Primary Targets

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: Primary Targets

Date: March 4, 2026
Host: Jon Podhoretz
Panelists: Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, Eliana Johnson, Seth Mandel

---

Episode Overview

The episode centers on the results and political implications of recent primary elections in Texas and North Carolina, touching on the broader national electoral landscape, Donald Trump's enduring influence, shifts within the Republican and Democratic parties, and an in-depth discussion of the evolving Iran conflict and its political resonance domestically and abroad.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Texas & North Carolina Primary Results

• Dan Crenshaw's Defeat:
  • Jon Podhoretz laments Crenshaw’s landslide loss, attributing it partly to a personal rivalry with Ted Cruz and lack of Trump endorsement, despite his staunch conservative bona fides and military service.
  Quote: "You would think that a guy who... lost his eye in combat and... has been, I think, one of the more effective spokesmen for conservative matters in the House should have been safe. But he's gone and he lost in a landslide." — Jon Podhoretz [01:25]

• Trump's Endorsement Power:
  • Eliana Johnson highlights Trump’s unbeaten record with 11 House primary endorsements, reinforcing his grip on GOP dynamics.
  Quote: "For all the talk about Trump being a lame duck and MAGA fracturing, the President's endorsement still matters enormously..." — Eliana Johnson [03:36]

• Texas Senate Primary (Cornyn vs. Paxton):
  • The panel delves into the tight, scandal-ridden three-way Senate race, with Cornyn as the conservative establishment choice and Paxton as the MAGA-aligned, controversial insurgent.
  • Upcoming runoff: May 26th.
  Quote: "If what MAGA means is that you're supposed to like advance patently unconstitutional acts as the Attorney General of your state... then we'll see how that goes." — Jon Podhoretz [05:51]

• Democratic Primaries & Turnout:
  • James Talarico's win, backed by establishment and outspending progressive rival Jasmine Crockett, is noted as a move towards a more electable Democratic slate.
  • Notable Latino surge and Democratic turnout exceeding Republicans: +100,000 in Texas, +200,000 in North Carolina.
  Quote: "Democratic turnout was up big. And also in both Texas and North Carolina, Democratic turnout was... 100,000 votes in Texas, by 200,000 votes in North Carolina." — Eliana Johnson [09:22]

2. The GOP and Democratic Landscape

• Trump’s Dilemma on Endorsing Cornyn or Paxton:
  • Panel anticipates that Trump, with an eye toward general election ramifications, may be compelled to back Cornyn, despite MAGA pressures.
  • If Paxton secures the nomination, Republicans may need to pour extra resources into defending the seat.

• Young, Religious Democrats:
  • Christine Rosen points out Talarico’s savvy with young and religious voters, seen as more sincere than previous Texas Democrats.
  Quote: "He's a much savvier candidate in a lot of ways... He talks about religion and faith in a way that isn't disingenuous." — Christine Rosen [10:02]

• Democrats’ Risk with Progressive Firebrands:
  • Seth Mandel and others contrast Talarico with previous failed, progressive Democratic candidates, describing him as less “insufferable”—a possible key to broader appeal.

3. Maine Senate Race & Extremism

• Democrats’ Predicament with Platner:
  • Discussion on likely Democratic nominee Graham Platner, who carries the burden of a Nazi tattoo and extreme associations but remains resilient and competitive.
  Quote: "He jumped in, and then Democrats got Mills to be like, save us from the token." — Abe Greenwald [24:13]

• Parallel Radicalization in Both Parties:
  • Panel draws a parallel between left-wing "Pod Save America" influence and the right-wing podcasting sphere, but notes left’s deeper electoral penetration, as seen with Platner.

4. Implications for the National Balance of Power

• Importance of Maintaining the Senate:
  • Panelists outline why Trump and GOP strategists must prioritize holding the Senate, both for protecting Trump from possible drawn-out impeachment by a Democratic upper chamber and for forward-looking party strategy.

---

The Iran War: Public Opinion, Strategy, and Messaging

1. Military Campaign Assessment

• Rapid Degradation of Iranian Arsenal:
  • The U.S. and Israel have destroyed a significant proportion of Iran’s ballistic missiles and missile launchers in "100 hours" of conflict.
  Quote: "They have fired off a third, a quarter to a third of their ballistic missiles cash... and the missile launch numbers are going down." — Jon Podhoretz [39:20]

• Impact of Asymmetric Warfare:
  • Christine Rosen cautions about the effectiveness of low-tech, "low and slow" drones, which bypass sophisticated defenses and have caused American casualties.
  Quote: "What killed those four American soldiers was a low and slow drone... able to hit that target... because of this kind of old fashioned early stage drone technology." — Christine Rosen [41:07]

2. Domestic Political Impact

• Polling and Public Support:
  • Jon relays new polls showing solidifying Republican support for the war, with caveats that long conflicts quickly erode American patience.
  Quote: "Polling came out last night showing that Republican support for the war is... 10 points higher than his support number among Republicans in polling last week." — Jon Podhoretz [35:53]

• Trump’s Political Motivations:
  • Panel discusses Trump's sensitivity to accusations he's guided by hawks or Israel, possibly motivating him to adopt or resist certain stances.
  Quote: "He got his backup at the idea that he was, you know, a tool of Israel." — Jon Podhoretz [42:50]

3. Communication and War Aims

• Unclear War Goals:
  • Persistent confusion noted over the administration's stated objectives: Preventing a nuclear Iran and/or regime change.
  Quote: "What's the stated goal of the Trump administration? What is their metric for victory? When can they say mission accomplished in this?" — Christine Rosen [51:46]
  • Israel is explicit about seeking regime change, the U.S. is not.

• The Regime Change Debate:
  • Jon and Christine debate whether the U.S. can achieve its objectives without full-scale regime change, echoing Iraq War lessons.
  • Jon: “Anything short of... our purpose is regime change. But what is the goal?” [51:33]
  • Christine: "I don't actually consider it a failure if the regime, without regime change, it's a partial success." [74:25]

4. Lessons from Iraq and Past U.S. Interventions

• Pottery Barn Rule Revisited:
  • The group questions whether the old "you break it, you own it" rule still applies, suggesting that Trump’s approach is deliberately not to "own" Iran post-conflict.
  Quote: "Trump is not buying into the we broke it, they broke it, the mullahs broke it. We're not responsible morally..." — Jon Podhoretz [72:57]

• Danger of Overpromising:
  • Christine stresses that triumphalist, shifting rhetoric ("obliterated nuclear program," then backtracking) risks public trust and undermines credibility.

