Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
A
You know when you're shopping online, you want to buy something and you're on a website that you already have a login to but you can't remember the password or you want to buy something. You got your credit card out but you can't remember the three digit number that you got to do at the end of your credit card number and then you got to go find your wallet and it's late and you're tired. Picture this though. Late at night. You're scrolling, you see the product and you know what you see there? You see a purple pay button right there next to the product you want to buy. It has all your information saved. It makes checking out as simple as a simple tap of your screen. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like the Commentary Magazine podcast to brands just getting started. So for vendors, you got to think about how Shopify will help accelerate your efficiency, whether you're uploading new products or trying to improve existing ones, and packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines and even enhance your product photography. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. See fewer carts go abandoned and more sales go with Shopify and their Shop Pay button. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com commentary that's shopify.com commentary shopify.com comment.
- [01:39]
B
Expect the Worst Some green champagne Some die at first no way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the
- [01:49]
A
best Expect the worst Hope for the best welcome to the Commentary Magazine Daily Podcast. Today is Tuesday, June 2, 2026. I am Jon Hortz, the editor of Commentary. Thrilled to report that our offer yesterday is still present today and will be for a couple of weeks. That is a subscription to commentary and commentary.org for the price of $19.95 a year only for new subscribers. We had a great day yesterday. Opening day got a lot of people signing up. We haven't had a deal like this in years. This is a chance not only to read our content, read our articles, read the magazine and read through the 80 years of Commentary's astonishing archives. But it's also a way to support the show that you are now listening to. So go to commentary.orgoffer that's commentary.org offer to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity with me today Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe, hi John, Senior Editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
- [03:00]
C
Hi, John.
- [03:01]
A
And joining us, contributing editor Pooh Bah at the foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Schanzer. Hi, Jon.
- [03:08]
D
Hi, Jon.
- [03:09]
A
So, you know, you're always on when there's bad news. And yesterday, for those of us on this podcast, I think was a day just redolent with bad news from basically dawn till dusk and maybe even after. I can't even enumerate the numbers of pieces of bad news. We could sort of divide them into Trump and Iran and Iran and the ceasefire, or Trump and Israel and Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Hezbollah and the ceasefire. So maybe we split those up and we start with the sexiest thing, which is this question that was raised by Barack Ravid and Mark Caputo in Axios and has now been challenged by Amit segal of Channel 12 in Israel. The claim that Trump called Benjamin Netanyahu and screamed at him profanely about why he was approaching, using Israeli troops to approach and attack Beirut to take, obviously to take out the Hezbollah senior leadership, that this was effing crazy. That Trump was the only reason that Bibi wasn't in jail, that this is why everybody hates Israel and he better stop doing what he was doing. That was the report that we got. Amit Sehgal now says that that is inaccurate. That there was nothing personal in the call that Trump just said it's unwise to attack Beirut and you should pull back and you should observe the ceasefire unless Hezbollah attacks your attacks Israel's territory, in which case I grant you, you know, not leave, but I grant you my blessing in responding. So that's the idea of a fissure developing between Israel and the United States over Hezbollah. When Iran announced that it was no longer going to observe the ceasefire with the United States, in part because of Israel's moves on Hezbollah, is a very distressing development to me. Jonathan Schanzer, how about you?
- [05:36]
D
Well, look, I've been distressed for quite a while about the sort of Gordian knot that Trump finds himself in. And I think it's important to kind of understand maybe how we got here. I mean, according to some of the reports that we've seen, Donald Trump has spent down more munitions than was wise, or maybe we call that Pete Hegseth did it, or maybe it was Admiral Cooper, who knows? Right put. But what we have is this situation where we've bombed Iran not into submission, and now we're looking to pause. And that appears to be why Donald Trump continues to want to sustain this ceasefire and why he's trying to negotiate. Otherwise, there's no reason why we wouldn't continue to do this. If we had plentiful and bountiful Thaad
- [06:27]
B
and Patriot interceptors and Israel had Arrow three and we had all the weapons that we needed, we could just do this. And, you know, until we. We're finished scratching the edge, so to speak, that appears to not be the case. And so as a result, we have a president that is intent on negotiating, and the Iranians, I think, probably informed by intelligence from the Chinese that, you know, Trump won't continue to fight because the Arab states don't feel like they're being defended and because there's going to be, you know, more chaos and more destruction, and they're gonna blame the United States for it. And this is something that Donald Trump wants out of, by the way. You know, the fissures within the Republican Party. The Tucker Carlson wing of the party is opposed to this war. You could get a sense that, you know, this Gordian knot continues to tighten
- [07:16]
D
for Donald Trump, so he wants a deal. Now, the Iranians basically understanding that Trump's not gonna wage full war against them or not likely to, they're saying no. Why would they? If they deem the United States to be their top enemy in the world, and if they're angry about the war that Trump and Israel waged against them? So you get a sense of how we have arrived, where we are now. There's two things in my mind that the administration has that would look like leverage, apart from the ability to attack if they can, if they wish, if there are enough munitions. I don't know if we have a clear enough sense of that right now. But apart from that, there's the economic war that the United States continues to wage against the regime. The regime is hemorrhaging cash day in and day out. 400 plus million a day. And it will get worse when they cap the wells. That's kind of option one. But here's the part that actually really bothers me right now. The Iranians have what they have deemed to be their most valuable and powerful proxy in the Middle east, and that is Hezbollah. Now, the Israelis are on the precipice of doing real damage to this terrorist organization. And if, in fact, they do begin to really up the pressure on Hezbollah, it will be on the verge of collapse or it will be severely beaten. The Iranians don't want this, right? The Iranians, they fear this. And so this actually represents leverage for Donald Trump.
