3594 - The Iran Escalation Trap; UK Green Party's Historic Win w/ Robert Pape, Grace Blakeley

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3594 – The Iran Escalation Trap; UK Green Party’s Historic Win
Date: March 5, 2026
Host: Emma Vigeland (in for Sam Seder)
Guests: Professor Robert Pape, Grace Blakeley

---

Episode Overview

This packed episode of The Majority Report takes on two urgent, complex political crises:

• The U.S. and Israel's ongoing bombing campaign in Iran and the escalation trap it creates, with a deep-dive analysis by Professor Robert Pape, an expert on air campaigns and military escalation.
• The UK Green Party’s historic by-election victory, with analysis from author and commentator Grace Blakeley, exploring a left-wing resurgence in UK politics.

Additional topics include the Democratic establishment’s response to war funding, corruption in the US administration, and a splash of US political dysfunction and media critique.

---

Main Topic #1: The Iran Escalation Trap

With Professor Robert Pape (Start: 23:39)

Key Discussion Points

Context: U.S./Israel Bombing of Iran

• The U.S. and Israel continue bombing Iran ("Operation Epic Fury"), with civilian death tolls surpassing 1,000 in Tehran alone. Historical sites have been hit, and the Pentagon admits it is running low on precision munitions, despite White House denials.
• High-level Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, Chris Coons, and Jack Reed, refuse to rule out supplemental war funding, despite high opposition within their base.
• Emma Vigeland criticizes the lack of accountability and meaningful dissent among Democrats, also highlighting the disconnect between public opinion (70-80% of Americans oppose the Iran war) and government action.

  "We have such privilege at being at the center of the imperial core that we can't even fathom what this must be like." – Emma Vigeland (03:34)

The “Smart Bomb Trap” and Escalation

• Professor Robert Pape's core thesis: Air campaigns intended to topple governments with “precision” bombing have a long, unbroken record of failure.

  “We are owe for every effort tried... it has never. And I’m choosing my words carefully, never worked.” — Prof. Robert Pape (24:07)

• Pape highlights the illusion of quick, decisive regime change through air power:

  • Since World War I, attempts at “decapitation” (killing leadership) by conventional bombing have led to zero successful government overthrows.
  • Even the advent of "smart" or precision bombs has not changed that:

    “That 100% tactical success did not lead to strategic success. So it did not take down the regime. It did not even set the regime back from being able to lash back.” — Prof. Robert Pape (26:24)

The Escalation Trap Explained

• Three Stages of the Trap:

  1. Initial Tactical Success: Target sets are struck, but this is always possible with current technology.
  2. Failure to Collapse Regime: The regime remains intact and is able to retaliate.
  3. Deepening Nationalism and Entrenchment: Bombing hardens civilian and elite resolve, narrowing options and leading to potential protracted conflict.

• Historical parallel: Reagan’s failed 1986 attempt to kill Gaddafi, which led to later Libyan terrorism but not regime change.

• On Nationalism:

  “When you take a third actor, the foreign military attacker... you’re changing the game. You infuse the idea of nationalism, where the idea is they may not like their leader, but they don’t want to be run by Donald Trump or anybody else.” — Prof. Robert Pape (37:07)

Trap’s Political Consequences

• The war intensifies dangers without achievable ends, creates profound risk of deeper US/Iranian conflict, and endangers the US military and regional stability.
• Trump is “looking for an offramp,” but according to Pape, “wherever he stops—tomorrow or three months from tomorrow—we have a wicked problem on our hands.” (40:15)
• Iranian regime is now more resilient, and Trump faces a "lose-lose" with his own base, reminiscent of LBJ’s Vietnam predicament:

  “He’s not getting out of this with a golden off ramp, that’s for sure... Now, if he goes further, he’ll then take the risk of becoming Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War.” — Prof. Robert Pape (40:15)

Notable Moments & Quotes

• Pape’s debunking of social media “gotcha” arguments about Hiroshima as a “successful” air campaign:

  “Of course, if Donald Trump decides he’s going to turn Iran to glass with nuclear weapons and kill 92 million people, that would be a different story. […] This is the silliness that we get.” (31:16)

---

Main Topic #2: The UK Green Party’s Historic Win

With Grace Blakeley (Start: 42:09)

Key Discussion Points

Background:

• Recent by-election victory for the UK Green Party is seen as highly significant and unprecedented, shaking up the entrenched two-party system.
• The Labour Party, under Keir Starmer, has purged the left and centralized control, leaving former Corbyn supporters searching for a new home.

Why the Greens Succeeded

• “The big base of the left that was kicked out of the Labour Party really want somewhere to go... Actually when we’re able to kind of rally around an institution like the Greens, we can bring so many more people in around these popular policies of wealth redistribution, investing in the green economy, no more endless wars…” — Grace Blakeley (45:07)

• Hannah Spencer’s Campaign:

  • Centered on cost of living, anti-war/anti-genocide stance on Gaza, listening to working-class voters, authenticity (she was a plumber).
  • “She was able to mobilize people… really invested in listening to what people were concerned about and then taking that back and orienting their political messaging around that.” — Grace Blakeley (46:51)

The Evolving Nature of the UK Greens

• UK Greens are notably more left-wing than many European counterparts.
• “They can’t deny the fact that in soaking up all of this energy… the Greens are being propelled to a position that we haven’t really seen before.” — Grace Blakeley (48:47)
• Historic two-party grip is breaking down; new parties may gain real parliamentary representation.

The Rise of the Far Right

• Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is also surging, especially among older and more conservative voters.
• “This is a very age dependent story... Anyone basically under 60—the Greens have a vast, a huge lead in the polls.” (50:58)
• The left’s challenge: harness anger at elites into a positive, redistributive agenda, not scapegoating migrants.

---

Segment Highlights & Memorable Clips

• On US political corruption and war funding:
  Emma and crew lambaste Democratic leaders for their tepid opposition to war funding, implying a consensus among “the blob” that ignores public outrage and progressive principles.

  “Chuck Schumer thinks you’re stupid.” — Brian (16:05)

• On Israel ignoring American public opinion on war:

  “In this supposed democracy, public opinion for the supplier of the weapons... is just a small obstacle that we have to get over. And that’s what the money is for. Remember what Ilhan Omar said—it’s all about the Benjamins.” — Emma Vigeland (13:32)

---

Secondary Segment: DHS/Kristi Noem Corruption Angle

Starts around 55:19

• Detailed, at times comical, breakdown of Kristi Noem awarding gigantic DHS contracts to companies with direct personal/political connections and no prior government history.
• Senators grill Noem; Trump reportedly angry—not at the corruption, but at lack of personal spotlight in Noem’s ad campaign.
• The crew lampoons Noem for self-promotional “angel families” ad and references her previous “Meth: We’re On It” South Dakota campaign, using this to illustrate persistent right-wing grifting and political marketing nonsense.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “We have such privilege at being at the center of the imperial core that we can’t even fathom what this must be like, except when you see the horrific images coming out.” – Emma Vigeland (03:34)
• "We are owe for every effort tried. ... And I’m choosing my words carefully, never worked." – Professor Robert Pape (24:07)
• "That 100% tactical success did not lead to strategic success." – Professor Robert Pape (26:24)
• "Chuck Schumer thinks you’re stupid." – Brian (16:05)
• "They can’t deny the fact that in soaking up all of this energy… the Greens are being propelled to a position that we haven’t really seen before." – Grace Blakeley (48:47)
• "Anyone basically under 60—the Greens have a vast, a huge lead in the polls." – Grace Blakeley (50:58)

---

Section Timestamps Guide

• 00:00–23:39 – Headlines & panel reactions: Iran, US war funding, corruption, Israel, US politics.
• 23:39–42:08 – Interview: Professor Robert Pape on the escalation trap and smart bomb failures.
• 42:09–53:56 – Interview: Grace Blakeley on the UK Green Party and the evolving left.
• 53:56–68:56 – DHS/Kristi Noem corruption, ad grifting, comedic breakdown and “Meth: We’re On It.”
• 68:56–End – Outro, plugs, and post-show banter.