5. Rhetoric, Public Understanding, and Transparency

• Civilian-Military Communications:
  • Christine advocates for clearer, more traditional presidential communication to build public trust and outline objectives, not just briefings from military officials.
  Quote: "When you have the Joint Chiefs and the political appointee, civilian head of defense, and the President all... talking from the same page, that is a reassurance..." — Christine Rosen [64:57]

• Jon Argues Confusion is Political:
  • He believes negative public opinion is mainly anti-Trump sentiment, not a confusion of aims, and ascribes poor messaging not to lack of information but to willful public opposition among the President's detractors.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Crenshaw's Loss and MAGA's Shift:
  "It's almost as though... the MAGA wing... has decided that they don't like Iraq and Afghanistan, that we were there too long... It's almost like Crenshaw's military credentials were a shadow..." — Jon Podhoretz [02:52]

• On the GOP Endorsement Stakes:
  "Trump knows from his first term what a difference the House changing from Republican hands to Democratic hands can make." — Eliana Johnson [19:16]

• On the Dangers of Confusing Messaging:
  "He hasn't gone the route of usual presidents and told us from directly from the source what he's thinking of." — Christine Rosen [62:25]

• On New Rules for War and Power:
  "All the priors that you are citing were all answers to questions that were posed in previous wars as a result of previous ideas about the world order that may no longer attain." — Jon Podhoretz [59:50]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:25]—Crenshaw’s primary defeat and Trump’s role in GOP endorsements
• [03:36]—Texas Senate primary: Cornyn vs. Paxton, Trump’s potential intervention
• [09:19]—Talarico’s win on the Democratic side and the turnout surge
• [11:10]—Talarico's appeal and possible liabilities among independent and religious voters
• [17:25]—Republican general election strategy and implications for Senate control
• [24:09]—Maine Democratic primary: Nazi controversies and the “Platner problem”
• [35:53]—Polling on public support for the Iran war
• [41:07]—Modern warfare, Iranian drones, risk of asymmetric tactics
• [51:46]—What is the goal of the war in Iran?
• [58:12]—Trump’s break from “nation-building” doctrines and war aims
• [63:59]—Is confusion about war goals public confusion or just anti-Trump sentiment?
• [72:57]—The “Pottery Barn Rule” and the morality of postwar responsibility

---

Concluding Thoughts

The episode provided an incisive breakdown of contemporary American electoral politics in key battlegrounds, framing them within the broader, still-unfolding international conflict with Iran. The hosts and panelists, true to Commentary’s tone—wry, critical, sometimes exasperated—emphasized the complications of leadership, party infighting, and the eternal challenge of clear, honest government messaging during war. Their discussions offer a cautious but insightful lens into upcoming primary showdowns, potential general election dynamics, and the fragility of consensus in a time of war and deep political division.

Transcript

[A]

Hope for the best, expect the worst. Some drink champagne Some die at first the way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best.

[B]

Expect the worst.

[A]

Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Wednesday, March 4, 2026. I am Jon Podhoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[C]

Hi, John.

[A]

And a person whom I did not allow to say hi, John. Yesterday. I was silent, so I will take a big pause. Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen.

[D]

You have to say hi to me first.

[A]

Hi. Oh, my God.

[D]

Hi, John.

[A]

This is. I am just. Everything is ruined. I am. I. I'm getting dates wrong. I'm like, I'm all over the map. It's really terrible. Hi, Christine.

[D]

Hi, John.

[A]

Okay. Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.

[E]

Hi, John.

[A]

And senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[B]

Hi, John.

[A]

Primary day last night in North Carolina and Texas. Interesting results. One, I think, very sad result, from my perspective, is the defeat of Dan Crenshaw, Representative Dan Crenshaw, who lost apparently as a result of a deep internal struggle inside the soul of the Texas Republican Party between him and Ted Cruz. That seems to be very personal, and it's a little hard to follow since they're pretty much on the same side ideologically. But Cruz apparently targeted him and importuned the White House to cut Crenshaw loose. And you would think that a guy who, you know, you know, lost his eye in combat and, you know, fought for his country and has been, I think, one of the more effective spokesmen for conservative matters in the House should have been safe. But he's gone and he lost in a landslide.

[C]

What's more, especially considering his generation, you know, he sort of bridges those who you would expect to be traditionally conservative and the sort of new crop of the, the newer types.

[A]

I mean, I think there's a weird overhang. It's almost as though having saluted and spent 20 years saluting Americans who serve for their service, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and a lot of people on the right who have decided that they don't like Iraq and Afghanistan, that we were there too long or whatever, is now, perversely, on the other foot. It's almost like they're. It's almost like Crenshaw's military credentials were implicitly some kind of a shadow over his, over his reelection because he fought in stupid wars or something like that.

[E]

Well, I think the bigger factor was the lack of a endorsement from President Donald Trump. And it's Worth noting, and this might be a nice transition to the Texas Senate primary that President Trump supported 11 House candidates in their races last night. All 11 of those candidates won their races yesterday, and he did not, including the embattled Tony Gonzalez, who's been engulfed in a scandal surrounding an affair he had with a former aide who went on to commit suicide. And he did not endorse Crenshaw, who lost. And so, for all the talk about Trump being a lame duck and MAGA fracturing, the President's endorsement still matters enormously and is now up for grabs in the Texas Senate primary, where incumbent Senator John Cornyn prevailed by one point over the insurgent Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Also engulfed in several scandals, Paxton was expected to surpass Cornyn. Cornyn and the Republican establishment poured an enormous amount of money into this race, but this race will now go into a runoff.

[A]

Right. We should talk about there, what, what the. What, what the internal game is.

[E]

So Paxton, the runoff will be May 26th.

[A]

Right. So pack. So they basically.

[E]

Yeah, go, go ahead. I was.

[A]

There were three. There were three. There were 3 candidates in the race. So it was Paxton, Corin and this guy Hunt. Hunt got about 12% of the vote.

[E]

Wesley Hunt.

[A]

Y. Wesley Hunt and Paxton, you call him an insurgent, but he is the elected Attorney General of Texas compared to

[E]

Cornyn, four term incumbent Republican Senator because

[A]

he's a Michigan, a slime ball crook adulterer. This race was a three way race. Cornyn, Paxton, and a kind of weird spoiler candidate. Wesley hunt got about 12%. So Paxton and Cornyn effectively ended up at around 41, 42% of the vote with Cornyn a little bit ahead. And this is an interesting race because Cornyn, establishment Republican, but very conservative, facing down the Attorney General of the state who is noted for very, very, very extreme tactics, rhetoric, language and personal behavior, let's just put it that way. So if what MAGA means is that you're supposed to like advance patently unconstitutional acts as the Attorney General of your state and have affairs and be corrupt and get the party, the Republican Party in the state House to let you give you a free pass because they didn't want to hand Democrats a victory in what was clearly a kind of open and shut case of his corruption, if that's all like a feature of being an insurgent outsider, which is how Paxton is running, then we'll see how that goes. I do think, Eliana, the important aspect here is that the Democrats did something interesting last night that then will reflect back on the Republican. Yes, the question of how the runoff between Paxton and Cornyn goes.

[E]

So on the Democratic side, the race is not going to a runoff, and the results were surprising as well. Where the media darling pastor, you know, Beto O' Rourke 2.0, James Tallarico defeated outright the Democratic House firebrand, Jasmine Crockett, who's an African American woman. Suffice it to say that at the tail end of this race, Talarico, who was profiled in the New Yorker and recalled that Stephen Colbert wanted to have him on CBS and then decided not to air the interview because he was warned about equal time. And that scandal ended up giving him a publicity and fundraising boost. But he is the favored candidate of the establishment, of the media, etc. He won with 53% of the vote. He is a more palatable general election candidate for Democrats. He outspent Crockett 25 million to $5 million. So Democrats have the better candidate. If Paxton wins the runoff, they actually have a shot at this Texas Senate seat. And it would require Republicans in the general to dump an enormous amount of money to keep the seat. Cornyn winning the runoff would essentially put this away for Republicans. And so what we're going to watch between now and May is will Trump intervene to endorse Cornyn and just put this race away for Republicans so they don't have to dump untold amounts of money into this race in a general election?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, the Talarico, by pure

[E]

politics, Paxton is somebody who will not be palatable on the Republican side to independent voters. The other thing to note is just on the Democratic side, there was a big Latino surge for Democrats in these Hispanic counties along the Rio Grande. Democratic turnout was up big. And also in both Texas and North Carolina, Democratic turnout was. They outperformed Republican turnouts by 100,000 votes in Texas, by 200,000 votes in North Carolina. It does suggest there's just more enthusiasm on the Democratic side. Sorry, Christine, I cut you off.