- [08:54]
B
If he unleashed the Israelis on Hezbollah while waging this economic war against the regime, this is the way to defeat the regime slowly but surely, without bombing them into submission, without expending those munitions. And so when I hear about these reports of, like, you know, real tension between Trump and Bibi, I'm scratching my head. Why is Trump yelling at Bibi? Why is he not saying, all right, you know what? You're my leverage. We're gonna use you right now to put real pressure on the regime. They're going to say, stop the bombing. We will agree to some kind of a deal. Stop the bombing of Beirut, stop the evisceration of Hezbollah, and we'll come to the table. That would be the offensive weapon that Trump has. Instead, what we. In my view, we. What it looks like right now is that Trump is just. He looks increasingly desperate for a deal. The messaging out there is, you know,
- [09:52]
D
he doesn't even have the stomach to allow Israel to fight a war against a proxy of Iran, let alone fight Iran itself. And so I think this explains the crossroads where we are now, the yelling between Bibi and Trump. If it happened, I gotta say, I'm not really that concerned about it. They have these moments where they. They fight and then they don't fight. By the way. I mean, I will just note, every time I see reports of Trump and Bibi getting into some kind of battle, you know, like a war of words, usually within a day or two, the United States bombs something else inside the regime. It's almost like clockwork that this is what happens. So maybe this is just like a little foretaste of what's going to come. I don't know. But when I think about the strategy writ large, I'm thinking, go full bore on the economic pressure, unleash the Israelis. And these are the sorts of pressures that the regime needs to feel in order to get back to the negotiating table in good faith.
- [10:54]
A
Yesterday, Trump's the person who is sometimes described as Trump's closest friend. Tom Barrack, our ambassador to. To Turkey, was reported to have said that the key to understanding the future of the Middle east lay in an alliance. I want to find this actual quote, if I can. Okay. I don't have it here, so I will summarize.
- [11:26]
C
I just want to say, when Jonathan starts shaking his head before you get halfway through the question, yes, I think I know what's coming.
- [11:35]
A
He said, an alliance that will provide the stability for the United States going into the future is Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. This is Tom Barracks, a real estate developer, not a professional diplomat. Turkey, Syria, and Iraq are the future of America's stable position in the Middle East. I bring this up to say that one of the more influential voices in Trump's ear is effectively acting as an agent of the country whose ambassador? Our ambassador. He is serving as. So he has not just gone native, as people often say ambassadors do. They start rather than representing their country in the country that they're in. They represent the country they're in to the United States and argue for it. He is setting, I don't know, he is proposing a structure for American foreign policy going into the future that is deranged. And so, I mean, just deranged simply as a matter of course. Like Iraq is not going to be the fulcrum of our. Iraq and Syria are fulcrum. If they are fulcrum of stability, then I don't know, the rock and roller coaster is like i80 and straight and flat and goes on forever without. Without a curve. And so I think that the voices that are sounding off inside the administration are part of the reason that it really does feel like Trump has lost the plot here. Jonathan, you're laying out a plot, right?
- [13:39]
D
Yeah.
- [13:39]
A
Use Israel as pressure on Iran to get what you want from Iran.
- [13:43]
D
Yeah.
- [13:44]
A
Now, Trump is leveraging no pressure on Iran, but the economic boycott. And it is Iran that is trying to leverage pressure on the United States by threatening the Strait near Yemen, by saying that they are pulling out of all talks, all of that. He has surrendered his leverage in part because he's not even talking about the successes of the economic boycott or the fact that we are blocking Iranian ships from leaving the Strait of Hormuz and choking their economy because he wants to talk nice or something and make them feel good about coming to the table? How are we supposed to imagine that there is a strategy that the United States has not only to get the Iranians back to the table, but to actually prevail in this conflict that we started on February 28th. It's hot. It's a hot summer night, and you're hot in your bed, and the air conditioning isn't helping. You got your partner next to you, and that partner is making you hot. You blame the thermostat, you blame the A.C. you blame the person next to you. It's the sheets, man. It's the sheets. It's your bedding. Wrong sheets trap heat bowl and branch provides you the cool side of the pillow and everywhere summer bedding options by Bowen Branch are breathable, lightweight, and designed to keep you cool all night long. With 100% organic cotton sheets. Woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. I'm somebody who doesn't sleep well. Trust me when I say that these sheets make you sleep better. So sleep cooler this summer with Bow and branch get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping@bolandbranch.com commentary with code COMMENTARY that's bowl and branch B O L L A N D B R A N C H.com commentary code commentary to unlock 15% off bolanbranch.com commentary code commentary exclusions apply A quick message from today's sponsor, the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. If you've ever owned a pet, you know they run on their own. Logic Jump first first, Think later. Ask questions never. It's part of what makes them so lovable, but it's also how you end up with those surprise vet visits you didn't see coming. ASPCA Pet Health Insurance helps cover eligible vet expenses, so when those moments happen, you can focus on getting your pet the care they need without overthinking the cost or second guessing your decision. When you enroll in an ASPCA Pelt Health Insurance Plan, you could get a $25Amazon gift card part. It's a little treat for you while you're doing something great for your pet. It's been around for almost 20 years and has covered nearly 1 million pets. In that time, you could tailor your plan to fit your budget, your lifestyle, and your pet's particular quirks. To Explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com commentary that's aspcapetinsurance.Com commentary Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit aspcapetinsurance dot com 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.
- [17:24]
D
Look, I think there's actually two fronts that we need to address here. I mean, I think the lack of messaging as it relates to the economic war could be described as troubling. But if Donald Trump continues to pursue that strategy, and even if he doesn't highlight it, he doesn't message it, and he's just willing to be patient. And we all know that this is, of course, one of the greatest attributes of this president is his patience. But you know, if he's able to hang on, then I actually think that he can eke out a victory here. He can collapse the regime economically and then there's more pressure to place and, you know Then they're weaker at the negotiating table. And so you've got that possibly as an ace in the hole. There is still a theory of victory here. And I think there's also a theory of victory through the weakening of those proxies around the region, which the Israelis can be instrumental in achieving. Then you have the. And by the way, people always say it's either Barack or Barak. I don't know, like, I think it's Tom Barack. But the, the problem with him is. Well, I mean, how do I count them? But let's start with this. Number one, he's putting a lot of weight on Syria, which until about a year and a half ago, right.
