A (13:13)

The IRS said I filed my return,

C (13:15)

but I haven't 1 in 4 tax

B (13:17)

paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

A (13:20)

What do I do?

B (13:20)

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this. LifeLock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

A (13:29)

I'm so relieved.

C (13:30)

No problem.

D (13:30)

I'll be with you every step of the way.

C (13:32)

One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore.

B (13:36)

Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

C (13:42)

It was such a good, capable summary that it by turn left me feeling comforted and secure.

B (13:51)

Well, that's my goal. If I can comfort you, I can comfort our listeners.

A (13:56)

You're like our emotional support host.

C (13:58)

Yes, I have.

A (13:59)

I'm gonna, I'm gonna disrupt your comfort a tiny bit with a few questions that I think the American people still have and that will, I assume, will be answered in due course by the administration, particularly because Trump, as we know, has issued these two videos, but hasn't yet really faced one on one with the media answering questions. So, as many of our listeners know, I'm not a super fan of Pete Hegseth by any means, but I think one thing he did this morning that was really useful and helpful and I'd like to see everyone in the administration continue to do this, is not, is push back on the idea that this was a war of choice by Trump. Trump's war is how it's all being described in sort of mainstream media outlets. He correctly said there is a whole history, this is an ongoing conflict that we have had with Iran. He listed some of, you know, many of the times when Iran has murdered our civilians, murdered our soldiers. And I think it's important, important to keep that context always in front of any discussion of what is coming next. Because right now we've had some mixed signals. You know, you're right that Hegseth said it's not a regime change war, but the regime has surely changed. Trump over the weekend, you know, sort of saying things like, well, you know, we don't, they're bad guys, we want them out. Well, you know, but the Iranian people will rise up and take their country back. Very vague. And then these, the question of how long it will last, you know, we've heard four or five weeks, we've heard, you know, lots of different things. That's completely normal in a circumstance like this. I understand that. But it is very crucial for this administration to start communicating sooner rather than later about some of their own goals as, as they come into more clarity for the administrators and their war planners. But I will commend Hegseth for that. I also think we need to spend a moment saying we. I mean, we're certainly sharing in the sad news that we've already lost a few American service members and General Kaine's acknowledgment that we will lose more. This is a war. People are going to die. And I think that also has to be something that Americans are prepared for, because that is not the normal situation for us in this country, thank God. But this is something where that question has to be answered by the administration. I think Trump will probably be pretty good at that. And he has a publicly available media thing this afternoon. We'll see if he takes questions on those. So I'm, and I'm also, I wasn't here over the weekend to share in the emergency podcast, but I'm just, I'm so happy for the Iranian people who have, who, although in a very difficult situation right now, have this opportunity to have been liberated from a theocratic regime, particularly Iranian women who've been repressed by this regime for so long. So there's a lot of, I hope, hopefulness in some of the remarks that, that Trump will make when he does engage the American people again on this question.

D (16:43)

Yeah, I mean, I think part of what we're seeing also is that there are so many reasons to hit back at Iran that people who are, that, you know, when we're concerned, we're hearing conflicted justifications for the attacks. It's not really that we're hearing conflicting justifications. It's. We're hearing different ones that are all valid. Right. I mean, that I think is, you know, they, they. There's no question that Iran poses a threat to American troops in the region. Last year, their proxy killed three, two American service members, too, in Jordan.

A (17:26)

I think you're right. It was three. I think it was three.

D (17:28)

It was three. I thought it was. So, you know, that's a recent thing that their proxies, you know, during a war against Israel, their proxies also targeted and killed Americans on a base in Jordan. That's. There isn't really a question that that's a threat. There isn't a question that they want nuclear weapons because they keep saying, no, you could give us all the free nuclear fuel and whatever else we, you know, we want. We offered them everything and that they could possibly need for civilian purposes. We offered them to have the energy and the fuel without having to even refine it and make it. I mean, we Basically just offered to, to spoon feed them, you know, whatever they wanted. And they said, no, we, we, we're going to. So we know that they're building a pro. We know that they want nuclear weapons. And then the third one was, is the proxies, again, all of this, the Americans that Iran's proxies killed last year. That, it, that, that's, that's two different categories, right? One of it is Iran is a threat to Americans in the region. And two, Iran's proxies have to be reined in and have to be stopped because they're killing people, they're killing innocent people. They're killing Americans, are obviously killing Israelis. And so, you know what I think we're seeing is that, like, what's the first one that comes to mind when you ask somebody why we're attacking Iran now? You get like the first thing that comes to their mind. But they could list all these different things, and it's, it's not too concerning to me to hear one member of the government say, we don't trust what they're doing on their nuclear program, and a different member of the same administration say, well, they won't rein in their proxies and they're a threat to American troops in the region.