[D]

No, no, no, that's good. No, I was just going to say, I know everybody's painting Talarico is like Beto O' Rourke 2.0, but he's a much savvier candidate in a lot of ways. You young voters really like him, and not even just progressive young voters. And he's, he's. His outreach is, I think, a little bit more sophisticated than Beto's. He talks about religion and faith in a way that isn't disingenuous. And that, that, I think, is also appealing to those independent voters who are kind of Dissatisfied. Look, a Democrat hasn't won a Senate seat in Texas since what, the 1980s. So it's still an uphill battle for him to win statewide. But I think his. He'll be interesting to watch. Gen Z loves candidates like that. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll win, but he's not taking the hyper progressive ro. I think the fact that Jasmine Crockett lost is and that she's already contesting the results of the election is indicative. The other thing I would say is that Cornyn, this runoff is still going to cost a lot of political money, time and energy because the people who turn out in runoffs are the most hardcore voters and they favor Paxton, not. Not Cornyn. So the runoff itself could end up being a bit of a nail biter and will still cost the Republican Party in Texas a lot of money before it's over.

[A]

I want to point out that while Tall Rico is an interesting candidate and he talks about his faith in a way that is rare in increasingly secular Democratic circles, he did deliver a soundbite for the ages that either Paxton or Cornyn is going to use against him to the tune of $50 million. That is pretty ridiculous, even though theologically it's not entirely wrong, as he declared that God was non binary. Now, I again like the idea that God is ungendered. Obviously will hit the ears of people very poorly who are, you know, classic people of faith.

[D]

Not necessarily God is not a. I mean, God is.

[A]

That's what I'm saying. Theologically, God is beyond gender and is saying job like, you know, he is in the whirlwind. You have no idea who he is or what he is or.

[D]

Yeah, there's the God, the Father, God the Son, got the Holy Spirit part of it.

[A]

Yeah. And so all of that being the case, you know, it's still like a gift. It's a gift to either one of them because it's just. Is this the kind of length is. Is he one of us really? Is he really like. If you're an independent Texas voter who is maybe a churchgoer and all that, are you really like. It really is sort of like, you know, I'm for you and he is for God being a they them.

[D]

Like, it's actually Pete Buttigieg is the hardest hit by Talarico's candidacy because he's sort of. I think of him as Buttigieg 2.0. He's kind of doing this. That lane that Buttigieg ran in for a while and of course lost.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Most Interesting thing about Talarico is that when Democrats try to make a play for a Texas seat, they nominate somebody who is almost supernaturally obnoxious. Like, like someone who's been like, spider man was bit by a radioactive spider. Their Texas candidates, the Democrats are usually bit by a radioactive something that's obnoxious because it's like Wendy Davis and Beta, you know, and all these guys, they usually put up somebody who is insufferable. And Talarico, the thing that he has going for him is that he's not insufferable. And that is rare for the Democrats yet. Right? He yet. But his opponent was precisely in the mold, maybe even like breaking the mold. Jasmine Crockett of the kind of insane, please go away Texas Democrat that we're told is the future of the party and going to turn Texas blue over and over again. The one thing Republicans haven't had a chance yet is to run against somebody who isn't running against themselves.

[A]

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 that 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 calc 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 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. 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. We'll 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 to care and 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 Amazon terms 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.

[D]

He's also a happy warrior type, which is unusual. Most of the Democrats now are angry, you know, angry crazy progressives. But he does, he's occupying that lane in a way that I think will be interesting to watch if he can sustain it.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, we do have like seven months to go before the election. He isn't really battle tested in any clear way. And obviously an enormous amount of money will be showered on this race one way or another. If Paxton does prevail, then Republicans are gonna have to spend twice as much as they probably would for Cornyn because the polling will immediately have that as a jump ball. And therefore, you know, it's a. It's an opportunity cost for Paxton to win, which is the case that Cornyn is going to make to the White House, which is, endorse me, endorse me, endorse me. Like you're going to want to spend that money in, say, North Carolina, where if There is a 200,000 primary voter advantage that Democrats have over Republicans. There is a Senate race there for the retiring Thom Tillis's seat. And you know, that is if, if the midterms go badly, winning that seat will be a Cooper winning over Whatley. That will be a very significant bite into the, into the Republican apple and question of whether with a couple of other lucky breaks like Paxton getting nominated, maybe that, that, that Democrats can take the Senate as well as the House. So Cornet has a really good case to make Democrats seem not only in picking Talarico in Texas, but in a House race in North Carolina between Ms. Someone remind me of Tushi Push.

[E]

One thing I think it's worth saying is Trump knows from his first term what a difference the House changing from Republican hands to Democratic hands can make. That happened in 2018. He's never experienced the House or the Senate moving from Republican hands to Democratic hands. And in fact, that is what forestalled him from being impeached in or removed. Sorry, excuse me, removed in, in 2020. Right. No, no, sorry.

[A]

19.

[E]

2019. Right. And so that has to be at the forefront of his mind when he thinks about this Texas Senate race and assesses the Senate map and considers his endorsements.

[A]

I mean, let's talk about this because I don't think that the impeachment with a Democratic House and the Democratic Senate, I don't think the impeachment will still get anywhere near leading to a removal. But with Democrats in charge of the Senate, they, and assuming Trump gets impeached by the House, they get to set the terms of the impeachment trial which you, which they could stretch out for four months. There's no, you know, there's no these, the, the 2019 impeachment trial was I think 10 days long and it over and that was it. And Obviously, you know, McConnell, I don't even how long that impeachment trial was for October 6th, for January 6th. But you can't, you know, you cannot order the Democrats to do it speedy. They can do it slow. They can drag it out, they can call 250 witnesses.

[E]

Yeah, I was going to say that there's a lot of other things a Democrat controlled Senate can do, but in

[A]

that one place, if he thinks that impeachment was torture, which I don't think he does, but he really wasn't torture. It can be torture like, but a

[E]

Democratic controlled House was torture for him in a lot of ways. Those investigations, they consume a lot of energy inside the White House.

[A]

Right? They do. And this, but, but, but an impeachment of him conducted by a Democratic Senate would be a particular personal torture because it would distract. You know, it's one of the reasons why you're not supposed to do it frivolously, because it is something that would occupy the President's time and attention and, you know, he may have bigger fish to fry. But if. But if you're. Whoever ends up being the Senate Majority leader, if Democrats were to win, I don't think it'll be Schumer, is my guess. They would have a real incentive to make this as agonizing as possible, because there aren't even that many consequences to be had from them torturing him because he is a lame duck. And if the Republicans are forced to spend a year defending him and screaming about him and yelling about how unfair he's being treated and all of that, that doesn't really help them going into 2028 either. It means they're looking backward. They're talking about Trump as opposed to the future. All of the things that you would want the party to be able to do as it goes, if you're not Trump, because, of course, you would want everybody to focus on you and, you know, have all political conversations stop except about you and have all these defenders of you. Nonetheless, not good for the party. So Trump should do what he can to forestall that Democratic takeover of the Senate. And I think it's probably an easy call that he endorses Cornyn particularly, because. And let me just try. Oh, Abe, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[C]

Well, I was just also saying that it's not good for the party in that the process and the spectacle of it will attach to whoever come. Comes out of the Trump administration as the standard bearer in 2028 as well.