- [18:45]
B
Was an Assad regime that was aligned with Iran. Now it is an Al Qaeda, or now some people say, formerly Al Qaeda,
- [18:53]
D
Ahmed Al Shara was Abu Muhammad Al
- [18:55]
B
Jalani of the Nusra Front. And now the guy purports to be a pragmatist and he's saying that this is the regime that is going to be this fulcrum for stability. That seems far fetched. Then let's look at what he's saying about Iraq. I mean, this is a country that still is dominated by what they call Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMUs, the Popular Mobilization units. Hashtag shaabi in Arabic. But it's basically Shiite militias that are loyal to the Islamic Republic of Iran. And the government, such as it is, will not dismantle them. And so you have a state within a state. They're being held hostage by the Iranians, in other words. And so the idea that these guys are people that we should rely on is equally insane.
- [19:44]
D
And then there is the country that Barack represents, Right. Which is the Turks. The Turks, if you look at what they're doing around the region, we don't want this as the future of the Middle East. Right. They are patrons of Hamas and have been for many years, since 2010, 2011. They are the largest external base for Hamas in, in the world outside of Gaza. Okay. And maybe even larger now, given that, you know, the leadership of Hamas continues to just get killed and, you know, destroyed. And the Israelis, I think, are actually doing a good job in there right now, which nobody seems to talk about. On top of that, the Turks, and this is according to really good sources that I have around the region. They're now supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. That's a new one. No one talks about this, but it's crazy that this is happening. They control the government of Syria. They essentially control Alshara's government right now. They're fighting in Iraq against the Kurds. They've got a massive air base in Qatar, which by the way, the Qataris and the Turks are the Muslim Brotherhood, patrons of the world. So not exactly spreading terrific ideology in the United States or in Europe or anywhere else around the Middle East. They've got a massive presence in, in the Horn of Africa and nobody knows why they're there, but I gotta say, it's on the edge of the Middle east and that makes me nervous. And then they're harassing the Greeks and the Cypriots. They actually have declared like more than half of the Mediterranean to be their territorial waters. And so they're harassing European and NATO allies of ours. And by the way, they also have a bunch of F16s in occupied Northern Cyprus that is somewhere like 200 miles away from Israel. When you look at what they're doing, it looks like the Turks are trying to fill the void of Iran.
- [21:38]
B
As Iran continues to contract in power, the Turks are expanding it. And you have this guy, their ambassador, going out and saying that power is the only thing that the Middle east understands. And the Turks represent the future of the Middle East. I'm sorry, what planet are we living on? How is this a good thing? The neo Ottoman resurgence of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a raging anti Semite and terror supporter. This does not seem like a good thing to me. And you got like half of Washington, maybe all of Washington, just sort of shrugging, saying, yep, NATO ally, sounds great, what else is on? And so I am befuddled by the,
- [22:23]
D
I would say the lack of clarity on the Iran side of the equation where we have a hot war and then we've got this growing threat that's coming up quickly in the rear view from the Turks that what we would call the Muslim Brotherhood axis of the Turks and the Qataris. I gotta say right now, when I look at how we're trying to shape the region, I don't think we're doing a good job.
- [22:45]
E
And the scary thing is most any other president would hear this recommendation and say, well, that sounds a little crazy. Trump is exactly the kind of guy to go, sounds good, let's give him a shot. Part of his undoing conventional wisdom routine. I'm so disturbed. Jonathan, to get back to your how we got here point, I really have been resisting the reports of our having spent down our munitions because I don't want to believe it, because if it's true, it means that any talk of resuming a full scale war is pointless. But I think for one practical consideration, I'm still holding out hope it's not true, which is that I just think it would be a much bigger story if it were accurate. I mean, the media would love to get ahold of this massive screw up that we went to war, spent everything we could, shot everything, and found ourselves stuck. I mean, the New York Times has been looking for the myriad ways that Trump was ill prepared for this. This would be, and if it were true, rightly considered a massive scandal.
- [24:28]
D
Yeah, but it is, I agree.
- [24:30]
A
It is, though.
- [24:32]
D
Well, we don't know, obviously. Like, I mean, it's not, I'm not saying it's true.
- [24:36]
A
I'm saying that is how the war is increasingly being characterized.
- [24:40]
D
Right, yeah. We need to acknowledge that this is a narrative that's come out now. Whether it's accurate, I don't know. The comptroller of the Pentagon is not coming out and declaring exactly what we have. That would be idiotic because the last thing we want is for the Chinese to know exactly how much we spent down. And by the way, I mean, I think it's worth noting at least the, the folks that I've talked to that were probably pretty well stacked in the offensive weapons category. I don't think that's the problem. I think it's the defensive stuff. These are the exquisite weapons that require these advanced chips and technology that take some time to. Because you're literally shooting a. It's like shooting a bullet with a bullet out of the sky. Right. This is what we're doing with ballistic missiles and rockets and drones and things like that. These are, you know, these are weapons that are traveling at high speeds and, and somehow, I mean, miraculously we're able to do this, but we don't have this stuff. Like there is a finite amount of it and after the 28 days of war, or, I don't know, whatever it was, you know, a month of war, we shot through a bunch of them because the Iranians were firing all over the place. They started attacking all of our Gulf neighbors and the Israelis and our ships. And I mean, it stands to reason that we probably need a breather on the defensive side.
- [25:58]
A
We've had a breather. Okay, so, but here's the problem. We're almost two months into the breather. The war was conducted from 28 February to 8 April.
- [26:10]
D
Right.
- [26:11]
A
The ceasefire was declared on 8 April. It is now 2 June. So the ceasefire has lasted twice as long as the war. So what does that tell us? I mean, I'm not sure what it tells us. It tells us, obviously, that Trump does not want to restart the war if he can't, and that he is trying to will the Iranians into making some kind of a deal, and that he is presuming that they are much more damaged than they are acting, that it's all bluster, and that if he can just get them to admit that they are ruined and wrecked, then he will belay and they can give him the dust or agree to give him the dust, and then he can declare victory, and they can say that they withstood the American onslaught because the regime didn't collapse, and everybody goes into their corners and goes away. The Iranians are not. Are simply not cooperating with Trump's desideratum here. And therefore, we have to react to the world that the Iranians are living in and not the world inside Trump's head. But unfortunately, we live in the world inside Trump's head.