---

Tone & Style

• The conversation is irreverent but deeply informed, combining gallows humor with serious analysis. Emma is given to righteous anger and moral clarity, while the panel often deploys sarcasm to skewer institutional corruption and Democratic lack of courage.
• Both guests provide expert, evidence-based insight—Pape with sobering historical and technical precision, Blakeley with a sharp, hopeful but critical account of the UK’s shifting political terrain.

---

Summary Takeaways

• Air campaigns are politically seductive but empirically useless for regime change; instead, they create nationalist backlash and political traps for aggressors.
• America's political class, particularly Democratic leadership, remains dangerously complicit, ignoring both empirical evidence and public opinion.
• The UK Green Party’s breakthrough offers the left a template for post-Labour political realignment, driven by movement politics, direct action, and authentic candidates.
• The US right’s corruption remains brazen and persistent, met with a mix of institutional inertia and darkly comic media ridicule.

---

For listeners overwhelmed by the week’s spiraling headlines, this episode is a bracing mixture of unvarnished political analysis, historical perspective, and bracing humor—the kind of clarity The Majority Report stakes its reputation on.

Transcript

[Emma Vigeland]

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Thursday, March 5, 2026. My name is Emma Vigeland in for Sam Cedar and this is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Professor Robert Pape will be with us to talk about the Iran bombing campaign and how it drags us into an escalation trap. And later in the show, Grace Blakely will be with us to talk about the significance of last week's Green Party victory in the UK Also on the program, the Senate votes down Tim Kaine's war powers resolution that would have reined in Trump's criminal war on Iran. Fetterman, the only Democrat I say with heavy quotation marks to break rank, the House votes on its version today. The death toll from the bombing of Iran tops 1000 and the US kills at least 80. Sinking an Iranian vessel coming back from a training exercise. Sri Lanka's navy rescued 32 of the Iranian soldiers. The Pentagon is running out of its stores of precision weapons less than a week into the war, which Trump denied on Truth Social, calling the US Supply infinite. Will never run out. Don't even ask about it. Some Senate Democrats are refusing to rule out voting for supplemental funding for Trump's war in Iran. More on that in just a second. Crude oil prices skyrocket to their highest since June 2025 when Israel bombed Iran the last time. Israeli attacks kill at least 10 in Lebanon. And the closure of Gaza's border presents a new hunger crisis. Trump is supposedly calling Republicans on the Hill to ask them whether or not he should fire Kristi Noemi. Senator Steve Daines of Montana is retiring. Yet another Republican hitting the eject button. Colorado's Democratic Governor Jared Polis says he's weighing pardoning election denier Tina Peters amid Trump's public pleas. Every Democrat in his state says don't do this. And lastly, what about abundance? He's their guy. And lastly, Pam Bondi's DOJ will investigate the most pressing issue of our time. Joe Biden's use of the auto pen. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome to the show, everybody. It's an M Majority Report Thursday. Hello to Matt, hello to Brian. Also wanted to shout out Julie. Julie who works on our show, of course, Sam's sister. Both, both things equally Important. Happy birthday to Julie. It's Julie's birthday today. Happy birthday. Happy birthday, Julie. Shout out to Julie. Really looking forward to both of our conversations today. But, but let's start of course with the Iran war. The news that the story that is just obviously the most important in the country right now. The US and Israel are continuing to carpet bomb parts of Iran, including Tehran, one of the oldest cities in the world. There's videos of damage to historical sites in addition to the 1000 plus that are dead at this point. It's a city of nearly 10 million people that, that's larger than the population of New York City. Just imagine the circumstances that what things would look like if Iran was carpet bombing New York City. We have such privilege at being at the center of the imperial core that we can't even fathom what this must be like, except when you see the horrific images coming out. Death tolls, at least a thousand, as I mentioned, we have bombed schools, we have bombed hospitals. And earlier this week the US military confirmed that they've been using these B2 stealth bombers. You may remember that name because those are the bombers that can typically carry the 2,000 pound bombs that the Israelis were dropping on the people of Gaza in the midst of the or in the height of the genocide. And that was at issue with the Biden administration whether or not they should be using 2,000 pound bombs in a densely packed urban area of 141 square miles with 2 plus million people in it at the time. We're using these tactics in Iran at this moment. This is the expansion of the Palestine Laboratory, Anthony Loewenstein's thesis and his great book apparently I saw Trita Parsi was pointing out that it appears that the Israelis and perhaps the Americans are using AI bombing without any human oversight. That that is his assessment based on the pattern of bombing here. So yesterday, Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution failed. Rand Paul was the only Republican to break. And then John Fetterman was the only Democrat to not support the War Powers Resolution. And it's just amazing because of course you had like a week or so of the I'm concerned dance from Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins up in 2026. And you guys know how we feel about Graham Platner taking her on. But in this vote, yes, there was just one Democrat technically to defect here, John Fetterman. But that is separate from the issue of the supplemental funding that is coming up right now. And we mentioned this yesterday, but I wanted to highlight these quotes from the Top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and also Chris Coons. If we could just put this on the screen. So the supplemental funding here, like, after giving the Pentagon a trillion dollars, they're still running low on these precision precision munitions, both missiles and interceptors. So the White House wants $50 billion in supplemental emergency spending to help pay for this criminal war in Iran. And here is what was said yesterday in Politico. But Democratic votes will be needed to pass any emergency funding package in the Senate. And minority party leaders say they will need far more details from the Trump administration if they are going to consider support for new Pentagon cash. Here's Chuck Schumer's quote. Before you can feel satisfied about a supplemental, and I haven't seen it, you need to know what the real goals are and what the end game is. Then here's Chris Coons, Joe Biden's protege, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. He's a senior appropriator.

[Brian]

He's the corporate state of Delaware.

[Emma Vigeland]

His. Yep. His quote is that he wants to, quote, make sure we are making all the investments we can, end quote, to keep U.S. troops safe. If you read between the lines there, that is Chuck Schumer and Chris Coons saying that they are not opposed to supplemental funding, the $50 billion for this criminal war in Iran on principle, that they just need to see some more details first before they commit to it.

[Brian]

I would zero in on the next quote, too. The American quote. The American people can get questions answered about the failures in planning that led to some of the challenges, loss and mistakes in this war. We have the answers. We have our answers, Chris, which is that we don't want this war. So what Chris Coons is saying by the idea, by keeping this question open, even though his base is completely decided. Yeah, no, it's not for me. It's is to say, well, actually hear them out, hear the Trump administration out. It's dressed up as a call for questioning, but actually it's giving them more rope and saying, hey, can you give us a little bit more help so we can help you, Mr. Trump, in giving this money to the Pentagon so they can help Israel conquer the Middle East.

[Emma Vigeland]

They're not alone. Because then there's another story in Politico this morning about the top Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which includes Gary Peters of Michigan, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, and Jack Reed of Rhode island, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Now, notice that I just said Tim Kaine's name. He introduced that War Powers Resolution, but he's not ruling out supporting $50 billion in additional funding because of what I just spoke about here. Because the US Stock stockpile is currently under strain for things like missiles, interceptors and, and, and, and smart bombs because of how much has been sent to Ukraine since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. And since that war has been ongoing, the supply has already been short depleted. So they do need $50 billion if they want to pay for this criminal war. So you don't give it to them because it's a criminal war.

[Brian]

And Hegseth is going to the press saying actually we've, we've actually moved past the need for these highly sophisticated bombs that we've been using up so we can, there's no way Iran can outlast us. Okay, well then you don't need Democratic votes.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, here's Jack Reed though, not committing to opposing this supplemental funding.

[Matt]

Will you vote to authorize this war constraints?