[A]

Right. Well, this, I think. All right, so we. So we should want there to be a Republican Senate. And Democrats are clearly not going to make it all that easy. It's possible they'll make it easy because they may, I assume now they're going to nominate Graham Platner in Maine to run against Susan Collins, as opposed to the governor, Janet Mills, who Democrats were ecstatic to have recruited to run in against Collins. And then this guy comes out of nowhere with his Nazi tattoo.

[D]

And not all Nazis.

[B]

I think it was the reverse, though.

[C]

He.

[B]

He jumped in, and then Democrats got Mills to be like, save us from the token.

[A]

So Platner is going to win. So it appears like platters, I think 20 points up or something like the polling there is insane. So I don't know when that primary is. I, I thought it was, I thought it was yesterday as we had a conversation about this. Yes. Or so it's in a couple of months or something. And clearly there he seems. No, no amount of Nazi paraphernalia on his body is going to apparently deny him this nomination. So that that's helped. That'll be helpful to have someone that extreme because he's not just extreme because he has Nazis very.

[D]

He goes on platforms and appears on the platforms of radical anti Semitic podcasters and no, he's completely embedded in that left wing.

[E]

Well, that part like the Democratic base will like that's very appealing.

[A]

That's why he's gonna win, right? That's why he's gonna win. But Bane is a weird.

[B]

Well, there's also this, I mean this

[E]

process of like a really formidable competitor and she's someone who knows how to everyone always independent voters.

[A]

And Maine has the largest number of independent voters in the country. It always has. It's a very weird political state. It's got very weird valences. And being that appealing to that to, to, to a slit to a segment of the Democratic base is something that would be very helpful in certain other states. Not sure it's helpful in Maine. And Collins is obviously a weakened candidate from the candidate she was six years ago when she ran. But still, if she, you know, if it's a, if it's a binary.

[B]

Mainstream Democrats ran a more mainstream, far less Nazi inflected candidate six years ago. So Collins is probably feeling pretty good about it. But part of, part of this, part of the process that's interesting here is that there is a, A sort of parallel to the Republican podcasting, the right wing podcasting extremes because the POD bros, the Obama advisors who became the big lefty podcasters, every time somebody has something bad to say about Israel, they do it in front of that. They bring them on and they, and they bash Israel. They, they're serving as, you know, this kind of. And then for Platner, when he ran into trouble, you know, each time he does, every you know, month or so he go, they immediately gets invited on, on, on POD crap on America or whatever and you know, and, and just take shots at Israel and you know what, it reminds everybody how much he hates Israel and blah, blah, blah. And there is something interesting about the parallel because the Republican side, while this is like a big thing on the right, the, the right wing podcasters have yet to really claim like big names on. In of Republican electeds. And the connection like the POD save America Bros. This test with Platner is interesting because it's got both the podcasters and, you know, somebody who could play like a key role or be a bellwether of the future of the party as an elected senator. And they could, you know, his victory could leap them ahead of, like, Tucker's wildest dreams.

[A]

But I had a, I had a. Well, I don't know. Tucker. Tucker got his favorite person made vice president. So I still think that's the podcast pro victory of, and of all podcast pro victories you're going to have, I'm,

[E]

I'm not underestimating Platner. I actually think he's. He, he's dug himself out of some scandals that arguably really should have done him in and Mills should. Look, I don't know how reliable these polls are, but Platner is quite a talented retail politician, and so I think we underestimate him at our peril. I anticipate that race will be quite competitive in a year that's challenging to Republicans. And I, I certainly am not writing him off.

[A]

No, I wouldn't write him off. I'm saying that if you, if you're, if you're Collins, you want to run against Platner. If you're Collins, you want to run against Platner and not Mills, because they basically are, you know, they're slight. I mean, Mills is a liberal Democrat and Collins is a sort of moderate Republican. So they are ideologically different. But, you know, they're pretty much one's a 79 year old lady, one's a 74 year old lady. You know, like, that's a harder race for Collins to draw to make the contrast that will help her with independent voters who might have gotten turned off by her. But I still think you're right that, you know, a talented politician is a talented politician and a guy who can kind of capture people's imaginations and look different and also be way younger. You know, I mean, this is the

[B]

mom Donnie effect, right?

[A]

I mean, but Collins is a better politician than Cuomo and and is a, you know, is a. And has and has in two. This is the third cycle in which Democrats are like, oh, we can take her down. So obviously everything changes and every election is different, but she does have a history of confounding expectations and the polling being lousy in Maine. Like, I think the last poll when she won that race in 2020 by 9, the final polling had that as a jump ball and she won by nine. So I just like her.

[D]

Like, I would not underestimate the power of the crone there because she's, she's got a way to talk to me.

[A]

A bit of a crone.

[D]

I, I'm on pro crone.

[A]

Okay.

[D]

I think more crone leadership is necessary in the Senate. But, but she, I, I do think she has, she has a light touch as a retail politician. Eliana is right that Platner is much more exciting and certainly the news media prefers to cover someone more exciting. But I, I don't know. She's savvy and she has a lot of allies in the state that I think will turn out for her come election time.

[B]

Also, it's not too late for Janet Mills to get a tattoo of her own. There's monsters.

[A]

How do you know she doesn't have one? How do you know she doesn't have one?

[E]

She actually came out and said, John, during one of these things. She came out and said, for the record, I have no tattoos.

[A]

Okay? So unless she's lying, all politicians lie.

[E]

The, the, the incident in my mind that made me say this about Platner was that at a town hall he was actually challenged on this about his old Reddit posts. And somebody said, I'm a trans, you know something and you've made disparaging comments about trans people. And his response was just incredibly nimble at a point of challenge. It wasn't exciting or, you know, fiery. It was a Bill Clinton I feel your pain kind of response that was dexterous and compelling.

[A]

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-com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary 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 bowl 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 bowl and 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. Okay, so I have one thing also I wanted to add about the Texas race and this question that will face Trump about Paxton versus Cornyn and that you would expect, given Trump's own behavior and the slavish fealty and panting, you know, obsequiousness that Paxton shows toward Trump and has for years, that his preference would be to endorse Paxton as a kind of lapdog. But he would. If the war hadn't started last week and if Tucker and the podcast bros, most of them, hadn't decided to go anti war, they might have had more sway in this conversation with the White House and with the White House political office to be able to say, look, this is where the party is. They want, you know, they want Paxton. Now, the results don't say they want Paxton. The results say it's a jump ball. But Trump may have reason, as I keep saying, to start getting angry at the Tucker wing and to get. And if they say we want Paxton, he'll be like, well, screw you. I want Cornyn just to show them who's boss and not to look like he's giving them fealty or he's like following their lead. So this makes that choice, I think, a little more interesting. I'm not gonna predict that he's gonna pick Cornyn, it just seems like the most obvious play. And who knows whether Cornyn raised his eyebrow once in Trump's direction and that would be enough for Trump not to endorse him. But here we are. So that's an interesting transition to two things about the war. One is that polling came out last night showing that Republican support for the war is, as the days pass, he's got 90% Republican support for the war, which is actually 10 points higher than his support number among Republicans in polling last week in general, which makes sense to me because of course, Republicans are the hawk part, you know, are the party of the military and hawks and all of that and that and that and, and older. And so there are a lot more people in the Republican camp who Remember 1980, remember the hostage crisis, remember, you know, remember Achille Laura, remember all kinds of things that went on that they're, you know, that they're willing to Cobar Towers that they understand that Iran was involved in, and so they're happy to see America take care of the mullahs and make changes there. There seems to be a time limit on the support, right. They. Overwhelming support. If the, if the war lasts weeks, support starts to drop. If you say months or years, obviously. I mean, though I would say that too. Like what, what rational person wouldn't say, what you really want is this war to be over in a couple of weeks as opposed to dragging on for a long time. Like, that's, that's, if you're given that, would you like the war to go on for years? Of course.