C (19:10)

You know what, what's come to mind for me as this whole war has unfolded is this idea that, you know, people like us have been saying for a very long time, but it, it makes it so crystal clear that there has long been in place this kind of absurdity to our posture for decades that we even let Iran get anywhere near to this point in terms of its regional power, in terms of its arms buildup, in terms of its saber rattling, in terms of its expanding its power beyond the region, in terms of its going unavenged, our American deaths, Iranian hands having gone unavenged for decades. So it seems like a sort of cosmic. It's not even cosmic. A real world writing of just this crazy thing that we let get out of hand with our fingers crossed and a bunch of band AIDS, you know, 50 years worth of band aids.

B (20:25)

Look, when I was younger, I didn't need a lot of sleep. Now I need a lot of sleep. It's not optional. I can't function during the day without it. And sleep quality actually matters. That's not a trend. This is not a quick fix. It's about choosing comfort that lasts. That's why I'm going to talk to you about Boll and Branch. Their sheets are made for moments of unmatched comfort. They're breathable, incredibly soft, designed to get better over time. As you know, this is sleep you don't compromise on. And I've had great experience with Bowen brand sheets. So has Abe Greenwald. They're softer. They get softer with every wash. Quality is unmistakable. The feeling is beyond all description. So Sleep Sound with Bolan Branch get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at BollandBranch.com commentary with code COMMENTARY. That's Boland Branch B O L L A N D branch.com commentary code commentary to unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply. Look, I'm like you. I have too many logins, I have too many passwords. If I want to shop for something at a store I've already used and I go there and I know I have a login and it's going to store all my information, then I can't remember did I use this email or did I use that email? Did I use this name that I use or did I use another? And then of course, I have no idea what the password is. And you know what makes it easier, what makes it work is when at the top you see a purple button right there of the payment options. And that button makes everything easier for you. No need to get your wallet out, no need to spend time logging in. You just complete your checkout with the tap of one button. Truly one of the best features in the world of online shopping and that is the Shopify purple button. Shopify, of course, the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all E commerce in the US it's an amazing service. And, and you know, if you use it not only to buy, but you use it as a way of doing e commerce like Commentary does, it accelerates your efficiency. Whether you're uploading new products or trying to improve existing ones. It helps you get the word out. And it's a commerce expert with world class expertise and everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. So don't have your card abandoned because you don't know how to log in. See how you as a seller can make more sales. Go ka ching with Shopify and their purple shop pay button. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com commentary. Go to shopify.com commentary that's shopify.com commentary.

D (23:09)

Right? And it's also like, so after 50 years you hit. It's like if somebody you know were were hitting you for 50 years and after 50 years you hit them back. And what does the World say, well, what's your plan exactly, Abe?

B (23:22)

Right? I mean look, this isn't a plan

D (23:24)

back after 50 years. But what's your plan?

B (23:27)

I mean the point I think that is important about this 47 year conflict between Iran and the United States is that we there. If you want what would the plural is it, would it be cassi belli? Like you know, if you want casus belli to explain the just justification for a war, right, the cause of war, the reason that a war takes place. There have been 20 legitimate individual casus belli. Iran has been responsible for that. We could have justly, according to any understanding of just war, have launched a war to fight against not only the taking of the hostages, which was, which was the original, but attacks on our people in the, you know, in Iraq in the, in the 2000s. Direct, direct uses of Iranian proxies and, and probably regular Iranian forces inside Iraq to kill soldiers. I think our count is that 600Americans died directly at the hands of Iran during the, during the war in Iraq. Remember, the entire war in Iraq was 4400 casualties. So we're again playing commentary math here. But that's like, you know, a seventh to an eighth of the casualties in Iraq directly caused or deaths in Iraq directly caused by Iran and various other incidents. The also the Beirut barracks bombing which was done by Hezbollah, which is.

D (25:18)

And in Iraq they got Iranian material also. So you had non Iranian militias killing American troops with IEDs that they got from Iran.

B (25:27)