- [27:33]
D
I suppose that's true. I mean, first of all, I propose that we call this conflict the ceasefire war, because it has been more ceasefire than war. I think we can maybe coin that as a phrase. You know, I can give it to Commentary. You guys can do with it.
- [27:47]
A
Thank you.
- [27:48]
B
You're welcome.
- [27:48]
A
We're gonna.
- [27:49]
B
We're.
- [27:49]
A
We're gonna copyright it and put it on. We're gonna have caps. We're gonna have buttons.
- [27:53]
B
Excellent.
- [27:53]
D
Excellent. I survived the ceasefire war of 2026 or. Or whatever. See, my country went ceasefire war, and
- [28:00]
A
all I got was this lousy T shirt.
- [28:03]
D
Right, right. I like that. I think we should do those. But I mean, I think that.
- [28:10]
B
Okay, like, let's just say that we have a munitions problem.
- [28:13]
D
Let's just say it's only a defensive munitions problem. And let's say the economic war is working.
- [28:19]
B
And let's say the Israelis can heap
- [28:21]
D
additional pressure by going after those proxies.
- [28:23]
B
Even as you know, Iran is just threatening to continue this war and they don't want to negotiate.
- [28:32]
D
We could collapse the regime, and we can weaken them regionally. They still may not give up the Strait of Hormuz. They still have the asymmetric capabilities through the irgc, which is the entity now that is running the show in Iran, where they can attack ships and they can fire off rockets and drones, even with the regime in complete and total disarray. Even if they're not able to make payroll, they will find the most zealous among the irgc, much as Hezbollah and Hamas has. Even in defeat, they continue to Wage war against Israel in complete defiance. Right. It's just a tenacious refusal to capitulate is actually what we're watching. And this is the stuff that concerns me. I actually think that you can bring down the regime, but still have a problem in the Strait of Hormuz. And I think this is the sort of Gordian knot that Trump finds himself in. Look, I don't blame him for trying to do the right thing by the region. I think that if you look back, my guess is that the Saudis and the Emiratis, of course the Israelis and probably a bunch of other countries in the region were like, go for it, man. We hate the Iranians.
- [29:52]
B
This is great.
- [29:53]
D
The problem is the enemy always gets a vote.
- [29:55]
B
And this enemy doesn't care how much you grind it down, it's going to keep fighting. This is what we've seen with Hezbollah,
- [30:03]
D
with Hamas, and with a bunch of
- [30:05]
B
these other groups that Iran has indoctrinated over the years. And this, I think, in large part
- [30:10]
D
explains where we are.
- [30:11]
B
I don't have clear visuals on munitions. It's not a place that I would typically play. But if you ask me, it's probably the only reason why Trump is still where he is, where he's not willing to go back to battle. Nothing else would explain this to me. Right. I mean, I think this is Occam's razor here. Right. This is the only reason why we're still not fighting. Otherwise why wouldn't we be pounding them into submission?
- [30:43]
C
But what kind of timetable does that mean? Like, what, what is, what is he waiting. Would he be waiting for what exactly? I mean, are we, are we thinking like, here's the timetable to build missile interceptor and deploy it here, and therefore, you know, if he needs five more of these missile interceptors, are we talking about something that we can specifically get a handle on? Do we not even know if we, if we are talking about something we can specifically get a handle on? Or is it. And also is there this. I guess the second half of the question is these reports about the US Figuring out how to shoot down drones without costing each shoot down without each shoot down costing a billion dollars. Is this the sort of thing where he feels we're on the brink of being able to ramp up again? Because we've figured, you know, we're like, almost there on the tip of our tongues figuring out how to do the kind of thing that the Ukrainians have figured out how to do with the Russian drones and, and deploy these, these drone killing drones, these mosquito killing Mosquitoes, you know, and like, what are we, what are we waiting for in that sense?
- [32:01]
D
Well, I think these are all good questions and I don't know if I have real good answers. I think we're not talking about five
- [32:08]
B
interceptors, we're talking about 500 or a thousand interceptors.
- [32:12]
D
They're expensive, they're difficult to produce, they
- [32:15]
B
take time to produce, they require chips and other materials that may be difficult
- [32:21]
D
to acquire through, you know, our regular supply chains.
- [32:24]
B
And my guess is that China probably has some leverage over us in some of this and trying to ramp back up under pressure is probably a high wire act. I think the Ukrainians probably have some guidance for our Gulf allies, but guidance is not necessarily the material that they
- [32:49]
D
need in order to fight.
- [32:51]
B
They need their own stuff in order
- [32:54]
D
to be able to.
- [32:55]
B
I mean, I was just reading this morning that they came under immense fire last night from the Russians. They don't have a lot of stuff to spare here. I think they can help with expertise, but that's not the same as production. And I would say that Ukraine right now is probably under enormous strain economically and from a defense industrial based perspective. So I think this sort of explains why we're in this interregnum of sorts. It's why we have this extended ceasefire. The question is how to get out of it. I think that question that you pose is the right one. Again, when I look at the leverage, I basically see, I mean, we talked about two, and I'll add a third. The first is keep the economic war going and maybe ratchet it up further. I don't know if we've used every tool that we have in our toolbox to squeeze the regime really hard.
- [33:51]
D
We want to see them cap their wells, but we want to cut their banks off from the, from the, from the banking system. We want more sanctions, we want more tariffs, we want, I mean, maybe the occasional strike against defense industrial base, or not even defense, I mean just their industrial base, right? Like going after, we went after their petrochemicals, we went after their steel. These were things that actually really like hurt the regime economically. And we can do more of that. That's one. Number two is use the Israelis as pressure on the proxies which are very valuable to the regime. They want these proxies to exist. Then the last part, which is maybe happening already, maybe not, we don't know. But the idea of actually getting stuff to the opposition in Iran, weapons secure communications, intelligence, training, right? Co opting the airwaves inside Iran so that we can start to message to the Iranian people, giving them direction on how to evade the security services and to attack them doing things like that right now, those are still paths to victory if you ask me. But my, my concern is, is that paralysis and the insistence on a deal that the Iranians don't want to make without pressure, without severe pressure, I just don't see the path right now. Doesn't mean that Donald Trump is doomed here. It just means that I think he needs to double down on a couple of these paths that could work.