[Emma Vigeland]

I will vote to invoke the War Powers act, which would give the President

[Professor Robert Pape]

30 days to terminate the operation except for activities defending the state of Israel,

[Emma Vigeland]

which is critical to our reliance and alliance on Israel. Senator Jack Reid, I do appreciate your time this morning. Our reliance on Israel. This is where we can play this. This next clip of the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, being asked by Tony2Cut's Dokipol in a very respectful manner with hushed tones about the fact that the American public overwhelmingly does not support this war. Reid just said it. We need, I mean if, because the R munitions are, precision munitions are depleted. Even if, you know, we support, we don't. We on principle are against this war. Sure, sure, sure. We have to send replenish with $50 billion extra to support Israel. This is how regime change, wars and endless wars begin. This action by the Trump administration is roping these senators who are corrupted by the Zionist lobby and the military industrial complex into supporting it. But they want, but like, you know, they want it too. I understand what you're saying, but it's just, it's a sunk cost fallacy. Because the action was so aggressive and because the munitions already were in short supply, they're able to be like, oh, well, do you support the troops? Do you support Israel? If you do, you better fund their defense. And this is the President of Israel, obviously. Netanyahu is the Prime Minister. Herzog's the President addressing the question as to why. How are you gonna work around the fact that like 70 to 80% of Americans oppose this war with Iran.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I just have one more question because

[Brian]

I'm cognizant of your time.

[Matt]

What do you think this war does to the U. S. Israeli relationship going forward? And I ask because it's not a popular war in America.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I understand it's not a popular war in America because, you know, usually people

[Emma Vigeland]

do not know the intricacies of the

[Professor Robert Pape]

war and they also compare it to previous and other wars. This is a unique war. And I listened very carefully to Secretary

[Emma Vigeland]

Rubio's statements yesterday in Congress.

[Professor Robert Pape]

It's a unique war. It's a focused war. It is a war that comes in a time where you can really bring real change in the Middle east for the Future.

[Emma Vigeland]

Thank you, Mr. President. The American public may be unhappy with another endless war, but this is our opportunity to strike. And they just don't fully understand the intricacies of how important it is for Israel to expand into Lebanon, into Syria, to steal more and more land, to create a buffer zone to the buffer zone to complete the genocide. And Iran's capabilities are a threat to them in that region. Region. So in this supposed democracy, public opinion for the supplier of the weapons that allows Israel to behave so belligerently is just a small obstacle that we have to get over. And that's what the money is for. Remember what Ilhan Omar said, It's all about the Benjamins. And then you had a public rebuke by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for stating this exact fact. We are in this position now where this war is. So they didn't even bother to manufacture consent for war with Iran because of how distant our government and the military industrial complex and that apparatus is from the levers of public opinion. This is about the fact that our democracy is already gone in its current structure under Citizens United, the explosion of dark money. You have the Israel lobby, you have the military industrial complex, you have all of these forces that are financially invested in Israel's expansion having completely conquered our government. They have the Senate minority leader, they have the House minority leader, they have the Senate majority leader, they have the House majority leader, they have the president, they have a good amount of Democrats and the entire Republican Party, save for, like, Massie and Rand Paul. And this is because of political corruption. And we were told for many years that it was anti Semitic to speak about this. The idea that this amount of money is influencing our politics. And there you have the president of Israel saying that the money has been built up to such a degree that we don't even really need to consider public opinion when we're trying to, to push this forward.

[Matt]

In fact, voters don't understand the news.

[Emma Vigeland]

The voters are dumb.

[Brian]

Democrats and Republicans agree with that. Well, Republicans probably think.

[Emma Vigeland]

No, the Democrats do.

[Brian]

Democrats definitely do. They think people are too stupid. Chuck Schumer thinks you're stupid.

[Emma Vigeland]

They think that. They think that they know better than the what, 90% of the Democratic base of their own party at this point that doesn't support Israel's military action. The half of the American public that thinks that they're committing genocide. We know better in the hallowed halls of the Senate, which is really just how corrupt people justify their actions and their existence. And there's also zealotry on some of those people's behalf as well. But for many, even like a guy like Jack Reed, it's just the blob. You get caught up in it.

[Brian]

And people of that age, sorry to cut in, but the Democratic Party has seen this like rights be rolled back. You lost Roe versus Wade. These are fundamental failures and whose heads have really rolled because of that? Pramila Jaipal is the only person who's taken any kind of accountability and frankly, she is probably one of the best in the House. And there's been, there's been no accountability.

[Emma Vigeland]

We're still dealing with the Clintons at this point. You have to blame and I'm including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, all of these people in the supposed fight club. We heard about this three months ago. They leaked to the New York Times that they are coming up with like an alternative power structure to challenge Chuck Schumer. And we've heard nothing since then about that. I blame them for not taking this fight publicly. It is, it is endangering our democracy. The Republicans make a spectacle about their internal disagreement and it has done absolutely nothing to hurt them politically. Nothing. Nothing. The Democrats shut off the public from debates about internal leadership structure and then do it in hushed tones because they're more institutionalists than they are democratically responsive. And it's a major, major problem. So love for Bernie, love for Warren. It's past time to take this fight publicly. We need it. It's an existential issue. Yep. In a moment we're going to be talking to Professor Robert Pape. First, a word from our sponsors here. This episode of the Majority Report is brought to you by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas. And unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. There's no preservatives, no shortcuts. Plus all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less with no thawing required. I have over last weekend I enjoyed some Wild Grain, the chocolate chip cookies. Oh my God, I'm already getting so hungry thinking about it. They also have these croissants that I made and I know Sam has spoken about it before. It is so easy. It comes in the package, you stick it in the freezer, you just heat up your oven and it's like the perfect cozy bread or snack in your house. And you don't have to go outside if it's a little cold or if the weather is bad. Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, vegan box and a new protein box. It's so convenient they shipped it right to me. Cookies right there. Croissants right there. I'm really excited to make the bread. Probably tonight or tomorrow I'm going to do that. It's phenomenal. Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don't just take my word for it. They have over 40,000 5 star reviews and have been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering you $30 off your first box plus free Croissants for Life when you go to wildgrain.com Majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free Croissants for Life when YOU visit wildgrain.com Majority or you can use promo code Majority at checkout, link in the episode and video descriptions and at Majority fm. And lastly, hey raise your hand Brian, sorry to be Sam and throw you under the bus if you've been putting off a dental cleaning, an annual checkup or honestly any kind of doctor's appointment. Yeah, my hand is up too for the podcast audience. Well something when something feels off I am tempted to self diagnose just to avoid it spiral. Maybe downplay it. Just say it's probably fine. And if that sounds familiar, well this year let's do some things differently. Let's find doctors that we love and book appointments with Zocdoc. Zocdoc is a free app and website that helps you find and book high quality in network doctors so you can find someone you love. We're talking about booking in network appointments with more than 150,000 providers across all 50 states. Dermatology, dentistry, primary care, eye care or one of the other 200 plus specialties offered on Zocdoc. You can easily search by specialty or symptom to build a care team that is right for you. And you want to see a doctor in person, great. Prefer a phone video visit? You can do that too. When you're ready you can see their real time availability and click to book instantly. No phone tag, no waiting around. The appointments are happen fast typically within just 24 to 72 hours of booking. You can even score same day appointments. I found my dentist through Zocdoc. All I think all of us here have found doctors or dentists or something like that. Psychologist perhaps through Zocdoc. And I'm actually I am seeing my dentist found through Zocdoc next week. So I'm not putting it off anymore even as the ad read is scolding me. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com majority to find and instantly book a doctor you will love today. That's Zocdoc.com Majority Zocdoc.com Majority Thanks Zocdoc for sponsoring this message and today's episode link down below in the video and episode descriptions and at Majority fm. Quick break and when we come back, we will be joined by Professor Pape. Sam, We are back and we are joined now by Professor Robert Pape, professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, founding director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats and publisher of the excellent substack the Escalation Trap. Professor, thanks so much for coming on the show today.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Thanks for having me, Emma.

[Emma Vigeland]

Of course. So this bombing campaign in Iran, which the Trump administration has dubbed Operation Epic Fury, is supposedly aiming for regime change. But your book and your work, your book, your research also on your substack, has been analyzing air campaigns since World War I. What is the rate of success for air campaigns for toppling governments?