So over and over and over again they attacked us and we did not respond. But you know, is there like a statute of limitations? Is that what we'd sort of be. It's like, well, if you don't do it immediately, it doesn't count. The point here is that Iran as a destabilizing force kicked into high gear on October 7, 2023. Now they did not directly attack us, they attacked an ally of ours, but on seven fronts. Iran went to war with Israel on seven fronts in an effort to where Israel had to go to war with Iran on seven fronts may be another way to put it. But had Israel not prevailed, Iran would have restructured the geopolitical landscape of the Middle east very much in its own favor. In a way that would have been a direct threat to us. I mean, without question, you know, they would have then had dominant not only sort of re. Establish their domination of most of Lebanon, solidify their position in Syria, strengthen their position vis a vis the Gulf states that don't, that are worried about them, meaning Saudi Arabia and others weakened Israel, strengthened Hamas and strengthened Yemen. And so they, that was a direct sort of threat to the United States. Israel dealt with it and we then dealt with it with Israel by, by doing Operation Midnight Hammer. And as I think Brett Stevens said in his piece, but a couple of other people have said, after Operation Midnight Hammer, the Iranians could have said, okay, we're done. We're not going to reconstitute our ballistic missiles. We're not going to try to reconstitute our nuclear program. We're done. We're licked. You know what? This has been a stupid 20 year effort at nothing cost us, you know, untold billions of dollars. All of our scientists have been murdered. We've been penetrated like no country has ever been penetrated by enemy intelligence services. You know what, Gnug, we're okay, we're going to move on. And they didn't, they started buying material from, they're saying, importing things from China, buying material from North Korea, maybe taking stuff in from Russia and just go like, like, just okay, we're, we're up again. And that's a we. If you think about it, they didn't have to do that. Like maybe they thought they would have to do it because like Saddam Hussein, they would think that if the Iranian people knew that they were no longer aggressively pursuing this aim, that that would be the moment at which they would look so weak that the Iranian people would rise up to take them down. But again, counter history weird. They say, okay, we're done. And then America goes, okay, well we see you're done. We see you're like decommissioning all of these plans, everyone's going home and all that. We'll relax some sanctions. We have these hyper sanctions on you that are all based on this. You stop doing. And then in December of 2025, the real isn't worth zero, doesn't go to worthlessness. Iran's in a perfectly fine place financially or not fine, but you know, is not. And then there isn't an uprising. And then all of this clock doesn't start ticking. I mean, they brought this on themselves. They could have, they could have accepted and acknowledged that their nuclear program and their ballistic missile program was something that we viewed as an act of threat and that they should stand down and they didn't stand down.

C (29:29)

This gets to a bigger, larger point and it gets to a topic that no one likes to talk about anymore because then we start throwing around labeled neocon and this and that. The truth is, I don't want to share the planet with terrorist regimes, not merely because they do bad things to other people. And that may or may not affect us, and maybe it's none of our business and all that. There is a much more practical aspect to why we should not tolerate terrorist regimes. They don't recognize lanes. You cannot expect them to stay in their lane. Their mission is to obliterate lanes. They are terrorist regimes for a reason, which is that they are trying to break down the system of which we are a part of. And if you let that go, or if you try to give it a little bit here, take a little bit there, over time the problem inevitably metastasizes. And that is what we're looking at. And I'm sorry, you can call it neoconservatism, you can call it whatever you want. It's just a simple fact of history that that is what has got us where we are today.

B (31:09)

So let's talk about this question of whether or not this is a war for regime change or not a war for regime change, because I remain puzzled by and Hegseth began the morning by saying we're not stupid like other presidents. We're not going around with open ended missions of nation building and regime change. You know, Donald Trump is smarter than that and he has other things in his quiver. So I was trying to recreate in my head how regime change became the term of art here to describe our mission after the collapse of the Soviets and the Cold War, because we had never. This was not a term that was in use. We were not ever before. Like we were not looking to change, to do regime change. So why was this the term? And I think oddly it was an effort, though it now means the opposite to many people at modesty. That is to say we were going into war with Iraq in particular, but with Afghanistan. But our purpose was not to defeat the nation of Iraq or to defeat the nation of Afghanistan. We Bush said it about Afghanistan and said it about our beef was not with the people. Our beef was with the tyrannical leaders who were oppressing the people and doing thing bad things to us. So if we go to war with them, all we're trying to do is remove the bad guys who threaten us. And then you get your country back. And we'll give you a hand when it comes to what happens after. We'll help you establish a system of elections. We'll bring in NGOs to help run those elections since you haven't had them in a long time. Or we could use your local traditions like Loya Jirga tribal meetings and things like that to try to reconstitute this. We don't have a beef with you Iraqis. We don't have a beef with you Afghanis. In fact, we'd like to help you because we understand what monster we have had to deal with the monstrousness of your regimes. You're living with it. We're going to help you. It was an effort at a kind of, you know, we don't have to go in and do what we did to Nazi Germany and to Imperial Japan and obliterate those, break the backs and wills and spirits of the entire country so that they knew they could not get off the floor or try to get off the floor or try to establish counterinsurgencies or whatever. Right. That wasn't what we were up to. So in a weird way, they're way more hawkish. Trump and Hegseth and these guys are way more hawkish than the neocons.