- [35:25]
A
You know, when I go out and people who are listeners to the podcast see me on the street, they're always asking me, is that Quince is what you're wearing quints? And the answer is yes, it's usually Quince. And why I keep coming back to Quince is because they focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton, particularly for summer. Well made basics but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Quint's European linen pants and shirts. Perfect warm weather upgrade to add to your rotation starting at just $34. Their tees are soft and easy to wear and they're lightweight cotton sweaters are perfect for cooler summer nights. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com commentary for free shipping on your order. Quarter and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary. I'm excited to talk to you about Brooklyn Betting today because I have an honest to goodness endorsement. A friend of my daughters came to sleep sleepover and slept on my son's mattress and she said the next morning it was the most comfortable mattress she has ever slept on. And that is the Brooklyn Bedding mattress that we got from Brooklyn Bedding to test whether or not Brooklyn Bedding would be a good advertiser for Commentary magazine. So I don't know what more I can tell you that would tell you that Brooklyn Bedding is worth your time, your money, your attention and your custom. So go to Brooklyn betting.com and use my promo code commentary at checkout to get 30% off site wide. This offer is not available anywhere else. That's BrooklynBetting.com and promo code COMMENTARY for 30% off site wide. Support our show. Let them know we sent you after checkout. Brooklyn betting.com promo code commentary.
- [37:36]
E
But There is another dark element here, too, that we should talk about, because we're Talking about the US's possible problems with munitions on the Iranian side. We're getting reports that they're digging stuff out throughout this whole time.
- [37:53]
A
Right.
- [37:54]
E
So it's like our problem, if it exists as such, is being compounded on their end by we don't have what we need and they're acquiring more of what they need throughout the same time. I mean, this is the problem. The longer the ceasefire goes on, they can make better use of it.
- [38:21]
D
Yeah. I mean, when you take your foot off the neck of your enemy, they're going to get back up. And that is exactly what's happening. Right. So our inability to continue to keep that pressure going, possibly for fear of munitions, I don't know what else would explain it right to me, that it feels like, again, the most logical explanation for what's going on is we don't have the ability or we don't have the stockpile or whatever it is. The comptroller at the Pentagon is saying, don't do this. And so Trump has to agree, and Hegseth has to agree. And so therefore, we're taking our foot off the neck whether we like it or not. And now they have cleared out 18 different entrances to these missile cities and drone cities, and now they've got more assets that they can put into play for a war that might drag us back in anyway. It forces to spend down munitions. This is like, you know, I mean, I'm thinking a couple moves ahead here, but the Chinese would probably love this, the Russians would probably love this. And so the question is, can we accelerate the pressure that we put on them? Right? And again, I see those three vectors, economic proxy, and then getting stuff to the opposition and trying to accelerate this so the regime, we have to keep pace with whatever they're doing. And look, there's a lot of this stuff, let me just admit it here. We don't see how well the economic thing is going. We can see that the Israelis are constrained. I think that's a problem. But we can't see how well the economic campaign is going. It could be going really well. It could be that Trump is just biding time and waiting for this thing to collapse, in which case the man's a genius and I give him full credit. I just can't see the strategy right now as he's articulated it.
- [40:07]
C
Look, but even if he was, even if he was waiting for them to collapse, like, here's a question I asked yesterday. Why stop The Israelis in Lebanon.
- [40:17]
D
Right again, right.
- [40:19]
C
If the Iranians are saying we're not going to go back to the. That's, that's if, if he could freeze it here and just say, okay, well, if they won't come back to the table, that's fine, because time is on our side, then we don't need to be pressuring allies into, into tying their own hands.
- [40:36]
A
Okay? So just to, just to. That's why I say he's lost the plot. Over the weekend, it was clear that the United States government was giving Israel the green light to hit Beirut. Rubio and others were saying that Hezbollah's assault on the north of Israel was unacceptable, that Israel's effort to restrain and indeed defeat Hezbollah was a part of the American national interests. And it was Trump yesterday afternoon who simply flipped the script. So that was, I think, understood by the conventional warminds in the administration. And that Trump, who found himself in this weird position Monday morning of having the Iranians say, we're not going to talk to you anymore because Israel is being mean to Lebanon, getting confused, I don't know how else to think about it, into believing that if he could just belay the Israeli assault on Lebanon, Iran would see more reason. And he even said yesterday that this is something that really freaked me out, I gotta admit, because it returned to a trope that he used in the first Trump term that he thinks by next week, next week the Straits of Hormuz will be open. He expects next week. Remember the. In two weeks I'm gonna issue my healthcare plan in two weeks, we're gonna have our X plan in two weeks. Covid will be over all of that. When he starts making these short term future pronouncements, it is time to like start going into the bomb shelter. So I don't know what he's thinking. Nobody knows what he's thinking.
- [42:30]
D
But I don't think it's time to go into the bomb shelter, John. I think it's time to make bets on oil dropping for the next couple of days.
- [42:37]
A
Okay, so that's what he might be, right?
- [42:39]
D
So there I think he's. Yeah, I've never seen this to the extent that we're watching now. President issues a statement like this, markets react immediately. And what he continues to be able to do is to keep oil markets tempered for a time, which by the way, is a huge goal of his. He doesn't want to see oil spiral out of control. So every time he comes out and says, we're almost there, I'm really confident that we're gonna get a deal. It actually has the intended effect, I think, of calming markets and keeping things from spiraling out of control for the average American who's not happy about paying 20 or 30 bucks extra at the pump every time they fill up their gas tank.
- [43:18]
A
And.