[C]

Well, but there is another answer.

[A]

Nobody wants another way to look at

[C]

it, which is it should end when, when the US accomplishes its goal.

[A]

But that wasn't, that wasn't the question that was asked. To be fair, it's not like you can compare apples and oranges. Like, you can't say, yeah, the answer,

[B]

nobody ever asks if you want to call a ceasefire.

[A]

That's a different, you know, that's a sort of different question. But it, but we did get a briefing this morning from General Kane and from Secretary Hegseth, and it is worth remembering because we live life so gradually that it's only, the war has been, you know, they, they, they counted as 100 hours. Hexa said, this war has been going on for 100 hours and, and threw out some pretty impressive numbers. I think the most important number was, he said, according to our calculations, the Iranians have fired off 500 ballistic missiles and 2,000 drones. And we believe based on, or what, what what people I know believe is that the Iranians after Midnight Hammer and some other stuff had an arsenal of about 1500-2000 ballistic missiles. So in the, in these last hundred hours they have fired off a third, a quarter to a third of their ballistic missiles Cash and the missile launch numbers are going down. So why are they going down? Because when they fire a missile, the Israelis, or I think the Israelis are the ones who are really doing this, can pinpoint the site of the launcher, either a stationary launcher or, or even a mobile launcher, and then take out the mobile launcher, which is the most valuable one to take out because obviously it's harder to find, it can dry, it's on a truck, you could drive it around and therefore it's hard. Every one of those destructions of a launcher means that the miss, you know, it's harder for them to fire off a missile. So on the one hand we're getting at these missiles are having very, are having no effect. There hasn't been a serious direct strike from an Iran 500 missiles. You know, what's the practical effect been? Here's an interesting stat for you about Israel and the injuries since the war began. There have been 400 injuries. There have been a couple of deaths, 400 injuries, 280 of which come from people as they are running into shelters. The injuries are from people panicking. They hear the sirens, they fall, they, they, they trip down the stairs as they're running into the shelter or they trip on the sidewalk or they trip on the stairs going into the shelter. So just think about that, that there's more bodily injury done to Israelis by having to go protect themselves in the shelters than from the Iranian attacks by a factor of three to one or two to one or whatever the math is, because we're back in Math corner here. 280 out of 400. I would not say that that suggests that the Iranian response to Israel's provocations has been effective.

[D]

But there is, there is something to be concerned about with regard to however asymmetric the warfare is in this conflict. What killed those four American soldiers was a low and slow drone from which the bunker that was otherwise fortified against, you know, IEDs, other explosives could, didn't have any protection over the roof. So they were able to, to hit that target and kill those soldiers because of this kind of old fashioned early stage drone technology. And I think it's notable that it's

[A]

funny, it's the first time I've heard drone technology referred to with the adjective old fashioned.

[D]

Well, compared To, I mean, the low and slow. I mean, it's meant to evade the kind of tracking systems that our, our extremely advanced military has. And it worked. In that case, I thought it was interesting that the, the Iranians have released some propaganda videos showing all their drones in their tunnel, like, all ready to go, which struck me as a sign of desperation rather than of strength. But that, that kind of technological, that, that asymmetric warfare also extends to the amount of time Iran thinks it can hold out and cause damage to not just to Israel and the United States, but to all of the other countries in the region. And assuming, given that poll you noted earlier, John, all they have to do is outlast Trump. And that, I think, is, is the game is part of the game they're playing here is if they can just hang on, however much damage they take, he might back off or the, you know, the midterms will happen and there'll be some. So there's all this waiting game going on. I think that's where I was heartened to see the briefing today, where, you know, very clear, very strength. These are. We're continuing the fight, but that's got to continue, I fear, for a lot longer than just a few weeks.

[A]

Spine again. Trump responding negatively to attacks and criticism of him and of the war effort that may have the effect of stopping stiffening his spine. Just as he came out yesterday to say, don't nobody say that. Bibi is leading me around by the nose. I told them to go, I'm the one who made this war. He is not looking for the Mike Johnson off ramp or anything like that. He got his backup at the idea that he was, you know, a tool of, of, of Israel. And similarly, if Democrats start saying, oh, this is a failure, it's not going well, blah, blah, blah, yada da blah. You know, Hakeem Jeffries and others that also might have a perverse spine stiffening effect, which is, I'm not going anywhere. Like, I'm not going to, I'm not going to exceed to you guys. I'm not going to say, you're right that we need to get out of here unless it starts looking like Minneapolis. I mean, unless there are moments of terrible reversal where it looks like we have gotten ourselves in over our head or there's a horrible surprise strike that is, you know, horrible or domestic terrorist

[D]

attack on, on the homeland. That's the other thing.

[A]

Right. Okay.

[D]

Of course there is heightened security and awareness of that now for this reason.

[A]

But there's a political dynamic here. One of the reasons that an ordinary conflict, that the people who dislike the leader hold their fire, so to speak, and want to see where it's going. Because there is a national, you know, there's sort of generally a kind of like, rally around the flag effect. The rally around the flag effect here might happen in two weeks. Hasn't happened yet, obviously, but. And obviously people. There are just so many people in America who don't want to rally around Trump that, you know, they'll always be a ceiling on the possibility of national pride in this victory, or what appears to be a victory. But if we go on for two weeks and the Iranians look like they're sputtering out and they can't get a leader going, and the Kurds start fighting back, and, you know, this, that, and the other thing. This is a thing where success might breed more support, which I think has happened with the Republican electorate since the first polling on Sunday, granted. Okay, so it's like. It's ridiculous. It's three days, like, so you had bad polling the first day, and you have good polling on the Republican side. You know, three days in. This is all nonsense. It's like, who knows what it is? It could just be noise and not signal. But, you know, as a successfully prosecuted campaign with almost no American. If this goes on this way, with almost no American combat deaths and very little damage done to our side or to Israel, while Iran's regime is foundering, its navy is gone, its air defenses are gone, and it's increasingly crippled. And the Iranian people see this, and they're all in chaos in Iran because nobody knows who's running the IRGC or the Basij or any of the forces they're supposed to keep, quell all domestic disturbances and all of that. And Rubio saying yesterday and we hearing overnight that, you know, that we haven't even begun to inflict the damage that we could do if things go on the way they're going. It could be a very, you know, the story in two weeks could be very different from the story now domestically.

[D]

I don't think we'll ever get. I don't. I think it's way too optimistic to assume we'll get a rally around the flag effect with this conflict. Not only because I think it's the goal. We're still a little uncertain about what the end goal is for the United States. That hasn't been clearly articulated. I think it's. We can point to certain things, certain victories. Look, the Ayatollah is gone. That's good. What comes Next. Trump was asked about this quite a few times yesterday. He didn't have an answer. He's like, I don't know, we keep killing the people I thought we'd put in power. And there was a cavalier response there that I was like, let's take this kind of seriously. It's an issue. But I just don't think our very politicized, polarized culture will allow for rallying around the flag. Even for those of us who are grateful to see the Ayatollah is gone. The uncertainty leaves us, I think even us in a position where it's too soon to really become optimistic about what will happen in even a few weeks.