A (34:25)

This is. Well, but this is interesting because one of the, one of the mistakes, I think looking back on some of the both the first and the second Gulf War conflicts and then Afghanistan slightly separately, but that inability to kind of understand just how long and punishing we needed to be to get to the point where the people would be able to create their own more functioning way of life in government, we miscalculated on a lot of those. And I think what's interesting about this conflict is looking at, after the first several thousand targets that US And Israel have struck in Iran, look at the targets they're doing in the last 24, 36 hours. These are smaller security areas in, in the country, many of them along the borders of Iran. And these are the places where the most punishing security forces who keep the population in line, the people who were shooting at protesters, the ones who were in regional areas trying to quell these uprisings, we are striking those now quite vigorously and intentionally. And I think that is a sign of, I hope, a lesson learned from previous conflicts where you can't just take out the guy at the top and one or two of his henchmen, because there's this entire superstructure in countries like Iran of enforcement, and some of it's quite localized, but it reports to the top. But you do have to take out those units as well, because if you're going to rebuild, if you're, and this is another question I think Americans should be asking, who will be leading Iran in the near future and in the long term, you have to take those people out. And we were unsuccessful in doing that in some of our previous conflicts, we stopped too soon, we withdrew too soon. And there's lots of arguments about, about that, that over the years we've all had. But I think in Iran, I hope to see that lesson continue to be pursued because the people of Iran will have no choice and have no options if those, if that level of security, state intervention, they are armed and they are perhaps willing to shift their loyalty to someone new. If they're willing to continue to enforce the theocratic regime's vision for what Iran should be in the region, then we're going to be right back where we started.

C (36:32)

I just want to say I think there's something kind of silly about or that's exposed that's silly about this regime change. Knock, you know, because everyone's, everyone's. No regime change. No regime change unless you go to war with another country for a piece of land like Azerbaijan and Armenia, or to capture the entire country like Putin and going into Ukraine. Every other war is a regime change war in the sense that if you have a problem with another state power, you're fighting to change that regime, either personnel or when you're done, it's a different regime. We could be the same people, but it's not acting as the same regime. That is the point of an actual war with another country. Unless I said, unless it's about land. That, that is, that is what. That is the end goal of, of fighting your enemy. I mean, you don't, you don't, you don't want to end the fight with the same enemy in place. So it is by definition regime change that you're looking for.

B (38:02)

Yeah, I'm a pet owner, probably like you didn't want to be. Got a dog during COVID and of course now I love the dog. Bring the dog to the office. Will do anything for the dog. And so here's a quick message from today's sponsor, the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. These days, we insure just about everything. Cars that lose value the second we drive them. Phones we trade in every two years. Trips we haven't even taken yet. But our pets often go unprotected. Well, with ASPCA Pet Health Insurance, you can get help with unexpected vet bills and make sure your dog or cat gets the care they need when they need it. The ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program offers customizable accident and illness plans, making it easier to get your pet the care they may need. It's been around for almost 20 years and has covered nearly 1 million pets in that time. So to Explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com Commentary that's aspcapetinsurance.Com Commentary Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit aspcapetinsurance.COM AmazonTerms for more info. This is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance. A thoughtfully built wardrobe comes down to pieces that mix well and last. And that's where Quince shines. Premium fabrics considered design and everyday essentials that feel effortless to wear and dependable even as the seasons change. Lightwear cashmere sweaters, short sleeve Mongolian cashmere polos linen bottoms and shorts. Tees in 100% Pima cotton and European jersey linen. These are the versatile pieces that make a wardrobe actually work season to season. And you know, quince works directly with top factories. Cuts out the middleman. You're not paying for brand markup or fancy retail stores, just quality clothing. So that I think is the key. As you know, I'm wearing Quint sweaters all the time. You've heard me talk about this for years. I'm wearing one right now. Stop over complicating your wardrobe. You don't need a closet full of options. You need a few pieces that actually work. So right now go to quints.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it and you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last go to Q U I n c e.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary it's basically, I mean if

D (40:45)

you look at the literature on this is basically not the bringing political science, but it's the only way wars have ended, right? It's not. It's not even just the goal of the war, it's the only way wars end. If you look throughout history, the way to end a war is to change a regime and get a more pliant regime in place that is willing to play by the rules that you want them to play by. Now you can argue, you know, whether that's right or not, blah blah blah. The point is that that's how wars end and that in the real world that that's how wars end. And so the forever war argument against regime change runs into a problem because the truth is that we're Getting forever wars because we don't change the regime, and the regime changes how you usually end the war.

B (41:35)

That's a really important.

A (41:36)

Picked the wrong. I mean, I'm sorry, the whole history of Iran, the Shah instantly. I mean, we have in the past exercised that power in ways that have ended badly. Perhaps not the goal, but we have often put our weight behind regimes that we've, you know, held up a little bit in Iran, too. And the people turned against that. That.