[Professor Robert Pape]

It's brutal. We are owe for every effort tried. So the weight of history now is bearing down on President Trump, not just Iranian drones. For over 100 years, states have been trying to topple governments with air power alone. And just, you know, think about what you're hearing now, how magical it would be if everything would just work out in a few days. Quick and decisive. Almost nobody dies on maybe even on either side except leaders. Well, this is been seductive. It was seductive in the dumb bomb age. Seductive even more in the precision age. And I now call it the smart bomb trap, because we're getting trapped and it has never. And I'm choosing my words carefully, never worked.

[Emma Vigeland]

Never. Zero percent.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yeah, it's zero. We really don't have. So my book, Bombing to win goes through 40 air campaigns. Okay. So just to put some numbers on this, we've probably conducted about another 15 or so, not just the United States, but other countries since that book. And I published an article on foreign affairs on each and every one of those, including last summer's. Typically before they happen or early on to explain what to expect, there's another piece by, for, by me in Foreign affairs coming out in a few days. So just, just be aware. I can. It's again, it's the Pape article on the precision air campaign. And all I have to do is just update it with the concrete details because the same problems come up and right now you're seeing it's all. The target set was splendidly struck on Saturday morning. It really was, but it was always going to be splendidly struck. There's nothing extraordinary about that. We've been doing that for 30 years with precision air power. There's some new tools a little bit, but that 100% tactical success did not lead to strategic success. So it did not take down the regime. It did not even set the regime back from being able to lash back. And then first your listeners will remember we talked about, oh, that was just the spasms of the dying body. No, this is a coordinated surgical precision air campaign. These are precision guided drones. So they are targeting in ways we, the Air Force. I've taught for the US Air Force on parallel attack. I know quite a bit about all these details. And the bottom line is what you are seeing is Iran taking a page, not just with drones, but the actual strategy of parallel attack. And you're seeing that it's paralyzing the airports. We're trying to now madly rush to get half million to a million Americans out in days when the airports are shut down. You see, this is what we're up against now is the typical failure in the smart bomb trap. We're in stage two. Stage one happened. We're now in stage two. There's a stage three. So if you've been reading the substack, you just know what's coming.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, can you explain that? Can you explain that a little bit then? I mean, I want to also go back a little bit in history to talk about the transition from dumb bombs to the precision age and how it hasn't made a difference at all. But take us through the different stages of the escalation trap, also the name of your substack, but also the smart bomb trap, which is specific to this bombing campaign.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Yeah, so. So we've always had this allure that we could use air power to take down regimes. We call it taking down the regime with the precision age. However, once you know you can highly reliable 80, 90% of the time, the bombs will land within 5 to 15ft of the target and the blast radius is 25ft. Now you know that you can put the bomb right in an office, in a building, not just simply on a building or on a city block. That from the day one of these precision weapons led to the idea of killing, we call it decapitating leaders. The first precision air campaign in history was by Ronald Reagan, April 1986, to decapitate Gaddafi in Libya. We missed him. He stepped out of his tent literally seconds before the bombs fell, killed everybody in that tent, including his three year old daughter. And then two years later he retaliated by having his Libyan agents blow up pan Am Flight 103, killing 271 civilians. 190Americans two years after, you see, so the bad guys don't have to respond right away here. What you're seeing is this is stage one. We have the 100% tactical success on that Saturday. Now we're in stage two where it has failed to take down the regime or even stop it from coherently lashing back in ways that are incredibly painful to us. And we don't even know where the fizzle this enriched uranium is. My goodness gracious. We've got nothing for all this bombing. And so what are we doing now? We're trying to double down. And at the same time, President Trump's looking for the golden offering. He's trying to say, well, what can I claim I was doing? Even though I've given all these videos about I want to take down the regime. What can I say? Say I got out of this and that's what you see this mad scramble for in Washington. And people are very loyal to the President here. I'm not trying to be any, you know, I'm very pro American. It's not about being anti anybody. But at the bottom line is we are in stage two and we are not coming out of this very well. And we have unleashed a wicked escalation on the region. And it's not clear to me Iran's just going to stop this. We've been really Pushing this tiger pretty hard, and they're now pretty fed up.

[Emma Vigeland]

I made the mistake of going into your replies on Twitter, and so I'm going to play devil's advocate here. And this is not an argument I subscribe to. I'm just curious.

[Professor Robert Pape]

University of Chicago. Emma, I love this. People are trying. They love the game. Can we get the professor? So that's okay. Let's play the game.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yes. Well, so this is. Conservatives are saying that, okay, your theory about this having. About air campaigns having a zero percent success rate, toppling governments since World War I doesn't take into account the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they would say that that constitutes a success by your metric. What is your response to that?

[Professor Robert Pape]

Rebombing to win, of course. I'm not talking about nuclear bombing. I'm talking about conventional bomb. I make that absolutely clear. See, what happens in the game of Gotcha here is they sort of pretend as if they read the books, but they haven't actually read the book. All you have to do is go to Amazon and you don't have to buy the book, just go to read the sample, and you will see this completely taken off the table. Not an issue here. Now, of course, if Donald Trump decides he's going to turn Iran to glass with nuclear weapons and kill 92 million people, that would be a different story. That regime change will happen with the death of 92 million people. So this is what. So again, this is the silliness that we get. And it's not just, by the way, social media. This is just what happens in the age of Gotcha where they try to. But let's keep going. I love the game and maybe they'll score a point. So let's be honest about this.

[Emma Vigeland]

Right? Keep it up.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I'm glad I hear the laughter of your folks. Let's have a little humor in this really tragic, horrible time.

[Emma Vigeland]

I mean, that's, that's the show's mantra.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Get the professor. Let's maybe keep score.

[Emma Vigeland]

Okay, let's do it. Let's do it. All right. Well, just wanted to ask you about. I was curious about your reaction to that, but let's go back to Iran here and if you. Hey, sorry about that.

[Professor Robert Pape]

So bring me back on and you'll have another group of them.

[Emma Vigeland]

Absolutely. Once we have more time. But I just wanted to ask a little bit more about the history of precision bombing and what constitutes precision bombing, what bombing campaigns looked like prior to this age and what they look like after and why.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Just because people want to know about the mechanics, I did a big sub stack on this yesterday. Now, the key thing to know is that word precision. We've used that even in World War II. And in World War II we had a thing called a Norden bomb site that the British didn't have. And the British bombs fell within five miles of their target. So just think about that for a moment. American bombs were called precision because half the time we could get them within 1,000ft. So just think about that for a second. So had we bombed Auschwitz, for example, a big thing I've studied and written and so forth, we would have likely killed somewhere between 10 and 40,000 Jews in the bombing campaign to destroy four of the furnaces. Just to kind of put this in some perspective. And that was called precision. Now, what happened is in the 1980s, the electronics revolution, the digital age comes in. So just like digital, we're used to that. And that impacted lasers. At first you could use lasers to guide the target in. Then you could have GPS just like we have on our phones, even better than lasers. So now we have a mix of laser guided. We used to use radio guided. That was also. But now they can fall. These bombs can fall. With the laser guided, you can adjust the fins. So you can literally adjust the fins on the way down so they fall even in moderate winds within about 5 to 15ft of a target. Now, if you have a gale, it's not going to work. So Hurricane One, you don't bomb, you're not going to do it. But this is really why I call it the smart bomb trap, you see, because what happens is when you get the PowerPoint briefing, and it's going to be spiffy and it's going to look very professional. What does President Trump like to say? Made for tv. It's going to look very impressive and it's going to be true. We're any target we can visibly see, we have over 90% chance of destroying that target in just one go round. You might have to put a couple bombs on it, but you will be able to do that. That tends to create the illusion of control, control over time, not just on that hour of contact on the first instance. So that's really the trap. And I've seen this, I've advised every White House since 2001, 2001, 2004, not this one yet, but the first Trump White House. And I've advised chiefs of staff of the Air Force, chief of Naval operations, that's top Navy, so Secretaries of defense, that issue I'm talking about, it's very seductive. Even when you have super smart folks, it doesn't matter. Democrat, Republican, that temptation of control is really there, you see.

[Emma Vigeland]

And when you talk about. If I could just jump in for a second, the fact that it's an illusion is really important to understanding here. The illusion of control and the trap that's coming in here. Because can you speak a little bit about how your research has found that this kind of bombing campaign and this mode of warfare has increased kind of nationalist sentiment and does nothing except harden nationalist sentiment, but it creates. There's bloodshed. We've killed nearly over a thousand people at this point in Iran. But in terms of effectiveness for the stated goals, that doesn't seem to be on the table.