[A]

I don't even mean it as a rally around the flag effect. I just mean that success, success becomes less deniable the longer it sinks in. If again, if there aren't moments of reversal.

[B]

Well, the big challenge for them in turn in, in terms of quantitatively measuring something is that they, the two things that they really have to do in this war, they cannot prove to anyone really that they've done that they've accomplished, you know, whatever they've, they enough to declare victory. In other words, they want to stop Iran from being able to resuscitate its nuclear program and they have to degrade it enough to do that. And they want to probably number one now is take out all those missiles because how expensive does it get for the, you know, they're not really going out and explaining this, but the US can't get into US and Israel can't get into a war of rocket attrition because they're going to shoot ten dollar rockets, you know, at a million dollar, you know, takedown on the other side. It costs a lot of money to keep this going, which is why they're have, they're taking out the launching pads and all that stuff. So all that is a very, very, very important goal. But it's hard to explain to the American people here are all the, the missile launchers we took out and therefore this, and here are how few missiles they have left. I mean, you can say that, but it doesn't have the same effect of we, we knocked off the government, you know, we have Maduro in custody and he's going to go on trial or whatever. And I think that it's, it's, it's extremely important what they're doing. But also it's very hard to satisfy a public with, you know, the number of rocket launchers you've taken out.

[A]

Well, nobody know, like nobody in America is in the military anymore. You know, I mean, I don't, I don't know what the percentage of the population that is either served in the military or has members in the military is, but it's the lowest that it has ever been by a factor of at least two. And in some ways, way, you know, I mean, you're maybe your great, great, you know, if you're 20 years old, your great grandfather may have fought in World War II, if he's still alive. But, well, but that, I'm push back

[D]

a little bit on that because, for example, the four soldiers who died this week were reserv. There's, there's a rather large number of Americans who serve in reserve capacity and they have done more tours.

[A]

No, I just mean, I just mean that when you say they go out to give a briefing and they say we're doing this with missile launchers, and there's this, not only is that hard to understand if you're not somebody who has, like, read extensively about how this is going and, you know, stores information and can then call it back to understand why it's important to take a missile launcher out rather than a missile and why, you know, it's like, teach a man to fish and you don't have to and he'll eat for a lifetime rather than giving him a fish and then you have to give him another fish. It's sort of like that, that, that version, like take the, take the trigger, you know, take the gun away and the bullet is, is, is useless. It's maybe hard for people to understand, but you don't expect them to understand. Like, that's not the weird part is we're having, they're doing these briefings. They're providing substantive information. It's not going to make sense to most people what's happening. What's going to make sense is that the Iranians are firing fewer and fewer missiles, Americans aren't dying, Israelis aren't dying. And every time somebody gets named to a position of authority in Iran, they're dead in 10 minutes. And then we're going to have to see what next week and the week after bring in terms of the domestic circumstance in Iran. Because I think we can all agree, I think we can all agree that the only way this looks like an unqualified victory is the regime falling anything short of whether or not our purpose is regime change. But what is the goal?

[D]

What's the stated goal of the Trump administration? What is their metric for victory? When can they say mission accomplished in this? Because the question that's what I'm telling you constantly over the last few days. I think they say, why are we, why are we in Iran? What is Trump's answer to why are we in Iran? In a sentence? Because a president should be able to give that description. Look, I would be satisfied if all

[A]

you said to make sure that Iran

[D]

doesn't get a nuclear weapon and just to repeat that over and over and over. Then all the details about what we strike and when and where and how are part of that larger goal. But I haven't heard that consistent message. And I think that's a lot of the question of why we, why are we fighting in Iran? That, that's the question. I mean, I know why we're fighting. We all talk about it. We've been talking about it a lot. But I think that's when I, when I harp on the messaging, it's that there's not a consistent message. When can they declare victory? Because he's declared victory with Maduro being arrested. But what's going on right now in Venezuela, I wouldn't call that necessarily a success yet. So I think those. Remember what happened to Bush when he said mission accomplished before the mission was accomplished. I mean, there is a sense in which that rhetoric and that that setting of goals matters for the people.

[A]

I'm going to tell you right now, Bush said mission accomplished and then everything got undone because Albright came back and said there are no nuclear weapons. It's not that mission accomplished was a joke before they came back and said, you know, no, I know. I'm just saying doesn't exist. Okay. So he's saying, and they are saying we're here to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. And secondarily, as Rubio says, but it's hard to follow. We needed to go now to prevent them from developing a short range ballistic missile program that would function the way the missile program in North Korea has functioned since they announced its existence, which is by having it, they raise the price of ever doing anything to prevent them from going nuclear ever again. It's too dangerous. If they have short range missiles, it's too dangerous for our pilots. Again, second order, hard to understand. You're trying to make people make associations. That's why I say the war is won when the regime falls. And Trump's not saying that and they're not saying that. And that's, they've made a choice to do that. And I don't know what that is. Israel is saying it.

[E]

I was, that's what I was about to say. I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that Israel is being very clear that regime change is their goal and our goals are different. I'm not sure, you know, Trump's goal may be regime change. I suspect he doesn't actually care that much what happens on the ground. I think he's quite satisfied to have killed the Ayatollah who tried to kill him. But I'm not sure, I'm not sure he really cares beyond that, what happens, what Trump, Hegseth Rubio have said is they cannot develop nuclear weapons, they cannot have a nuclear weapon, they cannot have missiles, and they cannot arm terror proxies that threaten our bases or our citizens, you know, anywhere in the world. They have not said anything about regime change, but fighting arm in arm with an ally that's being explicit about it does.

[A]

So some confusion, okay, but let's talk talkless. You need to make sure they don't get a nuclear weapon, they don't arm proxies around the world and they don't develop short term range missiles and they don't do this and they don't do that. The only way you do that is to, is, is for that government no longer to exist. There is no, they can stand up and they can sign an armistice or, you know, can have a, you can have a. If, if, if your goal is to get a, a peace treaty that says they agree not to do X, Y and Z, maybe. But the person who, who signs that peace treaty, I'm telling you right now, isn't going to be part of this regime like that. Who's going to sign it? Like it's, this is the, this is the orthodoxy of this bureaucracy. If it still exists in any shape or form, it's not going to sign that.

[B]

Well, that's why they promoted Khamenei's son, right? I mean, that they, they want, they want to give off, they want to present the idea of continuity. And it doesn't sound like he was so obvious. Nobody was really talking about him. It sounds almost like a child king. It sounds, or it sounds similar to the Assads. Maybe, you know, the, you know, Hafez Al Assad wanted his, you know, his, his other son to take over. His other son was really made for the job of being Syrian dictator where it's mostly chopping people up. And then he had this like, you know, medical school son, you know, who wanted to do, you know, other stuff. And Bashar had to kind of fill the role when the, when the other son and he really outperformed and he really. Yeah, I mean, he really, you know, he wanted his father's approval.

[A]

Barbaric.

[B]

He wanted his father's approval and he earned it. By killing 500,000 people.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

But, but the common a thing seems very similar, which is like, we will present the idea of continuity and the, and the picture of continuity as much as possible, even if it's hard for people to believe, even if, you know, it looks like we're reaching.

[A]

But this is important. He hasn't been chosen yet. We've only had news stories saying they've chosen him. And Israel has said, the minute they name you, you are going to be dead. Israel said that yesterday. It said anyone who was chosen to be the successor head of this regime, we will kill. Do we have any doubt that Israel has the capability to do that? They are picking off people at the street level, at the secondary level in the Basij, they're like hitting buildings at the ends of blocks that are known to be besieged, kind of like police stations and stuff like that. So they haven't even, we haven't even.