B (41:58)

I don't think that's right about Iran, but I do think, for example, that we did weird things in the. In, you know, in the early days of our conflict in Vietnam. You know, we interceded to remove DIEM and in 63 and change the government in Vietnam to one, because we didn't think that they were in the right frame to do what we needed to do. And that was clearly a catastrophic error. But that was regime change in pursuit of a. Of. That was a friendly that we were on. They were on our. We were on their side. And then we wanted to do regime change. We've had. We've had that. Like, we worked to change the political culture in El Salvador while we were helping El Salvador fight. Fight the communist rebels in El Salvador successfully, as it happens. So there is regime. There have been regime changes, often friendly, the other. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's. It's really bad. The United States is unique probably in world history in that almost all wars are fought for, you know, like two or three different reasons, right? Either seizure of land because of. Because that's what you do. And you want to admit. You want to glorify yourself and make your country bigger and grander and dominate your neighbors. And that's, you know what. That's Alexander the Great. You know, like, you go out in order. That's. That's. That's your purpose. Or you want resources. You want to take somebody. Somebody's got something you want. You want to take it from them because it's valuable either, you know, route to the sea for trading. And in the. In the 19, as the industrial revolution progressed, getting hold of raw materials that are necessary for the creation of the modern industrial state. We in the last 40 years, have been fighting wars in a totally unique fashion. You know, we go into. We go. We stage this massive war against Iran, Iraq, in 1990, for the purpose of pushing Iraq out of a third country that it had invaded, which was great. But then we stopped because we had defined the war as Saddam Hussein needs to be out of Kuwait. We didn't Say as Seth, which is why that war ended up being a failure long term. Obviously, since we had to go in, we went in 12 years later. We didn't say, well, because he did this, he's gotta go. Because if we let him stay there, he'll do a lot of other bad stuff. He's a bad actor. He's been a bad actor for 20 years. He started a war with Iran. You know, like, we're not just sending in 500,000 people to fight in the Gulf to take out. To remove him from Kuwait. And then. And then Colin Powell says to George Bush, we should stop now because then we're just gonna, you know, like, get everybody mad or something like that, you know, so that's like the original. The original sin in some ways was not doing what Seth says, which is the obvious logic is we just had to go fight a gigantic war, do this, something we didn't want to do, and the person who was responsible for it can't be left standing. It's crazy. If you go back and think about it, what 47 countries go to war to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and then Saddam Hussein is still in power 12 years later. What the hell was that about? That's not rational. Because we are not an imperial power, despite what everybody thinks. Because we were so worried that that would look like imperialism, that we. That we stopped. And then we're like, oh, yeah, it's okay. Go kill the Kurds as they try to rise up against you. We're going to let you fly your helicopters because you say you need to get around, so then you'll just kill thousands of Kurds. That was our contribution to the good working order of the world after we had succeeded in this mission to get him out of Kuwait. So we didn't pursue regime change there, ruinously had to go back. And similarly, we would never have gone into Afghanistan in a million years except that they hosted Al Qaeda on their territory. And that's the other reason you go to war, which is you have to go to war to revenge an injury that has done you, or to. And revenge. I use the word revenge honestly, like, for some reason people think revenge is bad. I don't think revenge is bad. You know, we say in Judaism, when somebody is murdered, may God avenge their blood. Like, you don't treat a murder as though it is the same as a natural death. And you don't treat and, you know, an aggressive act of war against you or, you know, murder of thousands of your people as though it is something for which you know, you should mourn and then feel sorry and think that the people who did it should ask for forgiveness so there's revenge. But then you want to then do something more, you know, useful or, like, better for the world. So you, you have to go in, you have to take out the Taliban. And then the question is, what, what, what follows that? And as Charlie Wilson, I quoted yesterday as Charlie Wilson, Representative Charlie Wilson said, we did great. And then we effed up the end game because we went in, we helped them, we set up elections, we did this, we did that. And then we took our eye off the ball and we kind of left. And then the Taliban started reconstituting themselves. And then at the end of the decade, we had to go back in with 150,000 people to try to get Afghanistan out of the hands of the Taliban. And then we, we were in this war of attrition for another decade until Biden made the catastrophic error to pull us out, thus leading Putin to believe that he had a green light to go into Ukraine and that thus the 2000s turned into the. What the 2000s turned into.

A (48:12)

Well, I mean, we are, we are projecting forward a lot because right now, I think Trump is going to do fine doing what he's done so far, which is saying, you know, I think he told CNN this morning, like, we're beating the crap out of him, the newer wave is coming. And he can, he can talk about the ongoing attacks and hits and what, what we're achieving strategically. But very soon, he's going to have to speak to the domestic impact of this. Americans are usually going to be pretty tolerant for a few days or weeks about that. But then, you know, oil prices are going to probably increase already, have started increasing. You have questions about whether, whether and how many troops will be in the region. They have announced that they're sending more troops to the region, and they're kg on, you know, troops on the ground versus, you know, support troops. So those are completely legitimate questions for the American people to have of this administration. And that's where I think it's been interesting to see how much control over the public messaging they've had over Trump for the last few days. But he will have to talk about that. He will have to say, these are our goals. When we reach these goals, this will be. Will consider this a victory. We're doing this, this and this. And we can expect, you know, some loss of life. We can expect some turmoil in the markets. The stock market is down. So all of these are Issues that come up in any conflict that we start to pursue. But he has to be a good spokesman in these times. This is literally the President's role as commander in chief is not just to lead this extensive strategic mission with our allies, but to talk to the American people about what he's doing and why.