- [43:19]
D
But again, I think you're 100% right to point out that these proclamations don't add up too much without a clear statement of strategy. And here's the part where I remind everybody, President doesn't like to actually tell everybody what his strategy is. He likes to keep that maximum flexibility, likes to keep a bunch of plates spinning at the same time, and he gets to decide what which one works best while it's all happening. My concern is that if the enemy understands that we're constrained, then he doesn't have as many plates spinning as he thinks. And that's the concern. Now I would be absolutely thrilled to be wrong that he and Scott Bessant, the Secretary of the treasury, have this plan to bring down the regime economically and the CIA working with the Mossad is bringing in a bunch of stuff and eventually into the Iranian opposition and eventually they unleash the Israelis and it's this perfect storm that absolutely craters the regime. And again, that is still the theory of victory here. It is a possible path to where we want to go. But I think without knowing where we are and to see him constrain the
- [44:29]
B
Israelis and to downplay the economic stuff
- [44:32]
D
and to not talk about the opposition as our ace in the hole, I'm
- [44:36]
B
having a hard time understanding where we're going.
- [44:39]
A
Well, see, I don't think there is that long term planning, I'll put it this way, which is when I say losing the plot, here's the other. So where are crude oil prices? Right. Where is the, where's the barrel right now? Right. So Brent Crude is at 93:50. West Texas Intermediate is at 91. We're in the 90s. Okay, this is a miracle. It is a miracle that we're at war with the world's fourth largest oil producing nation and that oil prices have not even risen to the levels that they were at in 2022 during the wild inflationary spiral set off after the war in Ukraine and America's own inflationary behavior. So that's an achievement in itself. But maybe that's Trump's achievement. That's where things start getting weird. If he having started this war with the purpose of never, you know, giving up, making sure that Iran basically gives us their nuclear materials and then Iran Plays the hand of the Strait of Hormuz. Now, keeping oil prices down may be his signature goal. And that's not the plot. The plot is what is going to be the case with the United States and Iran because we started a war with Iran, not what are oil prices today.
- [46:09]
D
I think the oil part, those are tactical victories that I think we have to credit Donald Trump with, that he has been able through, I mean, primarily through rhetoric and through the occasional diplomatic update, he's been able to keep WTI to a dull roar. I mean, I think that's not a small achievement for the president.
- [46:32]
A
It's not, but it is an achievement that is a sidelight to why the oil prices are where they are now in the first place. And if he doesn't have a path to ending the conflict, that will then bring oil prices to settle at a more reasonable level. They'll never drop because Hormuz will never close. And then this will always be a threat.
- [46:57]
D
And so what we have then it looks like anyway a fork in the road. Right. One is return to war, pummel them, destroy them, kill all their leaders, and, you know, go after more command and control, go after more missiles. With the possible downside, again I stress possible because we don't have that data, but with the possibility that we spend down on munitions that would leave us vulnerable for a Taiwan Strait contingency that we can't afford. That's one. The other is to go through the asymmetric approaches of leaning on the Israelis to go after the proxies, the economic war, ratchet it up, provide assistance to the people of Iran and go that route. I'm not sure I see. I mean, maybe the other route is to get more international help. Right. To actually get the Europeans and others to somehow join in and help in the liberation of the Strait of Hormuz, which from everything that we're hearing from the French and the Brits and the Germans, actually the Germans seem a little bit better right now. Not sure about the others. Right. It doesn't really look like anybody's willing to go that way, but that maybe is a third option that we haven't talked about.
- [48:05]
A
Yeah, but look, if you're looking at, if you're looking at the balance of forces at this moment and you see that Iran has at least the kind of not the upper tactical hand, but it's playing its bad hand pretty well. And you're the Europeans now, you're gonna get into it. You wouldn't get into it when America was in a much was much better Positioned to say to the Iranians, you get the hell out of the Strait of Hormuz right now, because we're here and the Brits are here and the Germans are here and the French are
- [48:39]
C
here, and they wouldn't get into it when the Iran were bombing British bases off Cyprus.
- [48:45]
A
Exactly. So they're not gonna go now. Now, there's the possibility that Iran is gonna prevail in this conflict.
- [48:53]
D
But actually, if you look at their oil. Look, we have an oil price problem. They have an oil access problem.
- [49:01]
A
I'm not saying that you're wrong that they should do it and that they are being suicidal in not joining us in ensuring the defeat of Iran's tactical play on the Strait of Hormuz. They are. But Keir Starmer is, like, worried about Peter Mandelson and Macron is worried about. I don't know what. And I don't know. I can't even remember the name of the Chancellor of Germany. And the hell with all of them. Mertz, thank you. But I mean, basically, this is in their interest. We're now fighting in their interests because we have enough oil to support ourselves. This is about making life easier for them. They're not joining in with us. They are being insanely foolish. But they're also responsive to their own populations being democracies, and they know that it will be. This war is unpopular in the United States. You want to know what it would be like if the Brits and the French and the Germans got into shooting wars and their populations.
- [50:04]
D
Oh, yeah, were about to open it now, and they join the side of Donald Trump. Right. Don't forget that. Like, do you know how unpopular that would be after everything that's just happened in Greenland and all the things that Trump has said about, you know, about the Europeans. I can imagine, and I get the concern, but I would say that that is a third option out of the three. But one of them appears already to be ruled out. That appears to be a return to war. And the other one looks highly impossible or very improbable, whatever we're going to. However we want to describe it with the Europeans. And so what you have then is the asymmetric approach in response to their asymmetric approach, which, again, to me looks like the theory of victory. If the other two avenues are blocked. I haven't seen others. Right. I mean, I'm still looking for them because I'm constantly looking for the theory of victory here. But again, the theory of victory looks like massive economic pressure. The Israelis using their ability to Put force on the proxies and to weaken Iran further regionally and to support the people of Iran. And by the way, this has always been what we should have done.
- [51:10]
A
Right.
- [51:11]
D
I think. Right. And we didn't even need to do all of this by bombing. I mean, the bombing probably helps. The regime is weaker, although it's also more retrenched right now. Right.