[B]

They're looking through the traffic camera. When you stop at a red light in Tehran, they're looking right at you.

[A]

I think what's fascinating, so I'm just saying, like, they haven't even named him yet. And imagine they name him and then Israel assassinates him. Then who's the next one? And who's the next one? Like, that's why I think regime change is almost inevitable, actually, unless a disaster happens that turns this into a world historical mistake.

[C]

I think what's fascinating here is that what Trump is trying to do is say, I'm not doing this war by the old rules. I'm not playing this game of end game. What's your end game? I break it. I, I, I, I break it, I own it. That's what you say. That's what they used to say. That's not what I'm interested in. He muses very freely about, well, what's the worst that could happen? We could end up with a regime as bad as the one that we took out. And he's trying to say, and that's possible. Here's what I'm here to do. Drop bombs on these people, meaning the leadership and meaning the military and internal police apparatus, destroy their most threatening weaponry and leave it up to them. And if Israel wants to take a part in the rest of it, they could take a part in that too, and that's fine. And you can call it whatever you want. I don't think he cares about the model that we're talking about. And this may or may not work for him. It's so hard to see in a sort of from PR standpoint how that works for him without regime change. But we'll see. You know, this is one of those things, one of those traditions, institutions that he changes by reconceiving. Genius, idiocy, nutty.

[A]

But the conception. Right. You know, what's important about what you just said is that the conception, all the priors that you are citing were all answers to questions that were posed in previous wars as a result of previous ideas about the world order that may no longer attain. No, we're not going into Afghan. In other words, like it's 25 years. When we went into Afghanistan and Iraq and other places, we were still in a position where we had to argue that we were not. We were not doing so with imperial ambitions. We don't want to own Iraq. We don't want to go. We don't want to. We. We're there to liberate the people and to eliminate a threat. And the same in Afghanistan because it was still part of the general world conversation that the West's in. You know, the West's behavior in non Western places was imperialist and it had been. And we are not really an imperial power, though we had some colonies, we had Philippines, you know, we had places that were served that had been Cuba and others that had been in our ambit almost accidentally. Right. We got Cuba and the Philippines as a result of winning a war with Spain. It's not like that was the purpose of our going to war with Spain in 1898. But we're not imperialists. So we're doing this and we're going to get out. We're going to give you elections and we're going to get out. We're not. That's not what we're about. That's not the conversation anymore, except on the far, far, far left. Right. So he shouldn't be answering that question because it's the answer to a question that has long since. The imperial power on the planet Earth is Russia, which is attempting to colonize Ukraine. It's happening right in front of our eyes. We see what, that, what an imperialist war is right there. And so he should operate under different rules. He's not saying he's operating on his own rules. He's not saying this is a war for regime change, because I think he thinks that he made such a big deal out of how terrible Iraq and Afghanistan were that people are gonna go, ah, you're in regime change. And now you're a regime change guy and you're Bush and neocon. And he doesn't want. He doesn't want to be tagged that

[C]

he also believes it. He doesn't. He thinks that nation building is perilous.

[A]

But we're not talking about nation building. We're talking about knocking regime over and then having somebody else come in afterwards.

[D]

But this is where. This is where the hyperbole harms what I think are reasonable goals. Look, the White House posted on, like, the official White House account that the Operation Epic Fury goals were destroy Iran Iranian regime's missiles, annihilate the Navy, ensure terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the world and ensure Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. And that's all fine, that those are reasonable goals to have. I think the issue is that, you know, after Operation Midnight Hammer, he said, we obliterated their nuclear program. It's gone. That's why we did it. We're amazing. And everyone believed him. And now it's, well, we have to stop their nuclear program. Well, yeah, they obviously restarted it, but that raises questions in people's mind about, well, if you obliterate something, it's not coming back, but it's back. And again, this is where the hyperbole. He's. He's relying on America's trust in his role as commander in chief to achieve those goals. And I think Eliana's point about our partners having different goals and being very clear and straightforward about them is confusing. And he is going to need the American people to give him time to achieve all of those goals and to show us that he's achieved them. So that's where I know, I harp on the rhetoric, but the rhetoric matters because he hasn't. He hasn't gone the route of usual presidents and told us from directly from the source what he's thinking of. Look, if he would just get on the television and read that tweet, I'd be happy. But I do think that it's not that people don't understand what's going on. It's that there is a kind of confusion in public opinion right now about why we're there, because it hasn't been confused.

[A]

We don't know that you're asserting that the problem here is confusion about why we're there. I think the problem is that 60% of the country doesn't like Trump. And when they're asked if they like what Trump did, they say they don't like it. That's. And so that's why everything here dovetails with his polling. If his polling were better, this would pull better. Is it polling worse? It's worse. I don't know that the American people are confused or not confused. Trump's doing something. The people who like him say it's great. The people who don't like him say it.

[D]

I was referring to when you said they didn't understand what's going on, what the war goals were.

[A]

No, but I think when you. When, when the Secretary of defense. This was also true during the Gulf War, whatever. When the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs give a briefing and they say, we've eliminated these drones and we've lived. This is a. These missiles, these ballistic missiles. We've taken out their navy for the first time since 1945. We've used a torpedo to take out a warship and all of that. And people are going, I don't know what any of that is.

[D]

Ah, but that. I don't know what we do that. The reason Schwarzkopf had his maps is to show we are different, we are distinct. We are a civilian led military. And when you have the Joint Chiefs and this, and the political appointee, civilian head of, you know, defense and the President all, you know, talking from the same page, that is a reassurance that this is. And the transparency of what we've done, saying we are responsible for these acts and this is what we did. It might. The details don't matter. It's actually the theater of that matters when a country as powerful as ours goes to war and a democracy goes to war. That transparency, that consistency, that role for the civilian as well as the military leader in tandem, working together, I think is hugely important for trust building in the institution, not just of the presidency, but of the military. And that's where I feel like. I don't know. I just. You're right that I'm asserting this. I've.

[B]

Was this morning's press conference like, is that a version. Is that what you want to see more? Is that like an example of like, Kane and Hegseth doing that sort of thing? Is that what you. What you mean?

[D]

Fine, but I. We need to hear from the Commander in Chief as well. That's a consistent thing that we've seen in previous.

[A]

But here's the thing. I know we didn't give an Oval Office speech. You talked for an hour. Yes, the commander and he did say things that were. Sorry.

[C]

The Commander in Chief's message is this is a write your own ending war.

[A]

That's what he's saying, but I don't believe he believes. Okay, so this is the fundamental thing where you're saying they're confused and I'm saying they're disingenuous. Trump knows perfectly well that this war, that the ideal end of this war is that the regime falls. And the real ideal end of the war is that some point this year he gets to get off a helicopter in Tehran and take a walk down the street with people celebrating him. That's if you want to know what he wants. He wants the Iranians to treat him the way the Israelis treat him. That's the end of the war in some ultimate fantasy sense. Now you're widening your eyes as I'm saying this, Christine, but I'm not joking. And what's more, I don't see why in theory it can't happen. He can't say that. He's not going to say that's what I want is to walk down the streets of a free Tehran. But he knows regime change is the only solution. What promise is he going to get from anybody? That they're not going to do their nuclear program or sponsor terrorism or build ballistic missiles? They can give him that guarantee. And then next week they can buy more material from Iran, from China and North Korea. There is no way to achieve that end without there being a successor regime. But they've chosen not to say that, which is bad. And I think it's bad and it's stupid, but there it is. And so I think the reason for the confusion isn't that they're confused. I don't think they're confused at all. I think this is what they chose was to say that we are limiting this mission to those goals. But when they say in two weeks, you know, to achieve those goals, the regime has to fall. Just. Or the regime will fall.