B (49:46)

I want to point out one other interesting thing that Cain said that speaks to a different political issue that people have been raising. It seems to me a disingenuous thing. I mean, I believe it constitutionally, but I don't believe in the seriousness of purpose of the people who are making the claim that Trump needed to go to Congress for an authorization of this effort. He should have gone to Congress, either gotten a declaration of war or some version of the authorization for the use of military force like we did with Iraq. Kaine, if I can find the quote, because I stupidly closed this file, Cain basically said that they needed to maintain operational security paramount as we sought to maintain and protect the element of surprise. So here's the question I want to ask you. While people say should have gone to Congress and you know, Josh Shapiro said he should have gone to Congress and David French says he should have gone to Congress and Andy McCarthy said he would have preferred that he went to Congress and, you know, did all these, you know, senators, they should have gone to Congress. Okay, imagine he goes to Congress. Are we maintaining operational security? And surprise.

A (51:10)

Well, and he did go. He briefed the leadership, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. They, they were briefed before this event. Sound as if they were caught, you know. Yeah, by surprise. He, they were briefed.

B (51:21)

Literally, literally. If we are with troop, with forces in the region, then Trump says, hi, Congress, please vote on an authorization of military. No, do it now, whatever. And this was the point that was made in this background briefing, that, which is extensively detailed in Axios by Mark Caputo and Barack Ravid, that if you go to Congress, like they have all these ballistic missiles and our ships are sitting there and our bases are sitting there and the Israelis are sitting and we're not moving. So in a circumstance like this, you want to move first to take out the offensive material that might hit you once you know that a war is starting. If we had a two week period in which we had a national debate over whether or not to undertake this mission, a national debate which is what essentially people are trying to use as a, as a, as a cover for their keeping themselves at arm's length from saying whether or not they support what we're doing. That is jeopardizes the safety of American forces worldwide and the ones in the theater from surprise Iranian attack. Number one. And number two, and let's now talk tacless like you seriously expect that it wouldn't leak out of a meeting if there was like a big briefing of the Senate or of the, of the House of what's going on and what we might do. I don't trust those guys. I don't know if we were in a better position and this weren't the world that we live in right now. They wouldn't. But you think Elizabeth Warren wouldn't go out and tell everybody what what was being planned or Chris Van Hollen or somebody like that? They can't be allowed to know ourselves.

A (53:25)

The Office of Legal Counsel in previous conflicts has given a lot of thought to the legality of these sorts of strikes. My colleague Jack Goldsmith at AEI writes about this a lot. He, he has a good sort of summary of where the legal justification is for this. Regardless of what you think about whether we should be there or not, there are plenty of legal justifications for the short term. He's got some time and some leeway as the commander in chief. I do think that we, if this is going to extend into a conflict of many months and more troops and more lives are lost, then that actually is where Congress needs to assert itself and say you got to come here and you got to, you got to talk about and lay out for us to strategically what the plan is and that. So we will see if this is a sort of quick, I think Trump's preference, this administration's preference is for something quick and done and we're out of there. But, but we'll see if he, if he wants to send more troops and he's going to need more munitions and we're going to, it's going to look more like a traditional war. Yes, he has to go to Congress, but for now he's got a window of time where I think you're right, John. A lot of those claims are actual weasel words to prevent members of Congress themselves from taking a stand on what we're doing in Iran.

B (54:34)

Just quickly, just quickly. Mike Johnson has said or said last night that the House would take up the War Powers act on Thursday. I believe so that and the War Powers act as it, as its constitute, you pass the War Powers act and the president has essentially 60 days to go and ask for a formal declaration of war. That was how it was sort of like written in the 70s in an effort to make sure that we did not repeat the Vietnam situation in which we were at war in a conventional standing war with hundreds of thousands of people. And Congress had done nothing to say that it was, that it was, except appropriate money to say that it was a war that we should fight. So as it happens, the War Powers act kind of worked in reverse, basically giving presidents a free hand to act in some ways or having a defensible claim, as Jack Goldsmith says, having a defensible claim that, that, that the, that the thing, the congressional role is only necessarily triggered 60 days after, or, you know, the, the full involvement of the legislative branch is only triggered 60 days after the beginning of hostilities. So that may happen this week. I don't know what it, what the Senate is up to or will be about. And, but that, that's, that's, that's on the table.

C (56:03)

I was just going to say it's not just that Congress doesn't want to have to take a stand on the war, it's that the Democrats and a few Republicans want to preserve the ability to attack Trump over it. Should anything go wrong.