[Professor Robert Pape]

That's exactly right. So before the bombing happens, there is the society and the regime and often there's a gap between the society and the regime. And right now what, President Trump has a 38% approval rating. So you could say there's a gap between the society and President Trump. But when you take the third actor in the foreign military attacker, they are coming in and they're picking a government. You hear today President Trump is literally looking at the list of possible replacements for the guy he just killed. Nope, not gonna go there. It's like he's on the Apprentice and he's gonna, you see, this is not going to go down well in Iran. And what you're doing is you're infusing the idea of nationalism, where the idea is they may not like their leader, but they don't want to be run by Donald Trump or anybody else, certain Netanyahu, Trump or anybody else. And so what you're doing is you're changing the game. And you infuse that you're changing politics inside of the target. And that is fusing that nationalism, the society and the regime closer together. And it allows the regime to do more aggressive things. It makes it harder for the moderates, the pro democracy moderates, to go up against their own regime. Cuz now they're henchmen of a foreign military power, if you don't mind. And analogies here with America, I think are very helpful. So we know that Iran has tried to assassinate President Trump several times. Well, what if they were to succeed tomorrow? Would Democrats take to the streets in droves thanking Iran and saying, hey, come on over in New York to Times Square, we're gonna party with you? I don't think that's gonna happen. And you can see right away they would lose the midterms badly if they did. That's nationalism here. And it's not because Democrats, of course, have any love for Donald Trump. It's because of nationalism. Same dynamics apply. This is really human nature. It's not a Democratic thing, it's not a Republican thing, it's not a tribal thing. People keep trying to complexify all this. Okay, I've been dealing with a lot of complexifiers for a lot of years. It's not that complex. But it's about politics. And when your eye is on the, like mesmerized by that technology and you can go poop to any target, you can see you're really not thinking about that politics. And your intel, they can't see this coming because it hasn't come. So you can ask intel, and I've seen this happen. Go out there and get me all the best intel on the emerging nationalism here. And it doesn't come. And that's why in the substack, I'm giving some indicators here that are a little bit different here. I'm telling you what to kind of keep your eyes on a little bit and you'll see that over time, I'm gonna try to help understand. But the bottom line is that the regime now is probably more resilient than it ever was. This idea that we have destroyed it, they're playing a long game. And that's why Trump's looking for an off ramp to say, what kind of deal can I get him to accept?

[Emma Vigeland]

Lastly, what do you anticipate the outcome is going to be now that we are in the trap that you're describing when you say Trump is looking for an offer ramp, is that even possible?

[Professor Robert Pape]

He can take it. It'll be a loser for him in the short term. So he's not getting out of this with a golden off ramp, that's for sure. Half a MAGA, half of the Republicans now it's 44 to 44. You see what I mean in the Republican support for this? So they're clearly divided on this pretty aggressively. This is not just Democrat Republican split anymore. And so even if he cuts a deal here, the MAGA crowd is pretty, pretty angry at him right now. Now, if he goes further, he'll then take the risk of becoming Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War, where now the cost mount so much and then he quits later, the political cost is even bigger. I'm not saying he'll step down, but you could easily see lose the House and the Senate and maybe get close to 60 Democratic seats in the Senate. The Republicans aren't gonna forgive him for that. So that's not going to be. These are his choices now. Wherever he stops tomorrow or three months from tomorrow, we have a wicked problem on our hands. There is 1,000 pounds of 60% enriched uranium enough for 10 bombs and another 10,000 pounds of 5 and 20% enriched uranium enough for a couple more. And we don't know where an ounce of that is. So we can walk away from this, but there's a good chance that Iranian is not walking away from this. They're learning the lesson here that we've taught them a lot of lessons here. And I think that this is really the trap in the smart bomb trap. We are really in a negative sum world.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, Professor Robert Pape, thanks so much. The escalation trap is on substack and you can check it out over there. We'll put a link to that down below. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Thank you. Enjoyed it a lot.

[Emma Vigeland]

Emma, thank you. Quick break and when we come back, we'll be joined by Grace Blakely. And we'll be talking about the UK Green Party's victory. We are back. And we are joined by Grace Blakely, author including of the excellent recent book Vulture Capitalism, Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts and the Death of Freedom, host of the Roundup podcast and publisher on [e-mail] Grace, thanks so much for coming on the show. Back on the show.

[Grace Blakely]

Thanks for having me.

[Emma Vigeland]

Of course. So this is, we covered this last week, the UK Green Party's pretty historic victory in this parliamentary by election. But I need more context on British politics. Take us through why this was so significant and what it means for like say, labor and the future of that failing party, for example.

[Grace Blakely]

Yeah. So as your listeners will probably know, Keir Starmer, who currently leads the Labour Party, has been in power, has been our prime minister for a while now. And he took over after a period when the left was effectively leading and running the Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Now, Starmer was elected by the membership on the basis that he would kind of continue a lot of Corbynism, so particularly the kind of economic policies, redistribution, tackling inequality, et cetera. And then he flipped sharply to the right, so kicked out almost, you know, anyone who was sympathetic to the left within the party, really rigidly centralized control. So he could really determine which people were able to get which seats, which allowed him to put loyalists in place for the upcoming election. And he really just purged the left. And for a while that Left us, those of us who are on the British left, feeling pretty disillusioned and hopeless and kind of looking around to see where we could build from. And, you know, there's lots of springs of hope. We have, you know, a vibrant labor movement. We have lots of fantastic social movements, the environmental movement, but they had yet to kind of coalesce into a body that could represent everyone on the British left. We had Jeremy Corbyn attempt to try and start a new party in the form of your party. That didn't really work. There was a little too much factional infighting, and they weren't really able to get it off the ground.

[Emma Vigeland]

What was that over, Grace? I'm just curious, because I assumed that that would be the more viable left option, but that didn't end up being the case.

[Grace Blakely]

It's complicated and to be honest, I don't know the full ins and outs of what happened, but effectively there are different people who are trying to work together, backed by quite different groups, and they don't trust each other, which is a problem that I think we have quite a bit on the left, which is like people trying to work together in pretty complicated and difficult conditions, not necessarily being able to kind of come together and work towards the greater good. What I've been really excited about with the Greens, I personally joined the Greens quite a while ago to encourage people to vote for the current leader, Zach Polanski. I've known him for a very long time. I know that he's a really good leader. He has great politics, great values, but also he's just a decent guy. And I think that's really come out over the course of this campaign. People can really relate to him. He comes across really well on social media and in the media, and that's really led to this big surge of support for the Greens. Just showing that that big base of the left that was kicked out of the Labour Party really want somewhere to go. And actually when we're able to kind of rally around an institution like the Greens, we can bring so many more people in around these popular policies of wealth redistribution, investing in the green economy, no more endless wars, all of these sort of like basic common sense things that most people agree with but just aren't represented among the mainstream political establishment. And that's what the Greens are really just doing right now.

[Emma Vigeland]

Talk about Hannah Spencer, who won in Gordon and Denton and what her campaign was centered around. I know she was a plumber, was focused on a working class kind of policy set, and also was strong standing up against the genocide in Gaza, for example.

[Grace Blakely]

Yeah. So there were a couple of things that Hannah Spencer did really well, the first of which was focusing on, as I said, those kind of key common sense issues that really resonate with most people, which is stuff like dealing with the cost of living crisis, what you guys would call the affordability crisis, taking a really strong and principled stance on Gaza, which a lot of people are extremely angry about. There is a significant Muslim population in the seat that she was running for. So that was obviously a rallying cry for them, but it was also something about which a significant number of particularly young people, and by young, I'm talking anyone under kind of 40, 50, was really, really passionate about and still are. There was also a real strength of Hannah's was that she was able to mobilize people to come out and fight and knock on doors and speak to people. And one thing that I'm consistently hearing amongst the activists who went to kind of volunteer knock on doors and speak to local constituents was that they were really invested in listening to what people were concerned about and then taking that back and like orienting their political messaging around that. I think that was what was really exciting for me was that it just, the campaign showed what's possible when you get these like powerful movements of passionate people who are able to work together and like listen and then plan campaigning and messaging. Off the, off the back of that, it is really exciting to see that kind of like movement building happening again and in such an individualistic and kind of isolated society. And then the final thing, of course was that she was very relatable. The Greens historically have probably been more of like a middle class party uniting people who are to the left, but also socially liberal progressive on the climate. And their task now is really to broaden that base and to do that they have to get more candidates like Hannah.