- [51:22]
C
Actually, can I ask a question about that? About the last part that you talked about the Iranian people is the. Is to the extent that we can know, you know, the answers to these questions and what's going on inside Iran, is the regime's decision to turn some of the Internet back on. Is that a. An ominous portent for support for the war against Iran? Is that a play? I mean, it sounds to me like a typical play for public support. You know, it makes. It will make people perhaps in Iran less likely to be out in the streets or less anxious about this stuff, and they feel like maybe they can get away with it. Is that a sign of their confidence as well? And is that. Are we at risk of just kind of losing the patience of the Iranian people also who were, you know, intending to help here?
- [52:16]
D
I mean, I think good questions. I kind of view it two ways right now. One is, I think they are looking to try to placate some very, very angry people. I mean, don't Forget, they slaughtered 40,000 people in January on the streets. And the people have been enduring this war. The economy's ground to a halt. So the idea that things are back on is maybe some sort of an olive branch to the people. My guess is they. But I think more to the point, they probably found a way of really keeping that Internet very locked down so that, you know, they're able to filter and they're able to flag things that they want to stop. In terms of messaging, my guess is they found a technical workaround working with the Chinese. Right. They're probably building some kind of thing that looks like the, you know, the great firewall of China. But then I think on top of that, I think as they endure this economic pressure, don't forget, online business ground to a halt in Iran. Right. I mean, online commerce is a significant portion of income for Iranians, for everybody all around the world. So this might be a way of trying to circumvent some of the economic pressure that we've put on them. And I think, you know, I think people have kind of ignored that in their analysis up until this point.
- [53:33]
A
I just want to. Gotta let you go. But just to point out that you said that there are three things going on and one of them is that clearly we're not going to restart the war. And in my view, if there isn't further kinetic military action on the part of the United States, this conflict is going to be lost. That there is no way, even if we continue with the long term economic pressure, that Iran is going to have to be beaten back. I don't know, in various ways. And it's going to have to be taught lessons about using its ballistic missiles and things like that that aren't simply us shooting them down and acting defensively and pretending as though there is a ceasefire in place. If that's the case and the Iranians can rely on the fact that we are not going to go back to war with them and they believe that, then they have no incentive to do anything except wait us out. And they believe they can. And they have every reason to believe we can, because that is the history of American involvement in military conflict in the Middle east, which is that we don't. We let that last 10%, we fight and then we stop before we've secured the territory. And, you know, that's the first Gulf War, that's the war in Iraq, that's the war in Afghanistan, and here we are in Iran. And so, you know, if you're right and that is the first precept here, then it's time to start playing taps.
- [55:08]
D
By the way, I'm not saying that I know that I'm right. I'm saying that there's only one plausible explanation for our complete and total reluctance or refusal to get back onto the battlefield is that it looks like we need to reload. And I don't know how long that takes. But this is the only reason why, I mean, you know, Trump calling, right? That is, that just does not comport with.
- [55:32]
A
I just don't think it's the only. I don't think it's the only reason. I think he is having. He had this idea that this was going to be easier than it was. And his way of dealing with things that become difficulties is to turn tail and run. And he's got nowhere to run because Hormuzes, because he's half finished. He made all of these promises, he made all these determinations. He said we won the war. Hormuz is still, you know, is closed or whatever, whatever Hormuz is, and he loses. Like there's no way that in any of these scenarios without him changing the trajectory that we are on, that he does not come out the loser. But he always thinks that he's got an escape hatch. And you called it a Gordian knot. Right. How is the Gordian knot solved? The mythologically untieable knot. It's sliced through. The way you get rid of the Gordian knot is not to treat it as a knot, but to treat it as a defensive barrier that you eliminate with a weapon. And that's the only way for him to, I think, to get back on the plot.
- [56:56]
D
The only way out is through.
- [56:58]
A
Only way out is through. Okay. Jonathan Chanzer, thank you so much for your Dr. Dumari. And we will, you know, next time we need a good dose of depression, we will call you again.
- [57:13]
D
My pleasure, I guess.
- [57:14]
A
I don't know. I know I'm worse than you today, so I don't know why I'm laying in on you. Okay. So thanks for having me. You bet. So we need to talk now about California and the primary tonight. Today that is going on today because it's crazy. It's California's crazy system where the top two vote getters in these races end up facing each other in November. And obviously the two big stories are, will Republicans get into the top two? Meaning will Steve Hilton make it in the governor's race against a bunch of Democrats at the Tom Steyer and Javier Becerra and whoever else, will he somehow manage to be the second largest vote getter and therefore get into the election? And then of course, the big story, which is the viral campaign, the viral populist campaign of Spencer Pratt in Los Angeles running for mayor against Karen Bass and this other pretty horrible official. And he is running a campaign that the Internet adores and has been pretty astonishingly forward thinking and using memes and AI videos and this and that. And the other thing to make the point that Spencer Pratt is trying to make, which is that Los Angeles is egregiously run. He had a house in the Pacific Palisades. It burned down. They won't let him rebuild it.
- [58:49]
D
They.
- [58:49]
A
The Pacific Palisades hasn't been rebuilt. Karen Bass is a disaster. Downtown LA is now basically one giant 25 acre homeless shelter and open air drug market. And no one is doing anything. And somebody has to come in and do something. And he is the guy to come in and do something. And so what we're looking at here is the question of whether or not he can get enough votes to be in the November election and run a populist campaign that will take out this very bad example of blue state leadership. And I have to confess that I am pessimistic that these two Republican successes will be successes either tonight or in November simply because there are just too many Democrats and too few Republicans in California. And Democrats are well organized and Republicans are not. And Republicans have no good political organization in California and certainly not in Los Angeles. And that these things always look better as you examine the. And also, polling in multiple. Where there are multiple candidates is notoriously bad. So I don't know how you guys are feeling, but that's how I'm.
- [60:09]
E
Well, yeah, I'm pessimistic as well. And I'm particularly interested in the Spencer Pratt AI campaign because something tells me that it's not that easy, that all you need to do is make compelling AI slot videos. In fact, we've all seen a bunch of these videos because what they really are are fan fiction for right wingers, which is, I don't think what he needs. And that's really what all the political AI generated videos are, are fan fiction for the people who are already there for the people.