B (56:22)

That's, yeah, I mean, or, or to jump on the bandwagon, should everything go right. Let's do it in reverse here or let's, let, let's flip the script. Like Bush in 2002 said, weirdly enough, he said, I don't have to go to Congress over Iraq because the,

C (56:48)

what

B (56:48)

was passed in the wake of 911 gives me authorization to go into Iraq. But you know what? I want to go because I want, he said, very like, ominously, he said, I want the Senate really or basically, but I want Congress to be a participant. I want them to say yay or nay. Like if they say nay and we don't go, I want the public to know who said this was a good idea and who said this was a bad idea. Now this may be amazing to people thinking about it 23 or 24 years later, but that scared the Democrats. Half the Democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Right? 24, 25 Democrats voted. It was 77 senators voted to authorize the war in Iraq. So it worked. That was then when it looked like if you didn't do that and obviously we would win, they thought, so you better jump on the bandwagon. That was safer than not. And then of course, it turned out that it was politically vastly more complicated. And Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama, who of course didn't have to cast that vote or not cast that vote, cuz he wasn't in the Senate yet. But that that was the politics then, now Congress, irresponsible, refusing to play its proper role. Republicans are worse, as bad about this as Democrats were under Biden. Terrible set of circumstances, but you know. Yeah. So they've now gotten to this point where it's like, what can I do to keep my hands as clean as possible? Or like to not get, you know, to not get have to sully myself with actual politics. All I want to do is performative stuff. That's all anybody wants from me anyway. Right. So, you know, maybe this will back them into a greater sense of responsibility, though. I don't.

C (59:01)

There's another interesting happening. There's another interesting difference between the Bush and Iraq and what's happening today. And that's in the international politics, in terms of international institutions. We're not even pretending that they have a legitimate role to play here. Right. Bush, despite the cowboy diplomacy knock, was actually very, very desperate to get the UN on board, to get Europe on board with inspections in Iraq. Really thought that if he wanted to avoid war desperately. So he went multiple resolutions to the un we need to get inspectors back in there. We're hearing that Saddam has everything over and over. And you know, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, you know, European Liz just said, you know, they, they pushed by killing these resolutions, they pushed Bush into this, into the final last ditch effort, which was war. At the UN we saw people fighting over the war after the fact this weekend. But, oh, it was beautiful though.

B (60:28)

It was beautiful because it was Danny Danone taking a two by four and bashing it over the head of the Iranian guy sitting there who said, stop yelling at me. And he's like, stop killing your own people, you piece of garbage. Like, it was one of the great moments of all time. Finally an Israeli gets to like bang his shoe on the, on the podium, you know, in a position of total moral high ground with an Iranian, you know, hack creep, you know, complaining that they, that, that Israel was being uncivilized.

C (61:00)

Yeah, Much better use of the UN than, than trying to get crooked European leaders to do something.

B (61:05)

Yeah, right, exactly.

D (61:06)

And there's also how we define multilateral. Right? I mean, yeah, there's plenty of multi going on. UAE is not siding with Iran. No, they're siding. Like if we have a multilateral coalition that includes the Arab states and the Jewish state, that's multilateral to me.

B (61:26)

It's. It.

D (61:27)

Maybe it didn't go through the U.N. but it's like, okay, so you know, Starmer is not part of it, but Keir Starmer is not the, you know, that, hey, that's not my, you know, barometer for whether something is unilateral, multilateral. He's free to stay out of it. But I think they did this to Bush wrongly too. I think Bush, he put, he was putting together a multilateral coalition. And in Afghanistan, we obviously had a multilateral coalition. I mean, now we had NATO at our back. We had, but we, you know, he, he was. The war began, the war Responding to 911 began with an undeniably multilateral coalition. Countries saying, we are all America. We are, you know, we all have your back. NATO there, you know, everybody sending troops, all this other stuff. And so I think honestly, Bush got a bad rap on the unilateral stuff too. I don't think it was ever really true. But I, and I think now it's like if you can look at this and say, you know, it's unilateral because the US and Israel agree or something like that. But the truth is that the, these people, these critics, especially on the left because of the split, this weird partisan coding of the Saudi, Iran split in the Middle east where, you know, Republicans felt, you know, they were going to support the Saudis, Democrats supported the Iranians. This was during the, the Iran nuclear deal negotiations. It really became a partisan flashpoint. It just kind of stuck there. You know, this situation is like you've, they've just been ignoring the allies that are part of multilateral coalition. Jordanians scrambled to shoot down Iranian rockets at Israel during the first, you know, a year and some ago or whatever it was.

B (63:14)

And they did. And they did it this weekend too. 50 from Jordanian territory, 50 Iranian ballistic missiles were, were shot down. So that of course is a science fictional multilateral coalition. We have going here the United States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, uae, Bahrain and Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt and Israel. And Israel and Israel with the space

D (63:42)

lasers if you want to make the science fiction coalition. Really, you know.

B (63:46)

Right. Anyway, so I mean, you know, the hell with the un. Like this is, this is the formation of an entirely new understanding of what it means to make alliances in the 21st century. The UN is a, is an artifact and a relic of the post World War II era. You know, how long ago that was the UN was established. It's like, you know, almost 80 years ago.