[D]

You know, I mean, what comes after? I mean, that's actually where, I think

[A]

that's where the problem where Abe's right and you're wrong. That's where Abe's right because the regime falls and now he's not going to nation build. We're not going to go and write them a constitution.

[D]

I'm not saying he should tell us what will come after. I'm just saying that that is a question. Question. That is a legitimate question in the minds of a lot of Americans watching soldiers get killed and F15s get shot out of the air by friendly fire. It's like, okay, so then what happened? What Was this for what was this for? That is a completely reasonable. That's. I don't. I don't think he has an answer to that.

[A]

I'm asking you.

[D]

Widen my eyes at the idea of him, you know, swanning down a street in Tehran. I would love to see America. I want to go to Tehran. I want to go and hang out in Iran myself. I want to see that beautiful country. The point is that if that is his gut instinct goal, then that will be a very fleeting victory if there isn't some sort of sense of what comes next, because. So one of the Venezuela.

[B]

Sorry.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. So one of, like, one of the things that I keep thinking of when we talk about the successor regime is that I. I always think of Doug Fife, who, you know, an undersecretary in the Bush administration during the Iraq war, when his memoir. When he talks about that, this specific issue of successor regime, I always thought was very interesting. Doug basically says we had to get rid of Saddam. That's the determination that we came to. Saddam has to go. But then he said, within the administration, there was the realization that whoever we pick, if we picked someone, if we decided who, you know, when we decide who takes over, if that person gases the Kurds, it's the American guy who gassed the Kurds. And that they had a responsibility, therefore, to try to construct some sort of democratic superstructure to impose on the state because they felt they couldn't leave Saddam in, but they also couldn't just choose a number two guy and see how it goes from there. That's, I think, what Trump is trying to avoid. Trump knows that that is, you know, in Iran, whoever follows Kamina, it's not going to be who Trump.

[E]

You.

[B]

You can't point to the next guy and go, Trump, you know, Trump gave us this guy.

[D]

What comes after it always is. And that he doesn't want to own it, that's fine. He'll be long gone, but the country will be facing that question at. Long after he's left the.

[A]

The White House. Okay. Counter, counter history. Colin Powell tells Bob Woodward that he said to George W. Bush, it's the Pottery Barn rule. You know, you break it, you own it. I don't know why that's what that means. That. That's the Pottery Barn rule. Like where. Where. When do you. What. It's.

[C]

Apparently it's.

[A]

It's.

[C]

It's fictional. It's not.

[A]

Yeah, he made it up anyway. But forget. I don't care. What if Bush had said, the hell with that? It's. It's no Pottery Barn rule. We're going in to eliminate this threat of Saddam Hussein and then the Iraqis can do whatever the hell the Iraqis do. We made a determination based on our own self understanding in both. First in Afghanistan, which happened 18 months before we went into Iraq, right. We went into Afghanistan and then what did we do? The first thing we did is we're going to give you elections. Purple thumb. You know, remember the purple thumb? The amazing thing, women voting in Afghanistan after being, you know, living in burkas for 11 years, you know, the horror of the Taliban regime and all of that stuff. Then we're going into it. Then it's you break it, you own it. Bush didn't have to say yes. And what's more, that whole logic, Rumsfeld, that was Rumsfeld's dodge in part. Rumsfeld didn't want to pick anybody because Rumsfeld didn't like the war. And what Rumsfeld wanted to do and they tried was here's what we're going to do. We're going to come in and we win the war, we take out the regime, the regime ends. And then you're going to have a big meeting, all of you tribes, Aloya Jirga and then you're going to pick a successor regime or whatever. And then we're going to go away because I want to go build a quadrennial machine new defense for the future. I don't want to be a war fighting secretary of defense. I have a revolution of military strategy I want to affect. And basically it didn't work. You know, their strategy for the light footprint and the post war light footprint where we weren't going to have to establish who was going to come after, didn't work because of all kinds of reasons. Trump is not buying this. I think is where Abe is kind of brilliant. Trump is not buying into the we broke it, they broke it, the mullahs broke it. We're not responsible morally. This is their, this is on them. They didn't give up their nuclear program. They started reconstitute, they started buying missiles again. We told them after midnight Hammer that they weren't supposed to do this and they're doing it again. So we're going back and we're mowing the lawn. But in truth, you know, the only way this is going to go forward, in fact is if they're gone. And he gave the game away on that in January by saying the regime should go away and he's not going to be the one to make the regime go away in the sense that Iranians are going to have to come out into the streets and take the regime away, or the military is going to have to turn on the mullahs or however it's going to work. We're not going to go into Tehran with 100,000 people and occupy Saddam's palace and live there for five years the way we did in Iraq. That's not going to happen. But I'm just saying, in the end, the only way that. The only way that the goals of this war can be satisfied are if, or if the people who have been running Iran for the last 47 years and their successors and all the superstructures that they built are gone. So it will be a failure if there isn't regime change. He may not want that to be established as the precept or the principle, but explain to me how it goes otherwise.

[C]

I don't actually consider it a failure if the regime, without regime change, it's a partial success. I mean, if you get rid of the. If you get rid of the most dangerous weaponry and you decimate the leadership, it's not a bad war. Sorry. I'd rather say, look, I'd love to see regime change, but, you know,

[A]

I just think you can't achieve the. That. He needs a piece of paper that says we're never going to get a nuclear weapon again and a piece of paper that says we are not buying any ballistic missiles again if it's the same regime, even if it's a successor regime. He needs that piece of paper that. That Witkoff and Jared couldn't get them to sign, which could have forestalled this, you know, war. I want to say one last thing, even though I'm ranting and dominating everything like that about that piece of paper issue, which is we. They had a chance last week to make sure this war didn't happen, right? The Israelis tell Trump on a week before they go in that they know there's going to be this meeting on Saturday where they're going to convene. So there's a. There's basically six days. And he sends Witkoff and Jared to the meeting, and the Iranian says, I have enough nuclear material for 11 bombs. Now, if the Iranians come in. And they said, look, you aren't. This is it, you are. You know, we're about to unleash the worst hell you can even imagine on your head. Bend the knee buckle, say you're done with enrichment and missiles and we'll leave you alone. I don't think that was off the table. I don't think that was disingenuous. It's just that the Iranians weren't going to do it. And if they weren't going to do it, then why are they going to do it in six weeks? Why are they ever going to do it? Granted, okay, this will be the worst thing that ever happened to them. And they're, and their ayatollah is dead and the next ayatollah will be dead and all of that. Nonetheless, unless they're broken, if their backs are broken, if they're, like lying dead on the floor. They have, like, they have gone to the mattresses on the idea that they're going to have a nuclear bomb and they're going to have missiles and they're going to be a Reb regional power. So how do you stop that? They could have stopped it. That's why it's in a weird, you know, that's why morally, it's their war. Like, they're, they're, they're to blame for every death in this war. All right. I don't know why I'm getting so head up and we haven't even talked about Gavin Newsom and what's going on with the Democrats. Maybe we'll do that tomorrow. Should we do it tomorrow?

[E]

Tomorrow?

[A]

Well, obviously, because we've been going on too long. Okay. Have a good day, everybody. For a Seth, Christine and Eliana. I'm John, but Horiz, keep the candle burning.