- [61:03]
A
Yeah. I just don't think that's a fair characterization of the Pratt race. Pratt has an issue. Pratt has an issue, which is that an entire neighborhood of the city burned down. And the state and city regulators who were responsible for the fact that it burned down because the, because the reservoir was left empty to fight the. That was there supposedly to fight the possibility of fires, and now they are making it impossible for people to rebuild their homes in an absolutely barbaric way. So I completely agree.
- [61:39]
E
And I'll say I. He's very, I like, he's very likable in person. He has a sort of, I mean, you know, his background. He always has this child star sort of mien to him. Yeah, but, but the videos that, you know, portray him as some sort of Batman, you know, character saving the day is what is. Is what I mean by the fan fiction part. I. Obviously, I'm with you on the issue. Yeah.
- [62:11]
C
I think it's, it's. It's more a comment on the weakness of the Democratic bench and a weakness in, in California's own Democratic Party, which is not to say that they're going to lose the state. Now, I'm not saying that, you know, Republicans are on the cusp. What I mean is Tom Steyer and Javier Becerra. This is. These are the candidates. I don't, I don't think the Democrats are going to have a tremendous amount of trouble winning this election. But I, I can't help but notice that in the LA race. Spencer Pratt is getting traction for in a way that it's different than Schwarzenegger, right, which had the name recognition and ran as a sort of moderate Republican or whatever, and also had the, all the, at the time, the Kennedy ties and all this. You know, he was from a political world in its own, in its own right, and wasn't just sort of wandering in from the sidelines, but he has like this, people lost their homes. And the city, clearly everybody understands the city doesn't know what to do about it and doesn't. Isn't doing anything about it. And so you would think that it wouldn't take this, a TV reality star or personality to break through. But also on the other hand, he's breaking through in a way that is sort of unprecedented, which is to say nobody here talk, nobody talks about what other candidates say in the race. Well, because he's the only one who is part of the conversation. Because the incumbent, while she has all the advantages of party and incumbency and therefore is certainly favored to win, is terrible. Javier Becerra is known universally as a lightweight. I'm sorry, he's just, he's not, he's not the guy you put in charge of things. He's not a natural born executive. And he was also pretty universally regarded as the worst cabinet pick of the last administration at Health and Human Services. He just, he just isn't good. And Tom Steyer is, has been around for a long time, occasionally throwing a gazillion dollars at a race to make a point. A presidential race now a gubernatorial race. And so to me, this is actually a, this is actually a statement that what the Democrats have been offering is really stale. You can see a staleness in it. Nobody in the Democratic Party is excited about Javier Becerra or Tom Steyer. It's a sort of hold your, no, maybe not hold your nose, but nobody's, nobody is, is Pokemon go to the polls, you know, in this particular election for Democrats. And I think that that says something about maybe an, or maybe about maybe their approach to the blue state model, something. But California is a center of power. Until recently, it was something like a quarter of the Democrats congressional coalition. There is something stale there in California, undeniably.
- [65:34]
A
Okay, but so Schwarzenegger won because there was a recall election that took out the sitting governor because of a gigantic energy crisis that led to blackouts like Rol blackouts all over this once glorious Golden State. And it was sort of a once in a lifetime opportunity. There were 20 people in the race and Schwarzenegger actually was among the more experienced in politics. That was part of the joke was that it was sort of him versus Arianna Huffington. Back this is back 23 years ago whenever it was that this happened. This is like a real red standard issue governor primary. You know, governors and governor and mayor and California went to this deranged jungle primary system which basically results in two general elections. There's a general election in June and then there's a general election in November, since you don't have the parties lining up to present candidates. And I think the issue is, even if you're right and the Democrats are stale and they are stale and the blue state governance is a failure and all of that, even if Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate, gets into the governor's race, he probably can't win. Spencer Pratt is a slightly different story. Cities do sometimes really go through very serious shifts when the public feels like they are, you know, they have found themselves in a terrible crisis. Karen bass won in 2022 in the middle of the COVID epidemic. But you couldn't blame the COVID epidemic on Karen Bass, even though there was a very good reformist candidate against her, Caruso, who was a Rick Caruso, who was a solid candidate this year. There's a lot to blame her for. So I can see where Pratt can gain traction. It's just a question of whether or not it doesn't matter whether you're good at governing. It doesn't matter if you have executive. It doesn't matter anything. All that matters now is partisan lien. And if partisan lien is the overwhelming fact in American politics and in California politics, no matter how brilliant a race Spencer Pratt runs or Steve Hilton runs, there just aren't enough people to vote for them in that state of whatever it is, 38 million people to overcome the organized Democratic Party's machine, which can turn out 2 or 3 million people just at the get go and basically begin with that margin. So, but, so that's my cold splashing cold water on people who are maybe excited about tonight because that's today's theme. And speaking of today's theme and our obsession with Iraq, Iran and everything like that, I do want to make a commentary recommends. It's a slightly controversial one. It is this very, very hot, very, very successful thriller horror movie called Obsession, which is having an unprecedented box office run. Not since ET in 1982 has a movie been released that has to wide release, that has increased its money share, increased its take box office weekend after box office weekend, three weekends in a row. It costs $750,000 to make. It has already made $111 million at the box office. It is a sensationally good piece of work. It is bloody and it is a supernatural horror movie. So if those things turn you off, you have to be turned off by it. But it's absolutely superb piece of work by a 27 year old named Curry Barker with one of the greatest performances ever in the history of horror, by an actress named Indy Navarrette, who is at the center of the movie and who should be nominated for an Oscar. It's the best performance in a horror movie since Cissy Spacek played Carrie 50 years ago. And you guys should see it. Everyone who has seen it likes it. That's why it's gaining at the box office when everything loses at the box office, because everybody is leaving and saying to their friends what I am saying to you right now. But if you can't take blood, if you can't take violence, it's not wildly violent, but it's kind of brilliantly violent and therefore caveat emptor. But. But obsession in Indy Navarret and watch Indy Navarret. This is a once in a lifetime piece of work from somebody I'd never even heard of before. All right, we'll be back tomorrow. Thanks, Jonathan Schanzer. And for Abe and Seth, I'm John Pod Horiz. Keep the candle burning, Sam.