, healthcare, and education. You can find the Best Leaders podcast from U.S. news World Report on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.