[Emma Vigeland]

How have they responded to socialist movements in the uk? Have they evolved to be more amenable to socialism?

[Kristi Noem]

Yeah.

[Grace Blakely]

So the UK Greens are slightly different from Greens in a lot of Europe. In like Germany and a few other European countries. Green parties are basically kind of liberal, so quite centrist liberal in I guess the UK European sense of the word, like in the middle of the political spectrum basically. Often kind of like pro market, but socially liberal and obviously focused on green issues. In the UK they've always been more left of center. You know, we have a similar sort of electoral system as what you guys have in the U.S. it's, it's a majoritarian system. So it really kind of militates against the emergence of third parties unless they have really strong local representation. So the Greens have historically been a kind of marginal force. They had a really powerful leader in parliamentary leader in Caroline Lucas, who was just seen as a kind of really strong campaigner on the climate, on things like inequality. But it's really been since the left was kicked out of the Labour Party that the Greens have kind of been reorganized as a new force, a really strong force on the left of British politics. And, you know, people have reacted to that in different ways. Some long standing members have kind of been like, wow, okay, our party's changing quite a lot. But they can't deny the fact that in, you know, soaking up all of this energy that exists on the left of British politics and that doesn't have any representation right now, the Greens are being propelled to a position that we haven't really seen before. And what's fascinating as well about this point in time is that we are seeing the breakdown of that two party choke hold on British politics that's existed for a century. And new parties, for better or worse, are beginning to really like, emerge and build power. And we will see what happens at the next election as to whether that will translate into parliamentary representation.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, that's my last question because I know we have you for a limited time, One, when is the next election most likely? And two, can you speak about the rise of the far right Reform Party under Nigel Farage? We've been covering this for a while, but it feels obviously quite similar, just the polarization that we're seeing in our politics, even though we're still in this two party system.

[Kristi Noem]

Yeah.

[Grace Blakely]

So in terms of the next election, in all likelihood we have a few years yet. It's really within the remit of the government to determine when the next election is. It has to be within a five year period. They'll likely, this Labour government will likely hold on for as long as conceivably possible because they are extremely unpopular and many of those MPs are going to lose their seats. So they're going to want to have as much time as possible to figure out how they can translate their parliamentary careers into nice lucrative careers in the private sector, I'm sure. But you know, we are facing this big challenge which is the rise of the far right in terms of reform. And that has been something that's been building in British politics for a really, really long time. It was kind of for a while sidelined by the movement to leave the European Union. But the disappointment that has been Associated with, with that process, as well as the ongoing profound mistrust and anger towards political elites combined with the affordability crisis has driven increasing support among the far right. What I will say is that this is a very age dependent story. So right now, Anyone basically under 60 like the greens have a vast, a huge lead in the polls. You know, if it was just people under 60 who were voting, the Greens would be storming the next elections. It's the over 60 group. People who possibly kind of own their own homes, have maybe seen their living standards fall somewhat and you know, maybe socially a bit more conservative and have a tendency to kind of blaming particularly migrants and other underrepresented groups for that shift in their economic circumstances. They're the ones that are really driving that support for the far right. And yes, there is a story to be said here among their increasing popularity among young men, but this is really predominantly an age story here. So the question is, you know, how's that going to break down when we look at voting patterns? And also can left parties really mobilize on the basis of that anger towards the political establishment and translate that into a more positive message around, okay, we can change things. We don't just have to boot all the immigrants out and hope for the best. We can instead think about this positive economic message that relies on redistribution and preparing for a kind of more sustainable and more equal future.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, boom, homeowning, boomers. Boomers being racist and ruining our politics.

[Grace Blakely]

I didn't want to say it like

[Emma Vigeland]

that, but sure, that's our situation too. So I'm glad to know that we're in somewhat of a similar boat. Grace Blakely. I mean, vulture capitalism. If you haven't read it at this point, what's wrong with you? Check out her book. And then also graceblakely.com publisher on substack. Thanks so much for taking the time. I know that you were time limited, so I really appreciate it.

[Grace Blakely]

Thanks so much for having me. It was great to speak.

[Emma Vigeland]

Bye. Of course. Bye. So. Well, let's. There's Grace's substack. She's great. She's great. And that book is phenomenal. I wanted to wrap up with one more story since we're not at 1pm yet. So we can squeeze some more news in because we didn't get to this the other day, but Kristi Noem has testified now. She testified in front of the Senate and House judiciary panels yesterday and Tuesday. So, yeah, earlier this week. And apparently there was an item in Punchbowl this morning that Trump is supposedly calling a bunch of other Republicans on the Hill to ask for advice about whether or not he should fire Kristi Noem. And apparently it was this exchange with Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana who asked her about this $220 million contract for this ad campaign that was awarded to a company that I think it was like 10 or 11 days or something like that. It was created eight, eight days. So a week and change. That's how old this company was. That the dhs.

[Brian]

You don't like startups?

[Emma Vigeland]

I don't, I don't like innovation. They, they got this major, major contract. And what do you know, it was connected to the husband of the DHS spokeswoman who resigned two weeks ago. So here is Kennedy asking Kristi Noem about that. And this was apparently the thing that made Trump most upset about her. Her hearing. What?

[Brian]

Cuz he didn't get a cut probably or.

[Emma Vigeland]

Cause she was getting more attention in a Nash campaign.

[Senator John Kennedy]

Sorry to interrupt, but the President approved ahead of time. You spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.

[Kristi Noem]

Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correct?

[Senator John Kennedy]

Yes, he did.

[Kristi Noem]

Yes.

[Senator John Kennedy]

Okay.

[Kristi Noem]

And one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communications has been that overwhelming effective

[Senator John Kennedy]

in your name recognition. I mean, I, I personally just. I mean, to me it puts the President in a terribly awkward spot. And, and I just, I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe, knowing the President as I do, that you said, Mr. President, here's some ads I've cut and I'm going to spend $220 million running them. That he would have agreed to that. I don't think Russ Vogt at OMB would have agreed to that. It's something we have to defend. I'm on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, my research shows that you did not bid them out. That you, you pick. In fact, one of the people you picked. The strategy group. I'm sorry, Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the strategy group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson. I'm, I'm. Look, we all have friends who are qualified. I'm not quibbling with that.

[Emma Vigeland]

I'm just.

[Senator John Kennedy]

It troubles me. Quarter a fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money when we're scratching for every penny and we're fighting over rescission packages. I just can't agree with Madam Secretary, are you still running those?

[Kristi Noem]

Senator, I did not have anything to do with picking those contractors. No politicals at the Department of Homeland Security did it. I understand the competitive bid process.

[Emma Vigeland]

Are you still.

[Kristi Noem]

I think the ads are due to end here in March. I think within a week. I'm not sure. The one that is running is focusing on angel families. Have you seen that? It is the one that's talking about. This is our why. This is why we work every day is for the angel family and all

[Brian]

the money that the government gives us in contracts and the angel family.

[Emma Vigeland]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Matt]

Have you seen that one?

[Professor Robert Pape]

It's fantastic.

[Emma Vigeland]

The angel family.

[Professor Robert Pape]

She says to Kennedy.

[Emma Vigeland]

Oh, right, that one. Right, right. Well, we're going to. Let's play this. Let's play an example of this, because clearly this has to be why Trump was upset about it. Brazen corruption, giving contracts to your friends from, I guess, back in South Dakota. Come on. There's no way that Trump is really that upset. I don't like that kind of business. I run a clean operation here. Okay.