D (64:11)

And this is the bad actor. Yeah, this is the theater, right? The theater of war. They're on our side, part of our coalition. People miles out of it, who are not participating.

B (64:24)

Right.

D (64:25)

Are grumbling about it. But that, that's a ridiculous thing, is to replace the people who are sitting there having missiles fired at them by Iran and have, you know, the French or the British say, oh, I don't

B (64:37)

know about firing back, but this thing. Because we'll use Starmer as the example then. We can, we can, we can. But I mean, this is a domestic political problem for Keir Starmer, who is in a domestic political crisis in which having won this colossal landslide only a year ago, is seeing his entire coalition collapse and he may not survive much longer. And his only hope is to somehow stanch the bleeding of the far left and the, and the Muslims who voted him in. And so he's not making decisions based on Britain's national interest, as is understood in terms of the world order. That's a, that's a no brainer, you know, like siding against Iran. I mean, Iran just shot 30,000 people in the streets. It's not a hard call unless you're worried about your boroughs going to the Greens, as happened last week, while the anti immigration party that isn't the Tories, surges into the lead. I mean, it's a very, you know, this is a very odd situation in which there's no principle attaches to what Starmer is up to. It's a desperate effort to cling to power. So it's pretty dismissible. It's not like, oh, you know, what Bush is doing to cowboy diplomacy and Trump, even though you could say that about Trump much more readily. That's why I said that Trump's anti regime change logic ends up being way more hawkish than the regime change logic does. And I just want to cite one unexpectedly. I'm going to cite a publication I would not have cited before, but which has been crushing it over the last six weeks. And that is compact under the leadership of Matthew Schmitz. Schmitz has a piece today called Trump was Always an Iran Hawk and he goes through systematically. I think I strongly recommend you read it. Everything Trump has said about Iran since 1980. In 1980, what historians Charlie Lederman and Brendan Sims describe as Trump's earliest recorded statement on foreign policy to a national audience. Trump said in an interview with NBC that America no longer commanded international respect because of the hostage crisis. And Trump said, we, you know, we should have gone in there. He was asked, should we have gone in there with troops and brought our boys out? And Trump replied, I absolutely feel that, yes. And he went on, 87, 88, 2000. It's like, we need to go in, crush those Iranians and take their oil. He has had this view for 45 years. It hasn't changed. It's a consistent opinion that he has had about Iran, that Iran played us for fools and suckers. And it did and it has. And he's right. And now, you know, so it's a very interesting.

C (67:43)

No, I think it's such an important point because a lot of what we're seeing on the right, on the disaffected right, is all this. I didn't vote for this. And then they play, as I said on Twitter, they sort of overlay real world politics with their Dungeons and Dragons idea of what's happening. You know, Trump got co opted by the Israelis. Vance was always a crypto neocon, you know, in hiding and all this.

B (68:15)

I wish. Yeah, yeah, right.

C (68:17)

And they're just not looking at any, any of the actual real world circumstances and contingencies here and pressures and they're missing the entire picture. And it's the child childishness that they're evincing is astounding.

A (68:35)

They also seem to forget Trump's age and that he marinated in the popular culture of the 80s, which was just full. I mean I remember pictures in my high, in my elementary school yearbook of all the high school guys with like get the ayatollah signs. I mean this was part of popular culture too. And he was very much in the mainstream seeing Iran as a constant villain. I mean the Shiite Muslim was always the villain in all these big blockbuster movies. So he, he's old just because his methods of politics are quite new to our system and of recent vintage. They have forgotten and actually many of them on the new right were never, you know, they, they were not even a spark in their parents eyes. I do want to just to, just to piggyback a little bit on Seth's and John's absolute wonderful raking over the coals. The uselessness of the, of the un. An old recommendation. I think I made it years ago. But if people are interested in understanding just how long this rot has been going on there, what the UN's found in what, 1945, in 1967, the wonderful novelist Shirley Hazard, who had worked for the Secretariat, wrote a wonderful book called People in Glass Houses. That's just tears to shreds. The UN bureaucracy and everything she diagnosed then has only gotten worse since. So if you're interested in a kind of.

B (69:51)

That is an amazing book. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that. All right, so there we have a recommendation. Shirley has the cuff.

A (69:57)

But yeah, I might have recommended this before, so I think you did.

B (70:00)

And then we had a conversation about how Shirley Hazard played a key role in the outing of Kurt Waldheim as the Austrian Chancellor as basically as a Nazi transit of Venus.

A (70:12)

Also, great novel. He's a great novelist. Yeah.

B (70:15)

He had been the Secretary General of

A (70:17)

the UN Yeah, She's a great novelist in general. If you haven't read her work, it's well worth. Well worth reading her novels too.

B (70:24)

Yes. Okay, so we'll. We'll be back tomorrow. For Abe, Seth and Christine, I'm John Pod. Horowitz. Keep the candle burning, Sam.