[Brian]

The way Kennedy sort of dismissed the idea that she had Trump's permission makes me think that he has information that Trump has been unhappy with this prior to that line of question.

[Emma Vigeland]

I think that that's also why you're seeing that leak in Politico that Trump is making the rounds, calling Republicans on the Hill.

[Brian]

She's such a showboat, which I hate.

[Emma Vigeland]

And she's been in attention seeker makeup, plastic surgery. These are all things I famously hate.

[Brian]

What does she think? She's in one of my pageants.

[Emma Vigeland]

I honestly maybe. Why is there a woman in her 40s on a campaign? And why is she brunette? Hasn't she. Hasn't she dealt with that already? Look, girl. Or she's barely recognizable these days, but he wanted to go blonde, go blind. It's not that hard.

[Brian]

But we have to watch his ads that she had no idea who was getting the contracts for.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah. And this is why Trump is upset, is because of her desire to be a celebrity and prominently featuring herself in these ad campaigns.

[Kristi Noem]

Why do I love these wide open spaces? I mean, of why our forefathers came here. Not just for its beauty, but for the freedom only America provides. I'm Kristi Noem. From the cowboys who tamed the west to the titans who built our cities, to the dreamers who chase the impossible, America has always rewarded vision.

[Emma Vigeland]

Oh, finally, Trump.

[Kristi Noem]

Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose to become part of something that special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom's a precious thing and we defend it vigorously. You cross the border illegally, we'll find you. Break our laws, we'll punish you. Harm American citizens, there will be consequences. But if you come here the right way, your American dream can be as big as these endless skies.

[Brian]

From President Whatever, man.

[Emma Vigeland]

I did not appear in that ad until halfway through. They prioritize the slow motion video of Kristi Noem wrangling cattle.

[Brian]

I love the idea that they still pay lip service. The idea that they'll come here the right way, which we're trying to make it harder to do when every single second there's anything happening in the rest of the world. Our first comment is, yeah, we're not accepting any refugees from there, even if it's our bombs that are causing it. This idea, like, it's weird that they even need to pay. I think it's a sign that like, they know that fundamentally people are not bored with this, frankly. Stephen Miller, Nazi style closing of the border.

[Emma Vigeland]

And isn't it amazing when you contrast this like, slush fund with the understanding that when Kristi Noem took over DHS that she required that. And this was under, I think the one big ugly ass bill when, when after she got all of that money, $150 billion for DHS, they still had this policy that she had to personally approve any payment or any grant over $100,000. And that included like her new responsibilities as it related to things like disaster relief and funds that people would need just to have like the. That that would be, I guess, kind of greenlit. In a normal circumstance, any payment over $100,000 with an $150 billion budget means you're just putting every contract or grant on hold unless it appeals to Trump or it's like, helps Republicans. But here's a. Hundreds of millions of dollars in this slush fund for my friend and her

[Brian]

husband, sponsored by the United States Department of Homeland Security is what it says at the end of that ad. A 200 million. What is this? Negu says $143 million of taxpayer dollars given to a company that has no headquarters, no website. Do you want to play this too, before we.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yes. Do it. What number is this? Okay. Yeah, here is also the. Another.

[Brandon]

This was the exchange, I guess.

[Emma Vigeland]

Is this a different. This is the House. This has got to be though. A different.

[Brian]

This is a different contract. A different hundred million dollar business raw that she's involved in.

[Emma Vigeland]

Right. Because the. I I would assume. Let's hear what he's talking about here. I haven't seen this yet. This in just a second. Go for it.

[Kristi Noem]

Two of them were inaccurate.

[Matt]

Madam Madam Secretary. I'll read from the notice from your agency given the immediate action to significantly reduce illegal immigration and border crossings. DHS invited. Excuse me. Identified four companies, four of the hundreds of thousands of companies in the United States. You identified four. One of those is this Safe America Media Company. Where is Safe America Media headquartered?

[Emma Vigeland]

I don't know.

[Matt]

I don't know either, Madam Secretary. We can't find it. We can't find a website. We did find an address that's registered for this company. Do you know where that address is?

[Kristi Noem]

Is there a problem with this contract?

[Matt]

I'll tell you about it. According to Madam Secretary, the address registered to a political operative. Madam Secretary, the company, and then I'll give you an opportunity to respond. The company is registered to a political operative in Virginia. Do you know, just by way of example, whether this company that received $143 million in taxpayer dollars, has it ever done work for the government before?

[Kristi Noem]

I don't know. I can't.

[Matt]

The answer is it has not. And do you know why we know that? Because it was incorporated eight days. Eight days before this contract went out. You want the American people to believe that this is all above board? That $143 million of taxpayer money just happened to go to this one company that doesn't have a headquarters, doesn't have a website, has never done work for the federal government before and is registered, apparently, or attached to a residence from a political operative. And of course, one of the subcontractors of that contract, as you know, is a political firm that's tied to you back when you were governor of South Dakota. The reason why I asked these questions. This is taxpayer money, and I presume. I don't know this for a fact, but Senator Tillis noted yesterday the way in which your agency is blocking the inspector general from 11 different investigations that it is trying to conduct. I don't know if this happens to be one of them. I certainly hope it is, because eventually the facts will become public in this regard.

[Emma Vigeland]

And so I guess the poly market odds on which Republican or which Trump administration official is going to get fired first, she's got to have, like, negative odds right now. Christine Noem, right?

[Brian]

Yeah, her.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Pam Bondi.

[Emma Vigeland]

I feel like Pam Bondi has eaten so much shit. Like, I mean, she's right. Exactly. I think she does. Kristi Noem. Krissi Noem. Is an easy scapegoat because they can

[Brian]

go back to Pierre.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, but Tom Holman, he just has. He speaks with more authority. I can't understand him, but there's something I trust more about what he says. And then Chris, you know, Stephen Miller is just in his ear, like, she bungled this. We should have done it my way or the highway. And he's back on television now selling the Iran war to the public. Maybe we'll play his hysterical spitting in the fun half here. But I just am tickled by the idea that of all of these scandals, the thing that is embarrassing Trump the most is this expensive ad campaign that was incredibly corrupt, going to her buddies. And he's not. He doesn't care about that on principle. He cares about it probably. Probably because he's seen the ad and he doesn't like how he's not central in it.

[Brian]

I think there might be a pattern of commercial media grifting going on by Kristi Noem because this ad came out and it made waves in 2019, and the tagline is meth. We're on it.

[Emma Vigeland]

I remember this. So are you suggesting that, like you had suggested to me with Drake, that there are people that are working on Drake's ghostwriters that are working on Drake's songs and they're putting in to embarrass him things to embarrass him secretly? Are you trying to say that that's the dynamic in Kristine Ome's ad campaign?

[Brian]

I just think they, like, discuss by giving media stuff and they don't really care about what they put out and how embarrassing it looks. But let's just watch this meth campaign. I'm on meth.

[Emma Vigeland]

I'm on meth. I'm on it, too. So am I. So am I. I'm on meth.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Meth is not someone else's problem. It's everyone in South Dakota's problem.

[Emma Vigeland]

And.

[Matt]

And we need everyone to get on it.

[Emma Vigeland]

I'm on it.

[Matt]

I'm on it.

[Professor Robert Pape]

I'm on it, too.

[Emma Vigeland]

The implication is that not enough people are on meth.

[Brian]

A little bit too clever, if I

[Emma Vigeland]

was going to say, did Armando Iannucci write that commercial? Okay, so if it could work, it could work. The I'm on it. Turner phrase. If all of the people that they showed previously weren't cuddly grandmas and boys on the football team, like, they would have had to show them as struggling and having difficulty, I think. But it's like everyone in your community's on meth. You got to get.

[Grace Blakely]

No, they're on it.

[Emma Vigeland]

Like, we're on stopping it. No, I get it. That's.

[Brian]

No, I think you're both wrong. I think what they're saying is meth is a method, something that it doesn't go to the stereotypes you usually think of, and it's a wider public health crisis. I'll just say this is. That isn't an ad. That's too clever by half. It's too true. Treat it as a public health crisis.

[Emma Vigeland]

No, Brian, you were right that I was right. The whole. So everybody in that ad is supposedly taking on meth. Yeah, we're on it, boss.

[Professor Robert Pape]

That's the double on top.

[Emma Vigeland]

Okay, that's the double.

[Brian]

We're on it now.

[Emma Vigeland]

I just. I didn't know if there was a transition to the people that were, like, tweaking on meth to the others who were helping fight it. But it is a little too convoluted for a psa, I gotta say.

[Brian]

But I hope they got a nice little government contract.

[Emma Vigeland]

$100 million commercial, probably coasters in every

[Brian]

bar in South Dakota.

[Professor Robert Pape]

It says meth. We're on it.

[Emma Vigeland]

We honestly probably should try to find some of those T shirts in the way that we have that Jeb Merch. Jeb Merch. Somewhere around the office. That's like a. Yeah, that's a. That's a collector's.

[Brian]

I haven't seen the Jeb cup in a while. We still got this.

[Emma Vigeland]

It probably hasn't been washed in like three years. I'm not touching. I'm not touching that jib. So, folks, we're gonna wrap up the free part of this program. We're gonna head into the fun half shortly. Matt, what's happening on Left? Reckoning with the Jackman show. And I know you were on the vanguard last night.

[Brian]

Yeah, I was on the vanguard yesterday talking about Platner and anti Semitism and other stuff. Go check that out tomorrow. Jacobin show, talking with Bronco March speaks about the Iran war. Going into some of the right wing's response to it. And. Yeah, that'll be tomorrow at 10:00am Eastern Time.

[Emma Vigeland]

Hello, Brandon.

[Brandon]

Hello, Emma.

[Emma Vigeland]

How are you doing?

[Brandon]

I'm actually not doing well, both personally and I guess as a content creator. Personally, I think I have a touch of the flu. Oh, no, as a content creator, no, it is. That's. That's the minor thing. As a content creator, I'm being censored, I think, actively by YouTube. So for fans of the discourse, you may have noticed that twice this week the live stream has gone down because I've been accused of violating the firearms policy on YouTube for live streaming because you're not allowed to have anyone handling firearms in a video, in a live stream. Now the first time I got dinged for playing that video clip of those Cuban expats who tried to raid Cuba

[Emma Vigeland]

and they said, you're not doing that. You're showing a video of it.

[Brandon]

You would think that. And then the second time, though, today I hit again because I played a video of Glenn Beck playing a video of AI George Washington, which included a musket. And they said that that vibe. So that's outrageous. It's never been a better time to support the discourse on Twitch. It's never been a better time to support the discourse on YouTube even though I'm still out to post videos, just not go live. But yeah, you know, I'm being censored. This is just another example of the ways in which I personally, not the left, but the left also, but I personally am constantly being victimized by the many tech overlords that run our lives. So, you know, I'm asking you, the people to come on the right side, the Brandon side, the side of the discourse.

[Emma Vigeland]

Free. Free the discourse, Absolutely. All right, well, heed that call and hello, Matt. Thank you. Binder, what's happening in your neck of the woods?

[Brandon]

Hey, tonight at 8:30pm Eastern [e-mail] mattbinder tune in for an episode of the Leftist Mafia.

[Emma Vigeland]

Do so. And for my plugs, I guess it's been like a week since it's been released, but if people still haven't checked it out, check out my episode of Doom scroll also link down below. It's in like two and a half weeks at this point. I'm going to be in Los Angeles March 22nd. Situation Room live at Dynasty Typewriter, 3:30pm Obviously, Francesca Fiorentini, Van Lathan, Ida Rodriguez, perhaps some other special guests. We shall see. But I know that tickets are scarce at this point, so if you want to come, now is the time to get the tickets. And they're like 30 bucks plus a fee. It's going to be a really, really fun afternoon. Also join themjorityreport.com please. Helps us stay resilient in times of censorship and with the third party platforms that we're on, being a little bit scary to rely on, as Brandon just elucidated for us. So join themjorityreport.com help us stay alive in a independent media ecosystem that is not the best so see you in the fun half.

[Matt]

Okay, Emma, please.

[Emma Vigeland]

Well, I just. I feel that my voice is sorely lacking on the majority report.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Wait, look, look. Sam is unpopular.

[Matt]

I do deserve a vacation at Disney World, so. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome Emma to the show.

[Emma Vigeland]

It is Thursday.

[Brian]

I think you need to improve it for Sam.

[Matt]

Yes, please, sir, I'm gonna pause you right there.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Wait, what?

[Matt]

You can't encourage Emma to live like this. And I'll tell you why. Someone's offered a tour. Sushi and poker with the boys. Tour sushi and poker with the boys. Who was offered a tour?

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah.

[Matt]

Sushi and poker with the boys.

[Brian]

What?

[Matt]

Twerk sushi and poker.

[Emma Vigeland]

Tim's upset.

[Matt]

Sushi and bulker with two boys. He was offered a twerk sushi and. Ah, that's what we call biz. Twerk, sushi and bulker with two boys.

[Emma Vigeland]

Right.

[Matt]

Twerk sushi and.

[Emma Vigeland]

We're gonna get demonetized.

[Matt]

I just think that what you did to T pool was mean.

[Emma Vigeland]

Free speech.

[Matt]

That's not what we're about here. Look at how sad he's become now. You shouldn't even talk about it. I think you're responsible.

[Emma Vigeland]

I probably am in the circle a certain way, but let's get to the meltdown here.

[Matt]

Sushi and poker with the boys.

[Grace Blakely]

Oh, my God.

[Brian]

Wow.

[Matt]

Sushi. I'm sorry. I'm losing my mind. Someone's offered a tour.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah.

[Matt]

Sushi and poker with boys. Sushi and poker with boys. I think I'm like a little kid. I think I'm like a little kid. I think I'm like a kid. I think I'm like a little kid. I think I'm like a little kid. Add this debate 7,000 times.

[Emma Vigeland]

A little kid.

[Matt]

I'm like a little kid. Little kid. I'm losing my mind.

[Emma Vigeland]

Some people just don't understand.

[Matt]

So I'm not trying to be a dick right now, but, like, I absolutely think the US should be providing me with a wife and kids.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's not what we're talking about here, all right?

[Matt]

It's not a fun job. That's a real thing. That's got a real thing. Real thing. Willy Walker work. That's a real thing. That's a real thing.

[Professor Robert Pape]

That's a real thing.

[Matt]

Real thing. That's a real thing. That's real thing. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has done it again. That's a real thing. I think he might be blowing it out proportion. Real thing. That's boys offered. That's a real thing. That's poker.

[Brian]

Let's go, Joey.

[Matt]

Sushi and poker with the boy.

[Brian]

Take it easy.

[Matt]

Sushi and poison.

[Emma Vigeland]

Poker.

[Matt]

Things have really gotten out of hand. Sushi and poker. Sushi. You don't have a clue as to what's going on live.

[Emma Vigeland]

YouTube. Sam has, like, the weight of the world on his shoulders. Want to do this show anymore? Anymore? It was so much easier when the majority report was just you.

[Matt]

Let's change the subject. Rangers and Knicks are doing great.

[Emma Vigeland]

Shut up. Don't want people saying reckless things on your program. That's one of the most difficult parts about this show. This is the pro Killing podcast.

[Matt]

I'm thinking maybe it's time we bury the hatchet.

[Emma Vigeland]

Left his best trump. Violet Twerk.

[Matt]

Don't be foolish and don't tweet at me.

[Professor Robert Pape]

And don't the way Emma has all of these people love it.

[Emma Vigeland]

That's where my heart is. So I wrote my honors thesis about it. She wrote an honest thesis.

[Grace Blakely]

I guess I should hand the main

[Professor Robert Pape]

mic to you now.

[Matt]

You are to the right of the.

[Emma Vigeland]

Unfortunately, we already found Israel. Dude, are you against us?

[Matt]

That's a tougher question. I have an answer to

[Emma Vigeland]

God. Incredible theme song. Hi, bumbler.

[Professor Robert Pape]

Emma Vilan. Absolutely one of my favorite people, actually. Not just in the game.

[Emma Vigeland]

Like.